After months of my stating that the majority of the news media is very liberal (and the arguments that ensued), their bias has once more been made clear here in an article titled "MSNBC retracts false Palin story; others duped." The title speaks for itself.
In October, Journalism.org (a highly respected source) reported:
[This] study found that in the media overall—a sample of 43 outlets studied in the six weeks following the conventions through the last debate—Barack Obama’s coverage was somewhat more positive than negative (36% vs. 29%), while John McCain’s, in contrast, was substantially negative (57% vs. 14% positive). The report concluded that this, in significant part, reflected and magnified the horse race and direction of the polls.
Another Journalism.org story here also gave us the breakdown of the various news channels, and their particular type of bias. Interestingly, it says:
Online, meanwhile, polling tended to drive the news. And on the front pages of newspapers, which often have the day-after story, things look tougher for John McCain than they tend to in the media overall.
And finally and most importantly, Journalism.org did this story on the percentage of stories devoted to each candidate. Needless to say, Obama was heavily covered and portrayed in a positive light. A graph near the end of the story displays the obvious disparity, using these hard numbers.
This begs the question: Why is the Fairness Doctrine even being bandied about? And if it's passed once more, will the government be forced to add conservative talk shows in response?