That's because they have to hide all their dirty Liberalness, when in reality they're secretly being controlled by George Soros and ACORN. When election day rolls around, mark my words, they will literally drag conservatives from the polling stations so they can't vote, all so "President" Ballrog HUSSEIN Sombrero Fartbong II can have another four years of destroying America.

Ah, yes, the liberal palace guard lamestream MSM media being liberal libbies as usual.

Mainstream media outlets in America only tell the truth about politicians. That means Obama is not just the worst president ever, but he is also the worst executive that any government has ever had or ever will have in the entire history of existence.

From FoxNation:


Obama Demands 'Tolerance'


/WTF is this guy's problem!?

unlikely: "Liberal media" was the greatest propaganda term Rove ever invented.

Corporate media knows where their bread is buttered.

In a dirty airport bathroom.

Well, he is the most liberal member of the GOP.

9% of news reports on President Obama have been "positive,"

And without the liberal bias of the driveby mainstream media, that number would be at the -12% where it belongs.

unlikely: "Liberal media" was the greatest propaganda term Rove ever invented.

Can't really credit Rove with that one. It's been around forever.

Although the decision to drop "Jew" from the middle of the phrase is only a few decades old.

lockers: Well, he is the most liberal member of the GOP.

Yeah, proving they dropped the ball pre-election.

And I'm sure at the end of his term Bush had more than a few negative stories coming out about him.

A more relevant comparison would be looking at Obama the candidate vs Republican candidates today.

This just in -- The media subjects the President of the United States to greater scrutiny than than people who are not the President of the United States.

watson.t.hamster: Republican candidates today.

Or as I like to call them, "the grand echo circle jerk".

The media cannot get as many eyeballs and advertizing dollars if the race is not close. The media as a whole will work to tighten up the contest, otherwise it is not interesting and fewer people will pay attention.

Yeah, but maybe he deserves the negative reporting the most.

Garble: unlikely: "Liberal media" was the greatest propaganda term Rove ever invented.

Can't really credit Rove with that one. It's been around forever.

Although the decision to drop "Jew" from the middle of the phrase is only a few decades old.

Didn't Bill Kristol take credit for it? Of course, he may have said that, but simply been lying. That would be his style.

s2s2s2: Yeah, proving they dropped the ball pre-election.

I misread that as pre-erection. Much funnier that way.

Lyonid: This just in -- The media subjects the President of the United States to greater scrutiny than than people who are not the President of the United States.

I for one am shocked to hear this news. Next you'll be telling me the media has tendency to sensationalize things.

FloydA: Maybe, but I have yet to hear a coherent, logical and fact-based reason why.

* A continued support of military adventurism
* Assassination of american citizens without due process

Those are reasons I don't like him that he has direct control over. Most other criticisms I have for his presidency lay ultimately at the feet of congress, which is a basket case. And in that, I squarely blame the fringe right that has performed a coup d'eta of the republican party.

FloydA: Maybe, but I have yet to hear a coherent, logical and fact-based reason why.

Well, he hasn't exactly been all that great. The effort to address financial regulation was pretty awful and, in spite of a couple of noteworthy achievements (gays in the military, Fair Pay Act) there hasn't been much to write home about. The economy continues to underperform and, as much as presidents shoulder too much blame when that happens, there isn't a lot of belief that this guy has any policy ideas that would help long term. There probably are quite a few liberal members of the press who see him as somewhat less promising than they did three years ago.

I would imagine that the msm covers the president much more than any particular candidate, so its likey there would be more criticism.

Lyonid: This just in -- The media subjects the President of the United States to greater scrutiny than than people who are not the President of the United States.

Does kind of shine a light on these claims that Obama is the media-appointed president, though, doesn't it?

That's a pretty accurate assessment. I love how the media treats everything "objectively." Is Obama the anti-christ? Well he either is or isn't, it's not our place to say, we have to be objective! It's sickening how much bullshiat gets thrown around, not even just about Obama. I want the media to overwhelmingly come out and say that you are wrong if you don't believe in evolution, or think that supply-side economics is actually accepted as a valid theory by economists. Let's let people with wrong beliefs actually know that they are wrong.

Pat Buchanan once said the whole "liberal media bias" is an intentional lie by the right - for the most part, Buchanan was pleased with the coverage he received in the media. The whole point of the dodge is to scream "liberal bias" anytime information comes out that reflects negatively on conservatives, even if it's true. The end result causes news outlets to shy away from being too critical, because they don't want to get angry phone calls or alienate conservative politicians to the point they won't show up for talk shows.

Great, another simple chart that clueless idiots can trot out in the middle of arguments.

The Dog Ate The Constitution: Great, another simple chart that clueless idiots can trot out in the middle of arguments.

Got nothing then?

I can sense the butthurt from here.

CapnBlues: Yeah, but that's why the data are reported in percentage, rather than absolute numbers.

