Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?

Quote :

"NEW YORK - Television news' royalty will fly in to meet Barack Obama during this week's overseas trip: CBS chief anchor Katie Couric in Jordan on Tuesday, ABC's Charles Gibson in Israel on Wednesday and NBC's Brian Williams in Germany on Thursday. The anchor blessing defines the trip as a Major Event and — much like a 'Saturday Night Live' skit in February that depicted a press corps fawning over Obama — raises anew the issue of fairness in campaign coverage. The news media has devoted significantly more attention to the Democrat since Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and left a two-person contest for the presidency between Obama and Republican John McCain, according to research conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25785158/?GT1=43001

Quote :

"But there is simply no question that Obama is getting far more coverage, both positive and negative."

--Howard Kurtz, Washington Post columnist and host of CNN's Reliable Sources

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/07/18/DI2008071802252.html

Kurtz: Media Covering Obama As If He Were Already President

Quote :

"For months, CNN's Howard Kurtz has been one of the loudest mainstream media voices accusing his fellow press members of being disgracefully in the tank for presumptive Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama. On Sunday, Kurtz continued his finger-pointing by accurately stating, as it pertains to the focus on the junior senator's trip to the Middle East, 'the media in general, not just the networks, are -- seem to me to be covering Obama as if he were already president.'"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2048561/posts



[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 7:30 PM. Reason : .]

7/21/2008 7:09:15 PM

Quote :

"There's going to be bias wherever you go. The largest TV network and all of AM radio is largely biased to the GOP, other media has a Democratic party bias, others fall largely in the middle. If you can't find your way through the bias and see the truth then you're an idiot and shouldn't be voting anyway. The same people that bitch about the NYT and it's liberal bias are the same people that read the shit everyday looking to find the bias, same with Fox News. As long as we have people on the prowl watching out for the bullshit we're fine. Just don't pretend that your side is being oppressed because you don't have 100% media control. Suck it up and be a man."

(apathetic/independent voters are not looking for the bullshit, they see what they want to see, and republicans have every reason to complain over left wing media oppression. this is not new, it's been going on for decades. anyone who fails to see otherwise is so blinded by biased news coverage that they couldnt distinguish their rear end from first base if keith olberman was reporting)

the media is liberal, has been liberal, and will always be liberal. theres no 2 ways about it .. theres fox news (at times) reporting from the right.. and then there's the rest of news (NYT, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR, USATODAY, ect ect). republicans have learned to cope with this fact. as long as journalism is being taught by the leftist professors from tenured ivory towers, journalists remain as incompetent puppets rewriting the same blinded bullshit they were taught years before. there will be a complete bias in the media, either written or portrayed, only to be swung towards the right by the rare journalists who refuse to be influenced by ominous propaganda, and soap boxes preached from every credited university.

example ... Iraq/Saddam's fall

fox news shows thousands of Iraqis cheering/sobbing/rejoicing over our troops tearing down Saddam's statue in the center of Baghdad

msnbc shows less than 100 people protesting the u.s. in the outskirts of karbala



....

7/21/2008 9:54:25 PM

to be fair, that was a staged statue-tearing-down-event

7/21/2008 10:09:42 PM

...and?


pretty impossible for a few soldiers to tear down a enormous stone statue on a whim

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 10:14 PM. Reason : ...]

7/21/2008 10:13:12 PM

dude, you dont even know what the fuck you're talking about.

tight camera angles from pentagon-approved news agencies forced the perspective that 30-some-odd iraqi dudes throwing a few shoes, looked like a multitude of pro-western supporters.

while non pentagon-approved news agencies, of course, got a 105mm round neatly placed through into their hotel room.

7/21/2008 10:21:11 PM

the fall of the berlin wall was a planned event, but signified something far greater then a publicity stunt

it signified democracy and freedom flowing into the break of the iron curtain

saddams statue stood as a reminder of tyranny and unregulated rule, through absolute control. the fall of that statue signified one of the greatest accomplishments by the US since the berlin wall.

the media would have you think otherwise

you are ridiculous, incompetent, and QUITE typical .. so your response doesnt surprise me one bit

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 10:23 PM. Reason : ^ hahah you gullible retard]

[Edited on July 21, 2008 at 10:28 PM. Reason : ..]

