The Media Research Center recently put together an analysis of the media coverage of the recent Mitt Romney overseas trip.  Their findings only prove what so many have been saying for so long.  Media coverage of the trip was 86 percent about the bad things that happened on the trip.  It amounted to 53 minutes of almost entirely negative coverage of GOP Candidate for President Mitt Romney.

They then compared that coverage to the 2008 trip overseas that Barack Obama made and found that the media spent 92 minutes talking about the positive nature of Mr. Obama's trip overseas.

The brief story comes from the Washington Times and mentions the results of their research.  The overall conclusion that you have to come to is that there is some sort of bias to what the members of the media believe.  If you look at the home-base of every media outlet, you can see that many of them operate out of liberal strongholds like New York and Washington D.C.  But that alone does not tell the story of how those in the media feel about the Presidential race.

In my look over the news here in the last few days, I have seen bias not just in the Presidential campaign, but also in the way that the Chick-fil-A story was handled by some outlets.  Things that went so far as to label people with subjective labels rather than doing a little digging have become more commonplace.

Media has gone down the path of trying to be entertaining.  That can tend to lead to being more sensational in coverage of things.  There has also been this vision of the media as a tool for change.  The media is not a tool for change, but instead it is a tool for enlightenment.  We use it to find out more about things before we make a decision about them.  It is not supposed to be what it has become, with a group of people that decide they want to make you believe what they do.  News coverage is about the truth and not about someone's perception of it.  Could someone please tell the mainstream news media that?