In a November 1 editorial, The Pueblo Chieftain asserted of "[a]n empirical study of press coverage of the presidential campaign" that its finding that “Democrats, overall, got more coverage and more positive ink and airtime than Republicans ... gives lie to the national media's refusal to admit they tilt to the left.” Although the Chieftain did not identify the study, the editorial repeated general information contained in a joint study of the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy released October 29 and subtitled “A First Look at Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign.” However, the Chieftain omitted details of the PEJ-Shorenstein study's findings that did not support the newspaper's contention that the media “tilt to the left.”

For example, the study stated that except in the cases of two presidential candidates -- a Democrat and a Republican -- “the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical” and that a plurality of stories were “neutral or balanced.” The study also noted that the “gap” in the amount of coverage between Democratic and Republican candidates was evident across all media platforms, “including some, such as talk radio and Fox News, that argue they are counterbalancing liberal bias in the media.”

From the editorial “You're right,” published November 1 in The Pueblo Chieftain:

Guess what? If you've believed that members of the press -- particularly the national news media -- are biased, you've been right all along.

An empirical study of press coverage of the presidential campaign offers some insight. The study showed the political press is a hidebound institution out of touch with a majority of Americans. And most of those news professionals have a decidedly liberal bent.

[...]

Five candidates (out of a cast of what sometimes seems like thousands) received more than half the coverage. They were Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain. Elizabeth Edwards, who's battled cancer, got almost as much media attention as her husband, Democrat John Edwards.

Here's a real surprise. Democrats, overall, got more coverage and more positive ink and airtime than Republicans. That gives lie to the national media's refusal to admit they tilt to the left.

Contradicting the Chieftain's contention that Democrats' more favorable overall coverage indicates systematic bias is the study's finding that tone of coverage was “virtually identical” between Republicans and Democrats for all of the candidates except Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ):

• Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.

• Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical.

Moreover, the study noted that coverage of the front-runners -- Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and former Republican New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani -- likewise was “virtually identical”:

The press also gave some candidates measurably more favorable coverage than others. Democrat Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year -- followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running. Arizona Senator John McCain received the most negative coverage -- much worse than his main GOP rivals.

Meanwhile, the tone of coverage of the two party front runners, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, was virtually identical, and more negative than positive, according to the study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

The PEJ-Shorenstein study also noted that in the case of Clinton -- whose coverage was more negative than positive -- while she received the most coverage, “most of that edge” was due to “the largely antagonistic attention of conservative talk radio”:

While Hillary Clinton led in the derby for press exposure (she was the primary subject in 17% of all campaign stories), the largely antagonistic attention of conservative talk radio accounted for most of that edge. Clinton was the focus of nearly a third of all the campaign segments among the conservative talkers studied (the three most popular conservative radio voices, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage). Clinton is not nearly as a popular subject among liberal radio talk show hosts.

Beyond the specific case of Clinton, the study also reported that even Fox News and talk radio generally covered Democrats more than Republicans:

In the first five months of the campaign, the media found Democrats more newsworthy than Republicans. From January through May 2007, nearly half of 2008 election stories, 49%, focused on Democratic candidates, while less than a third, 31%, focused on Republicans. More than half of this difference can be accounted for by the fact that Democrats started announcing their campaigns a month earlier than Republicans. It is worth noting, however, that the gap existed in other months as well, and also was reflected in all the media platforms studied, including some, such as talk radio and Fox News, that argue they are counterbalancing liberal bias in the media. In three of different news sectors -- morning network shows, evening network news, and talk radio -- the radio of Democratic to Republican was nearly 2 to 1.