In order to throw some more weight behind the whole 'media bias' thing, lets do some Google searching:
"blasts Bush" - 283,000 hits
"slams Bush" - 196,000 hits
"Bush slams" - 31,800 hits
"Bush blasts" - 28,700 hits
On average Bush getting slammed or blasted is hit almost eight times more than Bush doing the slamming or blasting. If you reverse the searches above and google "Clinton" slamming or gettting slammed, it is about 45 times more likely that Clinton will be doing the blasting versus getting blasted. Additionally, Clinton is only blasted or slammed (at least for the first ten hits) in right-wing blogs or obvious right-wing publications where as Clinton is doing the blasting or slamming in main stream publications.
The words 'slam' and 'blast' are probably two of the most overused words in media and are usually used when the writer supports the 'blaster' over the 'blastee'. Once upon a time they may have been headline generators. The extra boy shouting out "Roosevelt slams Hoover" might carry a little more urgency than "Roosevelt criticizes Hoover'. But today, it seems like just another example of poor editing and media bias. Right wing politicians 'slamming' or 'blasting' left wing pols is much more likely to go unnoticed in the press than the reverse.
Bias has doomed the 'main stream' press and they seem to refuse to want to admit it.
3 comments:
Or, perhaps, your analysis is simple to the point of stupidity.
Have you not thought that, as Bush is in power, in charge of the most powerful nation on Earth, his actions will be blasted and slammed by all manner of people. Clinton, on the other hand, has comparatively very little power to act, so who is going to slam him? On the the other hand, Clinton is now a roving commentator on world events, so is likely to do a hell of a lot of blasting and slamming, while Bush has to operate (we'd like) within the confines of office.
For this heap of garbage posing as an expose of bias to have ANY merit, you would need to look at the rates at which Cinton was blasted and slammed during his presidency. And you know what? I would put my money on it that, from US news sources at least, Clinton was blasted and slammed all over the media.
"Have you not thought that, as Bush is in power, in charge of the most powerful nation on Earth, his actions will be blasted and slammed by all manner of people."
But every politician, right or left, has to fight back. Critics cannot just let charges go unanswered. 'slams' and 'blasts' are just examples of headline editorials. Typing "Bush Admistration Blasts" [or slams] yields under 500 hits. I can understand the President himself, any president, will be unlikely to personally respond to charges, but his press secretary always will.
Yet 'Fleischer blasts' yields only 1700 hits and 'Fleischer slams' yields 1 (and it wasn't Ari).
With regards to Clinton, do the Google searches. There was President Clinton and Senator Clinton and yet few articles point to either of them being 'blasted' or 'slammed' compared to many where they are doing the blasting and slamming.
Is this scientific, by all means no. Just a small attempt at humour. Thanks for reading my blog.
But your suggestion of bias does not ring true. Look at how Clinton was hounded - and yet he did nothing as controversial and world-changing as conquer another country (or two), nor did he deviate from international norms on the treatment of prisoners, and the like.
Now, you can agree with all of these actions. But it is difficult to argue that Bush is especially hounded by the media, given the hunting of Clinton operated on actions that or of much less political, economic and military importance.
Post a Comment