7/21/2008 10:22:18 PM

http://www.johnmccain.com/video/love.htm

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/mccain-web-video-takes-aim-at-media/

7/22/2008 7:44:54 PM

^^ the fall of the berlin wall, and the larger collapse of the Soviet Union, was a bloodless triumph of global democracy over totalitarianism that freed hundreds of millions of people.

whereas the US-led hunt, capture, and execution of Saddam Hussein has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent victims and broken the infrastructure of their nation, destabilized a global region, killed and maimed thousands of Americans and continues to burn through $10 BILLION of US taxpayer dollars EVERY MONTH -- as it has for the past five years -- with no end in sight and for NO return on investment, except more deaths.

Now I can't help that you've totally drank the neocon propaganda koolaid, but please do go ahead and cover up your own lack of critical thinking skills by making personal attacks.






[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 8:13 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2008 8:11:42 PM

seems like if gore would have won, iran would have nukes and sept 11 wouldnt have happened

7/22/2008 8:15:19 PM

quiet, son, adults are talking here.

7/22/2008 8:16:48 PM

anyone that believes faux news is an unbiased news source does not deserve a degree from my accredited university - NCSU.

I am not saying it is wrong; but clearly fox news is attempting to cater thus make money by promoting a "conservative" spin on the news. Much like how BBC puts the "european" spin and msnbc is clearly a "liberal" bias. Further nearly every news company within this country offers a pro-american bias on world issues.

I wish we could throw radicals on both the right and left off of a cliff. Both sides are so caught up in their political fervor that they lose any sense of logical reasoning and lack the ability to compromise.

Quote :

"saddams statue stood as a reminder of tyranny and unregulated rule, through absolute control. the fall of that statue signified one of the greatest accomplishments by the US since the berlin wall"

lol b.c we captured saddam responsible for 9/11 right!


[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 8:30 PM. Reason : l]

7/22/2008 8:27:42 PM

^^if i were duke i would suspend you for that

7/22/2008 8:45:18 PM

fox news is a news channel for the conservatives out there
cnn news is a news channel for the liberals out there

7/22/2008 9:48:56 PM

I'm sure nobody will believe this since it's from Huffington Post but CBS cut and pasted McCain's softball interview to make him look better. Due to liberal media bias I'm sure.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/mccain-gets-history-of-th_n_114419.html

7/23/2008 8:56:19 AM

^^ don't be ignorant. Faux News completely blows every other news channel out of the water when it comes to bias. Yeah, CNN is slightly left of center, but FNC is run by stark raving mad rightwing nutjobs.

CNN has global credibility. Faux News has trailer park credibility.




[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 11:48 AM. Reason : ]

7/23/2008 11:47:37 AM

dont tell TKEshultz this ^

u may blow out his reality

[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 11:50 AM. Reason : l]

7/23/2008 11:50:05 AM

nah.

he and everyone like him will rationalize it away as another "liberal media conspiracy"

their reality will remain unchanged.

7/23/2008 12:24:17 PM

joe do you feel the msm is left?

7/23/2008 12:58:35 PM

The mainstream media consists of several different organizations, both left and right. Saying the MSM is left is like saying all conservatives are closet homosexuals, as funny as it is, it's not true or possible.

7/23/2008 1:01:12 PM

I think most refer to the MSM as the big three networks and most local newspapers.

7/23/2008 1:08:38 PM

It's funny how you refer to them as the MSM as if they're not credible. Right wingers should just start putting angry faces around liberal everytime they use it and put it in all caps too, because you know that's how they want to say it.

LIBERAL

7/23/2008 1:15:16 PM

^typical. Its funny how people refer to them as MSM meaning that most people get thier info from those sources.

