By Lachlan Markay | January 17, 2010 | 2:17 PM EST
It is a strange paradigm among much of the mainstream  media that plummeting poll numbers are of far greater import for Republicans than  they are for Democrats. That, at least, is the logical conclusion of the relative silence of major media outlets on the steep decline in President Obama's poll numbers compared with the decline in President Bush's.

According to an Allstate/National Journal poll released Wednesday, 50 percent of Americans would vote against President Obama if the presidential elections were held today. Only 39 percent say they would vote to re-elect the president.

But so far, this stunning development--given the President's sky-high approval ratings upon entering office--has gone seemingly unnoticed by the major television networks and most prominent print publications. Aside from some prominent blogs (whose coverage is by no means substandard), the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the Washington Examiner are so far the only major outlets to report on the poll, according to a google news search (as of 2:00 PM).
By NB Staff | November 4, 2009 | 12:33 PM EST

<a href="http://mrc.org/press/releases/2009/20091104112929.aspx" target="_blank"><img src="http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/11/dewey.gif" vspace="3" width="271" align="right" border="0" height="213" hspace="3" /></a>&quot;Last night was a triumph for the conservative movement and repudiation to those who said Republicans had to move away from the conservative ideology to achieve victory,&quot; Media Research Center President and NewsBusters Publisher Brent Bozell declared today.<br /><p>&quot;I hereby grant the <a href="http://mrc.org/press/releases/2009/20091104112929.aspx" target="_blank">Dewey Defeats Truman Awards</a> for the most incompetent political reporting of the year to the following journalists for their impeccably inept coverage,&quot; Bozell noted in a press release earlier today before listing Politico's Mike Allen, CBS's Katie Couric, National Journal's Ron Brownstein, and the entire New York Times editorial board as the recipients of the (dis)honor. </p><p>&quot;Congratulations for embarrassing yourselves, your news organizations and the industry for a backfire that only President Truman himself could truly appreciate,&quot; proclaimed Bozell.</p><p>For the full press release, including the quotes that were the catalysts for the Deweys, <a href="http://mrc.org/press/releases/2009/20091104112929.aspx" target="_blank">click here</a>. </p>

By Warner Todd Huston | July 15, 2009 | 3:09 AM EDT

You know when a liberal has lost any capability to understand the common American when they completely miss the pain that liberal tax hikers cause the average citizen in this country. Charlie Cook recently showed this elitist attitude in a National Journal column on the outrageous costs of the Cap and Trade bill – better called the Cap and Tax bill. Of course, to him, the tax hike on the average American is not a big deal and he doesn’t understand how anyone could be upset over it all.

Cook is perplexed why Washington pols were “getting an earful” from constituents over the energy tax hikes that the Cap and Trade bill will force on the nation. He just couldn’t figure why adding “only” an additional $175 a year to the average citizen’s electric bill was such a big deal.

By Ken Shepherd | April 27, 2009 | 1:17 PM EDT

Remember how the media told us throughout 2008 that then-candidate Barack Obama had the most "tech-savvy" presidential campaign in U.S. history? And who can forget all the buzz during the transition period about how the president might have to part company with his Blackberry due to Secret Service security worries. To the media, Obama was light years ahead of any Republican when it came to the Web.

Well, with the 100-day mark right around the corner, it seems new media experts are only giving the 44th president a gentleman's C when it come to his communications shop's take on the WhiteHouse.gov Web site and the Obama administration's signature Recovery.gov Web site.

Reports the National Journal's David Herbert, the chief complaints seem to be that the Obama team sees the Web as a propaganda tool, not a way to genuinely engage citizens with their government and its elected chief executive (emphasis mine):