Tomasky examined the editorial commentary on 10 Bush and Clinton episodes that were roughly comparable. He did not include extraordinary events, such as the Lewinsky scandal or 9/11. Everyone knows that virtually all papers, of every political stripe, whacked Clinton over his Monica dissembling. No surprise there, and there’s no similar Bush scandal. More interesting is how the papers handled run-of-the-mill political controversies.
The liberal papers criticized the Clinton administration 30 percent of the time, while the conservative papers slapped around the Bush administration just 7 percent of the time.
The liberal papers praised the Clintonites 36 percent of the time, while the conservative papers praised the Bushies 77 percent of the time.
One more set of numbers: The liberal papers criticized Bush 67 percent of the time; the conservative papers criticized Clinton 89 percent of the time.

So reads an article on the Washington Post that talks about a study at Harvard.
Maybe the obvious conclusion is that the Clintons are worse than Bush. That would fit in all the data. Bill and Hillary probably deserved more stinging editorials than Bush does. That may be too obvious for

New York magazine columnist Michael Tomasky, who did the study for the Joan Shorenstein press center, is a certified liberal, so some may be inclined to discount his findings. But the nature of his research makes it harder to dismiss.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

View Technorati blog reactions.

Related Posts