A similar study after the last presidential election found that Al Gore received much more negative coverage that Bush. Does that mean the media had a right wing bias back then?

No. If the media in general has any bias at all, it is towards easy-to-tell stories. And the easiest to tell stories for journalists are those that inspire sympathy and those that inspire outrage. Stories that inspire sympathy tend to lean left, since it's the lefties who care about the poor and the disadvantaged. Stories that inspire outrage tend to lean right, since right-wingers love to get upset over indecency, frivolous lawsuits, and wasted taxpayer money.

But the fact is that during a presidential campaign, in which one of the cadidates is the incumbent, the media is going to have a lot more material about the incumbent to work with. And in the months leading up to the election, the world was offering up very little positive material about Bush's presidency. Iraq was growing steadily more violent and chaotic, the economy was still failing to rebound strongly, the debt was worse than it had ever been, etc., etc.

Frankly, I think it's a sign of the media's obession with "balance," or at least the appearance of balance, that Bush got any postive stories at all.

I think it is also an extension of the historically recurring "cause" based journalism. In every generation there's a surge of the "fourth estate" bringing down the "Man".

The sad part is that most times you can't do that by just reporting facts. You have to interperate them, twist them, editorialize in order to move people to outrage.

In the last few decades it seems journalism accolades are based primarily on how much a journalist can move people. They may call that "getting the story", but I call it telling a story, and even sometimes making up a story.

To make things worse, many people are called to journalism by seeing political figures they despise "brought down", like Nixon. If enough answer the call during that time, you begin to have a prepoderance of a particular ethos in journalism. I think that is where we are now.

A similar study after the last presidential election found that Al Gore received much more negative coverage that Bush. Does that mean the media had a right wing bias back then?

Can you link to that study?  I heard just the opposite.

To make things worse, many people are called to journalism by seeing political figures they despise "brought down", like Nixon. If enough answer the call during that time, you begin to have a prepoderance of a particular ethos in journalism. I think that is where we are now.

I agree.  I think that was when the media turned sharply left. Before then, they were more in the mode of Ernie Pyle.

Can you link to that study? I heard just the opposite.

The study was done by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and you can read it here:

http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/campaign2000/lastlap/default.asp

The main finding was that in the last few weeks of the 2000 election 24% of stories about Bush were positive, compared to 13% of stories about Gore. And the coverage of Gore was more negative. A full 56% of the Gore stories had a negative tone, compared to 49% for Bush. The rest of the stories about both candidates were neutral.

Everybody knows Clinton torpedoed Al so he could set the stage for Hillary...the DNC approves everything before it goes over the AP....
I reccommend everyone who wants to have a free, uncontrolled thought start lining their hats with aluminum foil, so Clinton's mind ray doesn't take control...

Beep, beep, beep...

The study was done by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and you can read it here:

I meant an unbiased one, like one that knows what bias is? But thanks anyway.

Everybody knows Clinton torpedoed Al so he could set the stage for Hillary...the DNC approves everything before it goes over the AP.... I reccommend everyone who wants to have a free, uncontrolled thought start lining their hats with aluminum foil, so Clinton's mind ray doesn't take control...

Thanks for the warning! Better get mine out of mothballs!

I meant an unbiased one, like one that knows what bias is?

So by "unbiased" you mean one that agrees with you?