While I found the results surprising, I also found them hard to evaluate. How did they rate the stories? What did they consider negative or positive? Who did the rating? How many people were involved? Is this the same Pew Research that does the polling? Is that how they did this rating? If so, who did they poll? Without know any of this, it's hard to say much more than that.

Meaningless. First, the article has no words about how the rating was done, and by whom. Second, it makes the stupid assumption that there should be an equal number of favorable and unfavorable stories for every candidate, no matter how wonderful or horrible they might be as president. Third, independent media and national public media are not shown. I found more interesting the study from several months ago that addressed coverage of the war and politics by giving listeners a ... More »

Great rorting job, almost mind numbing in its detailed outlining but really worth reading. The article shows with all the sources for news from the center, left and right the idea of the Fairness Doctrine being brought back is highly unlikely and uneeded. Good report.

This is a well written and interesting article. The three traditional networks newscast are neutral and bland. While the three cable networks are more different and more interesting, but depending on which cable station you watch the information is much more different.

In-depth, responsible, and well-research as is the norm from PEJ, they presented several issues with the media's campaign coverage I found important. These included the cable channel's alignments, and the dominance of the horserace in political coverage overall.

Amid claims of media bias toward both candidates, Journalism.org's report sheds much needed light on the tone of election coverage in TV news. Grounded in a representative study and supported by ample statistical evidence, this gives a clear picture of how the major news networks have treated the candidates in their various newscasts. I would have liked to see how the tone of coverage related to the number of viewers for a particular newscast. Well presented and very fair.

Outstanding analysis of how the news media have covered the presidential election this week, from Tom Rosenstiel's team at the Project for Excellence in Journalism. This report is based on extensive factual evidence from one of the most disciplined research organizations in this field. Their work illuminates how American political attitudes are influenced by the top 3 cable news networks, and identifies significant differences in tone between CNN, MSNBC and Fox. A must read for ... More »

This short news analysis has journalistic merit. The problem is that it hides the main point at the very end, that Obama had a much more favorable press than McCain. The fact about CBS, NBC, and ABC, that they were more neutral than elsewhere, ignores that they still were heavily biased toweard the Democrats.This piece covers a small set of outlets that still were much more favorable to Obama and much more unfavorable to McCain than neutral.