It should be utterly predictable, right? The New York Times and Washington Post editorial pages beat up on George W., while the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times editorial pages doggedly defend the president.
Well, not quite.
A new Harvard study says the conservative editorial pages are more intensely partisan, and far less willing to criticize a Republican administration than the liberal pages are to take on a Democratic administration.
New York magazine columnist Michael Tomasky, who did the study for the Joan Shorenstein press center, is a certified liberal, so some may be inclined to discount his findings. But the nature of his research makes it harder to dismiss.
Tomasky examined the editorial commentary on 10 Bush and Clinton episodes that were roughly comparable. He did not include extraordinary events, such as the Lewinsky scandal or 9/11. Everyone knows that virtually all papers, of every political stripe, whacked Clinton over his Monica dissembling. No surprise there, and there's no similar Bush scandal. More interesting is how the papers handled run-of-the-mill political controversies.
EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20093-2003Aug5.htmlALL I CAN SAY TO HOWARD KURTZ AND THIS STUDY IS.......NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
By the way, Kurtz says that Bush does not have a scandal like Clinton had with Monica. WELL MAYBE IF THE DAMN MEDIA WOULD INVESTIGATE, REPORT AND HOLD BUSHIT ACCOUNTABLE THIS WOULD BE THE BIGGEST SCANDAL OF ALL TIME! BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
