Sometimes you see a headline that just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. This is one of those times. Imagine anybody believing that Obama is a victim of the press.

In an AP report on a Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism study picked up by msnbc.com ("Study says Obama is victim of negative press") they are claiming that Obama has received more negative press than any of the other presidential candidates.

"Obama has been the victim of "unrelentingly negative" coverage in the media, said the report, which looked at coverage of candidates between early May and early October."

 And it's not just MSNBC jumping on the bandwagon. CBSNews.com's Brian Montopoli parroted: "President Obama 'has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment' of all presidential candidates over the past five months." And Politico's Hagey: "Obama has received the most unremittingly negative press of any of the presidential candidates by a wide margin, with negative assessments outweighing positive ones by four to one."

There has never been a president to better use the liberal main stream media to his favor that BO so there has to be something funky going on here. Let's try to break it down.

• 1. Most people get their fill of political news from a handful, if not a couple dozen, sources. This study "researched" 11,500 sources over a five month period. In so doing, the study waters-down the few major sources viewed by millions with thousands of sources read by hundreds.
• 2. The study used a computer algorithm to search the internet. This immediately sets off bells in my head because an algorithm is only as good as the parameters that the programmer or designer sets. Since the sponsor is arguably a Liberal source then the parameters are likely going to be skewed to the Left.
• 3. The study was limited to the internet. Most people are primarily influenced by radio and television coverage. While some of the radio and television content appears online most does not. Since the Liberal Left dominates the airwaves it is a serious flaw in the study.
• 4. The definition of positive and negative can be misleading. Consider a report saying that Cain has moved ahead of Romney in the polls. Is this a positive article on Cain or just the reporting of the polling results? Nobody is actually reading the articles that are falling into each candidates' buckets to determine if it's appropriate.
• 5. Often the press can present stories in a way that is favorable or detrimental to an individual or party without directly addressing a candidate. Consider if there is a story about something like the debt ceiling. It can be written in a way to show support for the president indirectly or negatively for somebody like Paul Ryan. Such stories predominantly were written to support the president's agenda.
• 6. The study as reported doesn't consider the quantity of stories only the percentages. If you combine all of the Republican candidates and compare their coverage to Obama's, I bet that you would find that the negative coverage of the Republicans would dominate the overall volume of coverage overshadowing BO's negative articles.
• 7. On a related point, if there was only one Republican candidate, that person would be the sole target of the Liberal media vitriol likely increasing his or her percentages.
• 8. Lastly, the Pew researchers should have done a test study going back to this time in 2003 and run an algorithm comparing GW to the Democrat candidates. I wouldn't be surprised if the negative coverage of Bush was around 70% compared to 20% for the Democrats.

Obama is far from a victim. The amazing thing to me is that Obama has received any negative coverage at all.

So as usual, while the Liberal Lame Stream press loves these kinds of studies because they claim to confirm the fairness, legitimacy and balance in their journalistic endeavors. Unfortunately such reports only serve to placate the sheeples with 4^th grade reading levels that they target.