Google shows the NY Times/manjor media bias against Kucinich

[cryofan]

If you go to google.com and type into it the the following query" site:nytimes.com "dennis kucinich" you will get 4 responses, meaning that the NY Times has mentioned Dennis Kucinich 4 times in news stories in its available archives.

But if you run the same query for "Howard Dean" you get 177 responses.


Here are the responses for each candidate for the nytimes.com website:

Dean 177

John Kerry 90

Wesley Clark 43

John Edwards 47

Joe Lieberman/Joseph Lieberman 25 + 8 = 33

Al Sharpton 23

Carol Moseley-Braun 13

Dick Gephardt/Richard Gephardt 10 + 7 = 17

Kucinich 4

....................


I would say that the more populist and dissident the candidate, and the less teh candidate support the war, the less the NY Times likes and mentions that candidate.

The NY Times is of course a leader among the major media. The signals they put out about the candidates are often slavishly regarded by lesser media lights.

[goodhue]

1. yes indeed

The NYT has led the established media in a full-on Kucinich blackout or months now. Adam Nagourney in particular has done a great disservice to the country by refusing to mention Kucinich whatsoever except in the occassional last paragraph fringe candidate kissoff.
Its like the established press consciously decided back in March that Kucinich was a looser and should be avoided like the plague. This was at the same time that Dean was getting oodles of coverage for being an anti-war liberal.

[Iverson]

2. manufacturing consent

This is a good example of how the "paper of record" attempts to define the boundaries of permissible liberalism.

[Loonman]

3. NYT is a rag anyway

They hire liars and plagiarists.