I think most rational people will admit that the MSM leans left.

Im just curious what Joe thinks.

7/23/2008 1:19:36 PM

I don't see how they lean left. They report the news whether it's good or bad. How do they have a left-leaning bias?

This is all created by the Us vs. Them mentality that the right has set up in this country. You're either with us or against us and because the "MSM" sometimes reports on things that make the right look bad, they're clearly against us.

7/23/2008 1:23:56 PM

I know you dont 420.

If you are really curious why many feel they lean left, well just ask journalists.

2004 Pew Research Center for the people and the press, findings:

Five times more national journalists identify themselves as “liberal” (34 percent) than “conservative” (just 7 percent). In contrast, a survey of the public taken in May 2004 found 20 percent saying they were liberal, and 33 percent saying they were conservative.

The percentage of national reporters saying they are liberal has increased, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004. The percentage of self-identified conservatives remains low, rising from a meager 4 percent in 1995 to a still-paltry 7 percent in 2004.

Reporters struggled to name a liberal news organization. According to Pew, “The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.” Only two percent of reporters suggested CNN, ABC, CBS, or NPR were liberal; just one percent named NBC.

Journalists did see ideology at one outlet: “The single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance — either liberal or conservative — is Fox News Channel,” Pew reported. More than two-thirds of national journalists (69 percent) tagged FNC as a conservative news organization, followed by The Washington Times (9 percent) and The Wall Street Journal (8 percent).


I know they are all human but bias surely does come out. You can look at how much coverage the two are getting or how little attention Iraq has gotten as things have improved. Just some examples.

7/23/2008 1:49:18 PM

Quote :

"Five times more national journalists identify themselves as “liberal” (34 percent) than “conservative” (just 7 percent). In contrast, a survey of the public taken in May 2004 found 20 percent saying they were liberal, and 33 percent saying they were conservative."

Holy shit you mean 59% of journalists don't indentify with an ideology? They're probably all covert liberals anyway.

Quote :

" Reporters struggled to name a liberal news organization. According to Pew, “The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.” Only two percent of reporters suggested CNN, ABC, CBS, or NPR were liberal; just one percent named NBC."

Can't argue with an overwhelming 20% majority

Quote :

" Journalists did see ideology at one outlet: “The single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance — either liberal or conservative — is Fox News Channel,” Pew reported. More than two-thirds of national journalists (69 percent) tagged FNC as a conservative news organization, followed by The Washington Times (9 percent) and The Wall Street Journal (8 percent)."

Can't argue with an overwhelming 69% majority


Also I love the idea that McCain can say that Obama needs to go to the Middle East, then gets pissed when reporters cover the trip. They went from "Maybe Obama should go overseas!" to "Maybe Obama should try campaigning in America!" They'd get more coverage if they'd stop whining.

[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 1:54 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2008 1:52:38 PM

There is a difference between the editorial pages and the everyday reporting. Yes, the NY Times has a Liberal editorial page, but the WSJ has a conservative editorial page.

Their day to day reporting is not bent a specific way.

7/23/2008 1:54:46 PM

Quote :

"Their day to day reporting is not bent a specific way."

7/23/2008 1:55:26 PM

lol. Ok guys, you win.

7/23/2008 2:53:34 PM

Quote :

"Im just curious what Joe thinks"

i think that many people working for your so-called "MSM" (obligatory rolly-eyes to you conspiracy nuts), many of them have personal liberal outlooks/philosophy. I mean, they're all educated in the liberal arts. being educated and well read tends to give you a liberal bias.

but i also think that professional, ethical journalists can and do leave their personal biases when executing the duties of their profession.

i'm also quite certain that, regardless of individual staff biases, media organizations -- espeically the big networks and conglomerates that have absorbed so many local outlets -- all have a somewhat conservative bias as organizations because they're ultimately concerned with their bottom line. their business is to sell news. the idealists therefore are tempered by the pressures of organizational business.

so overall, i think your so-called "MSM" (again, rolly-eyes) is by and large reporting the news in a generally responsible (if somewhat prepackaged and generic) way

Faux News, however, is the outlier among major network news sources. They have neither professional ethics, nor a sense of journalistic responsibility, nor even general decency.

they're pure shit, and cater their shit to the shitheads among us.







