I wish I could find the article with the statistics, but I remember a study being done during the General Election that analyzed the campaign coverage (i.e. Positive / Negative stories on Obama / McCain).

Here’s one

History, life lessons await honored Tar Heel teens

Note how the invited students are as young as sixth grade,
and parents are not allowed to attend:

plenty of parents wanted to come as chaperones.

“They said, ‘No, you’re not invited,’ ” said Michael’s father

An “Obama Youth” inauguration indoctrination?

On January 16th, 2009 at 11:22 am, Omu said: …Yet she does not criticise Fox News, even though that channel is at the very least just as biased as the NY Times, with the distinction of it being biased to her side.

I wish I could find the article with the statistics, but I remember a study being done during the General Election that analyzed the campaign coverage (i.e. Positive / Negative stories on Obama / McCain). The MSM was overwhelmingly positive on Obama and Negative on McCain — while Fox News was evenly split on both candidates. Fair and Balanced, you might say. I’ll keep looking for the study, but here’s another little tidbit from Pew. I’ll save you some time and post the summary (actually from a HuffPoo link that I won’t link because I refuse to provide them any additional traffic):

The study found that 51% of CNN’s regular viewers are Democrats, compared to 18% Republicans. Fox News’ audience leans Republican but is more balanced overall, with 39% of regular viewers declaring themselves Republicans compared to 33% declaring themselves Democrats. MSNBC’s regular audience is 45% Democrat and 18% Republican.

Now, if the audience is overwhelmingly Dhimms — who do you cater to if you want to stay in business? Hmmm???

On January 16th, 2009 at 11:22 am, Omu said: …Yet she does not criticise Fox News, even though that channel is at the very least just as biased as the NY Times, with the distinction of it being biased to her side.

How sad for you, and for so many like you, that when a news source presents both sides of the spectrum, you think that shows bias towards the side you don’t agree with. The only reason libs think FOX News is biased is because it is the only outlet where the conservative point of view is shown at all. And, by the way, usually shown concurrently in contrast with the liberal point of view.

On January 15th, 2009 at 7:11 pm, FamilyMan said:
will not wash their hands for a week after greeting the Savior-in-Chief.
Thank GOD they didn’t hug the guy.

Family Man, do you suppose if they kissed him, then they wouldn’t brush their teeth anymore?

EEEWWWW!

Omu said: I never said the NY Times or WaPo or MSNBC weren’t biased. That’s not my point anyway. Michelle Malkin essentially posts put-down after put-down of the mainstream media on this blog, declaring them to be bias and expressing outrage over it. Yet she does not criticise Fox News, even though that channel is at the very least just as biased as the NY Times, with the distinction of it being biased to her side. Bias in media is either unacceptable or it’s ok. Malkin needs to make her mind up.

Now let’s see . . . the left is supported by the Washington Post, The New York Times, The Boston Herald, The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Seattle Post – Intelligencer, The Seattle Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Public Radio and Public Television, etc., etc., etc., etc. Then on the other side we have that big bad bully FOX News. Come on “Omu” join the conscious world.

OMU,, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out if the media had been objective in the beginning there would be no need of Fox News. With everyone else in the democratic camp, abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, msnbc, must you have all of them? I bet you are for diversity when it comes to skin color and power to the gay folks aren’t you? Why are you against diversity in thought? I was just wondering?

I never said the NY Times or WaPo or MSNBC weren’t biased. That’s not my point anyway. Michelle Malkin essentially posts put-down after put-down of the mainstream media on this blog, declaring them to be bias and expressing outrage over it. Yet she does not criticise Fox News, even though that channel is at the very least just as biased as the NY Times, with the distinction of it being biased to her side. Bias in media is either unacceptable or it’s ok. Malkin needs to make her mind up.

On January 16th, 2009 at 10:14 am, lgm said:

If you didn’t suffer from ODS, you would say Obama is restoring greatness to the office of the President.

So, either you believe Obama is “restoring greatness” or you’re deranged? No middle ground at all there, eh?

That’s what you said about Bush, comparing him to Churchill, and Lincoln, and FDR, and more or less anyone with a good reputation.

When did Michelle make this comparison? I’d be happy to read a source.

I’ll also note the irony of your mentioning comparisons to Lincoln.