The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« Why We Need Real Campaign-Finance Reform: CREW Files Complaint Against Yet Another Senator | Main | The Reports of Their Deaths Have Been Greatly Exaggerated »

January 08, 2008



"I am not sure it's all, or even mainly, down to the internet, mind you."

You are being charitable - absent any proposal explaining cause and effect, why not just figure that the internet chatter was about as meaningful as a cheering crowd at a baseball game? (Which is not to say meaningless, since there are home field effects, but cheering rarely produces a home run yet often follows one.)

The absence of a cause/effect mechanism is especially glaring since Wretchard specifically makes a comparison to the rather case, where the mechanism (bloggers claim Rather broadcast forgeries) is pretty clear.

Bill Clinton has gone after the media for its coverage of Obama.

A Harvard study on media coverage of the candidate said the same thing last fall:

" Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.

Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical."

The comments to this entry are closed.