[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 8:40 PM. Reason : ]

7/23/2008 8:31:19 PM

^ FAUX NEWS!!!1 STFU.

7/24/2008 7:42:07 AM

^ suspend, ban, terminate, diaf.

7/24/2008 12:54:47 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story

Quote :

"The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign. You read it right: tougher on the Democrat. During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative. Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center."

7/27/2008 3:33:35 PM

well, duh. everyone knows you need to go easy on the elderly.

7/27/2008 3:58:36 PM

I thought it had more to do with McCain doing nothing and Obama painting himself back towards the center...

I don't really care, McCain verses Obama, either choice is a media darling. They've been ramping up McCain for a decade, and Obama from the day he stepped into the Senate.

It is not a question which is going to illustrate the bias.

Instead, you should look at how gun violence or fraud in government programs (non-military) is covered. Its about the omission of certain topics and stories, its not about outright opinions.

Oh, nevermind,

Reality has a liberal bias.

The success of talk radio and the eagerness of the leaders of the left to kill it while doing nothing to the MSM are purely coincidental.

Whatever.

7/27/2008 7:48:25 PM

7/27/2008 8:38:41 PM

reality has a liberal bias

7/27/2008 9:40:37 PM

http://www.videosift.com/video/Scott-McClellan-Exposes-Fox-Network

7/27/2008 10:39:03 PM

Crushing on Obama

Quote :

"Why are the media so smitten with Obama? Journalists have an affinity for the Democratic nominee in part because he is a wordsmith and they make a living manipulating words and symbols, so they have a special appreciation for his gifts. But another part of the reason is, yes, plain old liberal bias. McCain was a press darling when he was a maverick dissenting from the Republican Party from points left. Obama has become one by succeeding as a down-the-line liberal. When McCain decided this time around to court conservative Republican voters as much as liberal reporters, the coverage of him became more critical. Notice a pattern? At this point, denying that the press has a liberal tilt, particularly on social issues, is like denying that the universities have one. Surveys of reporters show that they have more liberal views than the public; surveys of the public show that readers and viewers pick up on it."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1828309,00.html

8/5/2008 1:23:38 PM

Old media dethroned
Edwards' admission signals the end of the era in which traditional media set the limits of acceptable political journalism.
Tim Rutten

Quote :

