86 Percent of Romney Coverage Is Negative: Are Most Media Outlets Biased in Favor of Obama?

And you'd think that after almost four years of the worst Presidency on record they'd get a clue about this bozo.

But everyone except the obamadrones know what they are up to so it will not work this time. The media will not pick the president.

That's like asking if the Pope is Catholic.

The communist propaganda media will always cover up and excuse obama gaffes and outright stupidity and magnify out of proportion any even smallest missteps of his opponent.

Yes, they're biased - but they have to create stuff to gripe about because they can't find anything really harmful to pick on him for. He's a good guy. He stayed with the same woman for decades, didn't abuse her, didn't do drugs, raised fine children, worked hard, behaved ethically, and knows business. Why wouldn't we want someone like that - with definite and clearly defined principles and a sense of ethics - to be our president?

Snakes in the house

The media has always given dumb-o-crats a free pass. They slant everything so that the average American will not notice what obumbles has been up to and the kind of company he keeps (like rev. WRONG ,and little billy ayers)

Heck yeah!

Romney creates the issues that get reported and judged to be negative by his Toadies.

Your head

name three?

If this is not obvious to you then you are not paying attention.

It is rather obvious isn't it?

I agree.

The only real sources of information you can trust is to fill out those freedom of information act requests and submit them right to the gov't, then make your own analysis.

No one is above suspicion if they can't provide the source for their info. And even those that can, quite often there is a heavy amount of cherry picking involved.

don't just not your head, listen and criticize who is doing the speaking. "obama said,..." "Romney said,..."

Bull. Show me the speech where he DID say it.

(and this isn't invite to actually post speech links, this is just a rant against the biased media who wouldn't know how to tell the WHOLE truth if it bit them in the ass.)

the news media have been bias for years now and it is all for the libs. Obama uses it to the fullest. They treat Romney like he is nothing and Obama is everything.
Negative against Romney, Heck Yes.

Without a doubt.

Same thing last time around, O-bah- ma O-bah-ma

I have a question that is at least as inane, as this one.



Is water wet?

No.

without a doubt.

i take heart in the fact that Romney is running even WITH Obama DESPITE the blatant favoritism. this could translate into a Romney landslide if the economy keeps teetering.

I don't wish the economy to do poorly, but I really can't see anything changing for the better in the next 3 months.

me neither.

does the sun come up in the east and set in the west?

NOBAMA 2012

Biased? Really you think?

Do balanced research. Seriously, I did a paper on this in 2008, "Media Bias and its Effects on America's Perception." In 2008 Zogby did a poll of voters exiting the polls. Who they voted for, and what their knowledge of the candidates were.

Guess who did the most dismal of the bunch?

Romney is just an IDIOT !!!! then again so is Obama !!

Hallejuah! Someone reads my mind!

and you?....it's obvious

Mitt sucs at making himself look good to the general populace of America. I dont even feel like he wants my vote cause i'd hold him responsible to his directive, just like I have and would Obama.

Mistakes make the news - Obama is if anything, very cautious, and avoids saying stupid things (he has Joe for that job!). Romney has an awkward tongue and not reporting on these issues that were widely reported by the foreign press would have been a miscarriage of journalism.

Obama avoids saying stupid things? Really? How about, "you didn't do it yourself"? Many have made a business work without the help of the government and we all know this. This was a very stupid thing for Obama to say.

Great example of how far out of context the right needs to go to put stupid things in his mouth. Only a moron can watch the entire Obama clip and disagree with what he said. I'll confess that a number of things Mitt has said use stretched context as well but not unlike Biden, Mitt is a little bit of a gaffe machine whether you are on the left or the right. Mitt doesn't need to be taken out of context to say things that he may not truly mean...My simple point is that like his policies or not, Obama is simply a cautious speaker and Mitt is not as cautious. McCain was a cautious speaker on the right and also rarely stuck his foot in his mouth. It's not a political thing - it's a style thing and just because somebody has poor oratory and extemporaneous speaking skills this doesn't make him an inferior candidate and in this case it's just a coincidence that he's kind of a big wonker on policy issues too.

McCain was and is an idiot,he let obama beat him, his bump came from Sarah, and he refused to help vet obie or educate Americans.... he doesn't deserve any voice at the convention, Americans would be much better off if someone new and had some semblance of whats going on around himself......

McCain is one of the few touches of class in the Republican Party whether you believe the 'Songbird' stories or not. He's an honest broker capable of seeing other's viewpoints and engaging in polite discussion - all things now despised by the Tea Baggers and other conservative factions in the R Party.

couldn't disagree more, McCain is one of it's problems, McCain is a loser, who refused to attack obama, and refused to challenge obama's eligibility , McCain failed to "FIGHT" for the position of "President" and Palin was the reason he did as well as he did, these "Old guard politicians need to move on, retire let new people show they have what it takes,McCain doesn't...

Actually I think the entire segment is just as bad as the "you didn't build that" part. I think most people are taking it as applied to you not building the roads and bridges, but if you look at the sentence structure the "that" would be tied to "business" since it would be improper to apply "that" to "roads and bridges" which is plural.

Despite that common sense way of looking at it, even if you take it to mean you didn't build the "roads and bridges", then who did? Who pays the taxes? Who pays the employees?

Not the way I took it at all but the perception is probably a little bit of a reflection of each person's politics. National policies and investments in canals, railroads, highways, education and internet AND policies allowing access to our abundant natural resources are what allowed this country to develop a very advantageous enevironment for entrepreneurs to succeed. The second doesn't happen without the first.

Who pays for these policies?