That’s right, according to a new Pew study:
One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all, the study found: Barack Obama. Though covered largely as president rather than a candidate, negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-1. Those assessments of the president have also been substantially more negative than positive every one of the 23 weeks studied. And in no week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the president positive in tone.
In stark contrast, coverage of Republican presidential candidates, many of whom are far-right-wing extremists or just plain nuts, was mostly “neutral” or “net positive,” with theocrat/village idiot Rick Perry in particular receiving fawning coverage (+12 points) from the corporate hack media (followed by “drill baby drill” Sarah Palin, who had a net positive coverage of +9 points, and crazy eyes Michele Bachmann at +8 points).
The only Republican candidates receiving significantly net negative coverage by the corporate hack media were media-basher (a coincidence?) Newt Gingrich (-20 points) and former candidate/loser Tim Pawlenty (-18 points). Herman Cain, who denies climate science, “jokes” about building an electrified fence that would KILL Mexican migrants trying to enter the country, says that liberals actively want to destroy America, etc., gets a +5 positive media coverage rating. In other words, the media thinks it’s fine if you say absolutely insane, ignorant, or hateful things, as long as you’re a right winger. Would a “liberal media” do this? Of course not. After this study, can anyone possibly believe in the myth of a “liberal media?” Nope. Am I asking rhetorical questions in order to mock Mitt Romney? Yes, in fact I am. 🙂