"When John Edwards admitted Friday that he lied about his affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter, a former employee of his campaign, he may have ended his public life but he certainly ratified an end to the era in which traditional media set the agenda for national political journalism. From the start, the Edwards scandal has belonged entirely to the alternative and new media. The tabloid National Enquirer has done all the significant reporting on it -- reporting that turns out to be largely correct -- and bloggers and online commentators have refused to let the story sputter into oblivion. Slate's Mickey Kaus has been foremost among the latter, alternately analyzing and speculating on the Enquirer's reporting and ridiculing the mainstream media for a fastidiousness that has seemed, from the start, wholly absurd. Like other commentators, he repeatedly alleged that a double standard that favored Democrats applied to the story. Like the Enquirer's reporting, the special-treatment charge is largely true, as anyone who recalls the media frenzy over conservative commentator and former Cabinet secretary William Bennett's high-stakes gambling would agree. Edwards, 55, now admits that he had an affair with Hunter, now 44,in 2006, but denies that he is the father of the child she had in February. Andrew Young, another former Edwards aide, has said he is the baby's father. In a statement released Friday, Edwards said he was willing to take a paternity test; doubtless we'll hear more on that issue. So far, so sordid. But what's really significant here is the cone of silence the nation's major newspapers -- including The Times -- and the cable and broadcast networks dropped over this story when it first appeared in the tabloid during the presidential primary campaign. Next, the Enquirer reported that the unmarried Hunter was pregnant. Still no mainstream media interest. Indeed, never in recent journalistic history have so many tough reporters so closely resembled sheep as those members of the campaign press corps who meekly accepted Edwards' categorical dismissal of the Enquirer's allegations. Late last month, Edwards came to Los Angeles, and Enquirer reporters trailed him to the Beverly Hilton hotel, where he met Hunter and her daughter in their room. The Enquirer went with the story, and when no major newspaper or broadcast outlet even reported the existence of the tabloid story, bloggers and online commentators redoubled their demands that the mainstream media explain their silence. The tabloid followed with a story alleging payments of hush money to Hunter and, this week, with a photo of Edwards holding an infant in what appears to be a room at the Beverly Hilton. As pressure mounted on major newspapers to take some aspect of the unfolding scandal into account, editors and ombudsmen issued statements saying it would be unfair to publish anything until the Enquirer's stories had been 'confirmed.' Well, there's confirming and then there's confirming. One sort occurs when an editor mutters, 'Find somebody and have them make a few calls.' Then there's the sort that comes when that editor summons an investigative reporter with a heart like ice and a mind like Torquemada's and says, 'Follow this wherever it goes and peel this guy like an onion.' Suffice to say that the follow-up of the Enquirer's story fell into the former category in too many newsrooms, including that of The Times. Some of this reticence may have reflected a regard for the feelings of Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, who has incurable cancer. There was, however, every reason to set that deference aside. First, it was less than unlikely that Elizabeth Edwards was unaware of the allegations. (She says now she knew of the affair in 2006.) Second, Edwards' name has surfaced as a possible running mate for Barack Obama and as a possible attorney general or Supreme Court nominee -- posts in which character and candor matter. Finally, throughout his political career, Edwards has made his marriage a centerpiece of his campaigns. It's interesting that what finally forced Edwards into telling the truth was a mainstream media organization. ABC News began investigating the Edwards affair in October, but really began to push after the Beverly Hilton allegations. When ABC confronted Edwards with its story (which confirmed '95% to 96%' of the tabloid's reporting, according to the network), he admitted his deception. With that admission, the illusion that traditional print and broadcast news organizations can establish the limits of acceptable political journalism joined the passenger pigeon on the roster of extinct Americana."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-newrutten9-2008aug09,0,3175773.column

John McCain's alleged affair was front-page news in The New York Times--and nothing has ever been proved about it. And, yes, I'm well aware of the Times' smoke screen that it was a lobbying story and not an affair story--yet the alleged affair and a photo of the supposed mistress were prominently displayed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html

Anyone who claims the MSM isn't in the tank for left-wingers is a fucking buffoon and shouldn't be taken seriously.

8/11/2008 6:27:53 PM

^ What alleged affair of McCAins? McCain definitely had an affair a few decades ago, but that's really too far in the past for anyone to care. mcCain also has some other skeletons in his past, that no one cares about, that don't get much reporting.

And I think the MSM was prudent in this case to wait for confirmation of the affair, which could only have come from one or the other admitting or submitting to a test, before blowing the story open.

And the MSM does seem marginally to the left right now, but this has changed pretty significantly throughout the years. During the beginnings of the Bush era, they were clearly very right, then they centered up a little, and at the beginning of this year, they swung back to the right (witness the way reporting was done of the Wright issue). I can't say how anyone could rationally assert the media is one way, and stays that way, immutably, which is what it seems like you're saying.

Fox News has always been to the right though, with no change in their bias. This is a definitive fact.

8/11/2008 6:36:02 PM

Media in this country has been right of center for years and years now hope this helps.

8/11/2008 6:47:09 PM

^ Compared to Canada and Britain this is probably true.