But you can't decide without knowing the absolute numbers.

say they run 1000 stories on Obama and 100 are positive but they only run 50 stories on Perry and 25 are positive.

Obama has more postivie stores (100) vs. Perry (25) but as a percentage (10% vs. 50%), its lower.

I like to have all the info.

btw, I thinks its totally wacked out of shape regardless. The MSM has been suckin GOP teet on almost every issue.

lockers: * Assassination of american citizens without due process

I find it hilarious that previous Presidents have been fine assassinating any random 6.7 billion non-US citizens they feel the need to, and have done regularly and in relatively large numbers, but suddenly this is beyond the pale.

In my eyes this is yet another strike against a written constitution - it seems to warp people's minds so they no longer care about right and wrong, they only care about what is constitutional or not.

Hmm... "ALL candidates?" Where's Gary Johnson? He hasn't dropped out or anything.

Oh wait... they just forgot him again. Whoopsie.

CapnBlues: I think they were flat-out afraid of the Bush administration. They're not afraid of Obama. So they'll be a lot harsher to Obama than they were to Bush. Let's face it, we were all afraid of the Bush administration. They did Shadow Government way better than the new guys.

I'm not so sure about that. This administration is really about the same as the last when it comes to that sort of thing, but they have a major difference in approach. Bush's staff was proudly evil and would probably brag if you asked them. Obama's people seem to be more like a thief in then night.

Maybe they took a hint from Biden and have finally admitted that Obama isn't exactly the ideal Nobel Peace Prize winning President of these 57 States.

Obama received the 2nd most negative coverage. He's last in positive coverage. The creators of the study can't even get their own facts right.

FloydA: So the things that you dislike about his presidency are the ways in which he is similar to the previous administration. That's a fair point, but IMO, that means that he doesn't "deserve the negative reporting the most." At worst, he's tied with Bush.

He is the president, which means he is the lightening rod for the media and citizenry. I concur he is no worse then Bush. The problem is he campaigned on the fact that he _wasn't_ Bush. I am truly sick of this presidential schtick, where we pretend to be something other than an empty suit pandering to the political class. He deserves it because he asked for it.

"Liberal" mainstream media covers Obama more negatively than any GOP candidate

Well yeah. When you see the guy who was supposed to usher in the new liberal era sinking like a stone in the polls and losing battles to the GOP, thereby dashing your fondest hopes, you get a bit cranky and you start beating the hell out of him for his ineptitude. I see it here in Fark political threads every day.

Any other president would be facing the same criticism. Obama had the bad luck of presiding over the worst economy of the cable TV era.

xria: lockers: * Assassination of american citizens without due process

I find it hilarious that previous Presidents have been fine assassinating any random 6.7 billion non-US citizens they feel the need to, and have done regularly and in relatively large numbers, but suddenly this is beyond the pale.

In my eyes this is yet another strike against a written constitution - it seems to warp people's minds so they no longer care about right and wrong, they only care about what is constitutional or not.

Thanks for describing the slippery slope that I have railed against. I had as much heartburn over the assassination of Osama Bin Laden as I do against Anwar al-Awlaki. The fact is that if these people deserved state sanctioned murder then the Government should have no problem providing proof. The latter case is more troubling still, because it was committed against someone who was part of our social compact. I cling to that just-a-piece-of-paper constitution because otherwise, I am simply part of a degenerate fascist regime. Regardless, do not think I have ever supported or failed to speak up in condemning state sanctioned murder without due process.

No actually if Obama were a Republican with this track record the press would be so negative that there wouldn't even be a discussion about him running for a second term. There would in fact be calls for him to resign immediately so he couldn't do anymore damage.

The fact that the press is begrudgingly getting over its sycophantic love affair with Obama and admitting what Republicans said from the start about him in no way changes the fact that they are playing PR department for the DNC just as they have for years.

They're just not getting away with it now.

The worst coverage is no coverage at all RON PAUL!

i honestly believe that at first, the right wing blowhards actually believed there was a left wing bias in the news.. then they slowly realized that the more they yelled about liberal boogey men, the more to the right the media moved, terrified of being called biased.. and the more they yelled, the further they moved.

cool story bro : i had someone call my newsroom (radio, i did updates at the top and bottom of the hour on a limbaugh/hannity affiliate) and scream for 3 straight minutes that we were horrible liberals for talking more about john kerry than george w. bush in a specific story. it made such an impression, i literally have the script he was complaining about seared in my memory, verbatim, because it resulted in 4 meetings :

President Bush and his challenger Senators John Kerry were both campaigning in Omaha this morning, just blocks away from each other.
The President touted his record of success in the battle against terrorism, while Senator Kerry promoted his plan for a new direction in Iraq.

THAT was obvious liberal bias according to this caller.

I feel it puts a lot of things into perspective. It's why I don't bat an eye when I hear people yell about liberal media. I imagine they're all as disconnected from reality as that guy.