8/11/2008 6:52:23 PM

NBC'S Mitchell to Obama: To Sir, With Love
by mark bauer

Quote :

"I guess I can understand it. You spend a lot of time with a candidate on the campaign trail, watching their every move. Listening to their evey word, fart, burp, and whistle. And it doesn't hurt [if] the candidate is young and not so ugly. You can develop a schoolgirl crush on the candidate. It happens. But should it color the way you do your job? I think the answer is a resounding NO! Andrea Mitchell, NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, is at the center of an Obama controversy for the second time in as many months. Last month, during the Jesus Obama World Tour when Obama snubbed the wounded troops in Germany, the McCain campaign ran an ad that said Obama had time to go to the gym for a workout, but didn't make time for the troops because they would not allow cameras inside the hospital. Mitchell jumped to Obama's defense on MSNBC saying 'Obama had no intention of bringing any cameras with him. I was there. I can vouch for that.....That literally is not true.' Continuing in her defense of her hero, she said 'It just seems inexplicable that this whole thing has been such an issue. But clearly the McCain campaign wants this to be an issue, wants to paint him as someone who's unfeeling about the troops.' Yet oddly enough, Obama's campaign has yet to offer a valid reason for the cancellation of the visit. Conventional wisdom says that, if you want to be Commander in Chief, you make the time to visit the wounde[d] troops while you are there. No excuses. While it may not be the camera restriction, it has to be something. Obama did find time to make it to the gym to work out and play basketall, right? I would bet those guys, wounded in the service of their country, would have loved to shoot hoops. Mitchell continued her love affair this week. After both Obama and McCain made appearances in a non-debate Presidential forum at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in Orange County, California, the Obama camp accused McCain of cheating. Of somehow hearing the questions being asked of Obama so that McCain could be better prepared to answer them, while McCain was supposed to be in a 'cone of silence'. Mitchell repeated the vile and unsubstaniated rumor on Sunday's 'Meet the Press'. 'The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because what they are putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama,' Mitchell said. 'He seemed so well-prepared.' Despite assurance by both Warren and the McCain campaign that there was no way McCain could have heard anything going on during Obama's time on stage, Mitchell propped her hero up once again. Since journalists are supposed to be fair and unbiased, and not support one campaign over another, I can only assume that Mitchell is smitten with Obama and unable to control herself. The bigger issue at play here is exactly what Obama insiders have been afraid of all along. Obama, a gifted orator, cannot handle himself very well without a prepared speech and a teleprompter. Impromptu conversations about his life, the issues, or his talking points leave Obama looking like a deer in the headlights, and leave the people watching him feeling uncomfortable and squirming in their seats. It is difficult to watch Obama caught off guard - he gets the same look on his face that my six year old gets when I ask her a question she does not know the answer to. You want to give him the answer just to get that look off of his face. Truth will out in the next two months, as Obama has to face McCain in the debates. How will he fare there with no teleprompter? No doubt that his handlers will drill him like Opec to be sure he does not fumble, but as my dad was wont to say, that dog just won't bark. Experience will trump, and Mc[C]ain will show himself the bette[r] leader, the better speaker, the better candidate. And then Andrea Mitchell can have unfettered access to her love crush, and stare at him to her heart's content. Obama, as Portier, will not win over the class tough guys. Andrea 'Lulu' Mitchell, he may have taken you from crayons to perfume, but that is as far as this ride goes."

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977424885

8/19/2008 2:40:32 PM

[quote]GOPers, McCain Camp Complain That Press Favors Obama!
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/gopers_mccain_camp_complains_t.php

GOPers and McCain aides are seizing on the fact that a huge media retinue is planning on following Obama to Europe in order to argue that the press is favoring Obama...


I don't doubt that Obama gets more coverage than McCain. And maybe that's an imbalance that should be corrected. But come on: The more important issue here is the quality, not the quantity, of the coverage.

Can anyone seriously argue that the national media has been tougher on McCain than on Obama? In very general terms, the national press gave the Mccain camp the narrative they wanted on Obama's non-flip-flop on Iraq, even as it woefully under-covered McCain's Afghanistan reversal.

What's more, McCain's penchant for jokes that tend to be euphemistically termed "off color" has also basically been given a pass by the national media. And one very influential news org hasn't even tried to disguise its absurdly over-the-top McCain fluffing.

It's very hard to generalize about media coverage. That said, that's the general picture. So let's hope that any future GOP complaining is recognized by people in the media for the transparent ref-gaming that it is.

8/19/2008 2:46:15 PM

^ Pwned again. You use a liberal Web site to dispute that the media is overwhelmingly liberal? Dumbass.

Quote :

"Talking Points Memo (or TPM) is a liberal web-based political journalism organization created and run by Josh Marshall."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_Points_Memo

^^

Quote :

"Gather or Gather.com is a social networking website designed to encourage interaction through various social, political and cultural topics. Its headquarters are in Boston, Massachusetts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gather.com

8/19/2008 3:02:15 PM

lol, you will call EVERYTHING the liberal media if it suits you...doesn't matter...hell look at the thread topic we're in.

Besides, youve cited aritcles from the washington post which is a conservative rag.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story
OK fine, I'll cite the LA Times on this one (which in turn cites a study):

Quote :

"The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign. You read it right: tougher on the Democrat. During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative. Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.Conservatives have been snarling about the grotesque disparity revealed by another study, the online Tyndall Report, which showed Obama receiving more than twice as much network air time as McCain in the last month and a half. Obama got 166 minutes of coverage in the seven weeks after the end of the primary season, compared with 67 minutes for McCain, according to longtime network-news observer Andrew Tyndall. I wrote last week that the networks should do more to better balance the air time. But I also suggested that much of the attention to Obama was far from glowing. That earned a spasm of e-mails that described me as irrational, unpatriotic and . . . somehow . . . French. But the center's director, RobertLichter, who has won conservative hearts with several of his previous studies, told me the facts were the facts. "This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage," he said. Here's a bit more on the research, so you'll understand how the communications professor and his researchers arrived at their conclusions. The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative. The positive and negative remarks about each candidate are then totaled to calculate the percentages that cut for and against them. Visual images and other more subjective cues are not assessed. But the tracking applies a measure of analytical rigor to a field rife with seat-of-the-pants fulminations. The media center's most recent batch of data covers nightly newscasts beginning June 8, the day after Hillary Rodham Clinton conceded the Democratic nomination, ushering in the start of the general-election campaign. The data ran through Monday, as Obama began his overseas trip. Most on-air statements during that time could not be classified as positive or negative, Lichter said. The study found, on average, less than two opinion statements per night on the candidates on all three networks combined -- not exactly embracing or pummeling Obama or McCain. But when a point of view did emerge, it tended to tilt against Obama. That was a reversal of the trend during the primaries, when the same researchers found that 64% of statements about Obama -- new to the political spotlight -- were positive, but just 43% of statements about McCain were positive."

8/19/2008 3:35:29 PM

^ You cannot be this stupid. You realize that The Washington Post helped bring down Nixon, right? I'll post this so you can educate yourself:

Quote :

"Beginning with Richard Nixon, conservatives have often cited the Post, along with The New York Times, as exemplars of 'liberal media bias'. As Katharine Graham (the former publisher of the Post) noted in her memoirs Personal History, the paper long had a policy of not making endorsements for presidential candidates. In 2004, that policy changed with the Post's endorsement of Democratic candidate John Kerry."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post

I don't think the Post has endorsed Obama--yet--but I'm sure they will.

8/19/2008 3:45:00 PM

Jesus that was 30 years ago. You are a fucking blowhard and that's about it. Crazed even...

8/19/2008 3:52:21 PM

^ Um. . .did you happen to notice the 2004 endorsement of Kerry? He's not a conservative, you know.

And there's this from a few years ago:

Washington Post As Liberal As Ever

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/washington-post-as-liberal-as-ever/

PS: Weren't you babbling something earlier about having to get back to work or some such?

8/19/2008 3:59:19 PM

yeah sorry, i had to dip in and drop a bomb on your backwards ass is all. It's my 4pm break, sue me.

8/19/2008 4:11:17 PM