This week, of course, saw Barack Obama tour the Middle East and speak in Germany. And by all accounts, he did very well. All the talk about the increased scrutiny giving him more opportunities to screw up proved to be false. Obama looked presidential, and from what I saw, gave a speech for the ages in front of 200,000+ Germans. To be fair, after the last 8 years, this inanimate carbon rod looks more presidential than this.
But the scrutiny given Obama's visit coupled with John McCain's unbelievably inept campaigning this week led to increased whining from the right that the "liberal media" loved Obama and was shafting McCain. One report showed that Obama received nearly twice the minutes of coverage as McCain. But the LA Times points out that more is not necessarily positive:
"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."
If you want an example, just look at CBS's decision to edit McCain's interview to clip out his mistakes.
I still believe that our media is driven by money and what is "easy." And Obama is scintillating and interesting, and very easy to cover. Add to that the corporate machines running our media, and their clear conservative bent, and you have an interesting "capitalistic" approach to media. But conservatives have repeated this lie (in addition to others) so often that even some liberals assume that the media is biased toward them. And, I think, many analysts believe it and so go out of their way to dispel the fear that they are too liberal.
*****
Speaking of McCain, he has a new ad out that challenges Obama's commitment to our troops. What a shock! A conservative saying that liberals don't support the troops. McCain used Obama's recent trip, and mischaracterized Obama's decision to not visit the troops in Germany as a snub. Even some conservatives cried foul, and many have noted that McCain seems to have thrown the clean campaign out the window. Perhaps it is to be expected. His entire campaign has been predicated on the idea that Obama was wrong on Iraq and he was right. Maliki's endorsement of Obama, and even our President's decision to suggest "time horizons" undercuts McCain's approach, and has left him stuttering about "we will win, we have won, we are winning," in a completely incoherent way. Chris Bodenner, at Sully's blog said it best:
I predict these nasty, petty, and desperate attacks will only grow as Obama soars into November. What else does McCain have to run on? It's the same approach Clinton took after Feb. 5: if I can't beat him, I'll drag him down to my level and hope he hits back, besmirching his image as a "new politician." It wasn't exactly a winning strategy.
All in.
8 comments:
According to federal campaign records, journalists contributed 15 times more money to Democrats versus Republicans, $225,563 to $16,298. Specifically, the ratio of journalists that gave money to Obama over McCain was 20 to 1.
This isn't absolute proof of media bias, but I just have trouble understanding why people think there is a conservative bias. With the exception of Fox, where is this? Again, I don't think that the bias is as bad as some pundits claim, but to claim that there is none or that it favors conservatives seems untrue.
Personally, I don't think an unbiased media is possible. I would prefer they just be up front about it and drop the notion that they are completely objective.
What about the corporate bosses? I don't think reporters are the problem. And if you look at what I have said, I haven't said that there is a conservative bias. I have suggested that the biases are not necessarily ideological, but more driven by economics or personalities. As I have noted before, the media loved Bush, and had absolutely no problem publishing National Enquirer speculation about Clinton.
And last but not least, it is unbelievable that John McCain can seriously complain about bias. The man has gotten nearly a free ride from the media.
I agree that the whole issue is probably very complex, which is one I don't usually harp about liberal bias. I will certainly cry bias if I see it in a specific article, but that is usually it.
I couldn't find any list of the bosses contributions, so I don't know. The media loves sensationalism, to some degree, so they would certainly go after Clinton. I also think that Noam Chomsky is probably right. The media supports the status quo.
McCain has gotten somewhat of a free ride, though some of the gushy reporting on Obama is kind of creepy. I doubt it makes that much of a differnce for the readers of this blog, as most tend to dig deeper when getting informed on the issues of this election.
though some of the gushy reporting on Obama is kind of creepy.
No doubt. Like I said, I think some of that is driven by personality (and of course, the historic nature of the first black nominee).
But consider some of what happened these last few weeks. Not only do we get an admission from Scott McClellan that
the White House fed talking points to Fox but the MSM doesn't think that is news. Second imagine the media firestorm if it were Obama who kept referring to countries that didn't exist, or borders that didn't exist, or completely mixed up the order of the surge. Imagine how the media would have responded. I can picture every major outlet running with each quote with the overall commentary "can we trust a candidate who does this?"
McCain seems to be traveling on the same road as Bush when the bar was lowered for him to a ridiculous point, but then inexplicably raised for Gore or Kerry. Gore was pilloried for getting troop numbers wrong, but Bush was everyone's stupid college buddy who could be congratulated when he pronounced a foreign leader's name right. When they weren't agonizing over Gore's sigh's, of course.
Is all of that ideological? Or something else.
I think the Media has brought up both candidates goof ups, at least from what I have heard.
As for the last elections, Bush's military record (even Dan Rather's fake one) was picked apart, as was Kerry's. One difference was that Kerry portrayed himself as a war hero and opened the door to scrutiny. I remember reports of Bush's driving record from the 1970's and accusations of past drug use, so he didn't seem to have the bar set that low.
Bush did get a pass from the Media following 9-11, but that was probably out of a fear as being seen as unpatriotic.
Some of the media hype for Obama is also due to the fact that he is charismatic and a great speaker. He is certainly one of the better speakers of the last 30 or so years and is far better than McCain, who just seems to look awkward.
As for the last elections, Bush's military record (even Dan Rather's fake one) was picked apart, as was Kerry's. One difference was that Kerry portrayed himself as a war hero and opened the door to scrutiny.
I don't mean to be difficult. Really. But I don't see how Kerry and Bush were treated in an equivalent way. Kerry became the anti-war hippie wus, while Bush became the War Hero. Which one actually won medals in defense of his country? And which one drank his way through using his family connections to stay out of VN? I forget.
And really, you should revisit the Gore/Bush stuff. I am not exaggerating. Gore missed the number of troops in Kosovo, and the late Tim Russert gave him the business. When Bush came on, all Russert wanted to talk about was the Buffalo Bills. Gore became the pathological liar who made up inventing the internet, investigating Love Canal, and was the idea for Love Story. Except he never said those things. Not that you could tell from what the media said.
And while we are talking about the Dan Rather stuff. Rather didn't make anything up. He used a bad source, no doubt, and his people didn't vet it well. But here is the interesting thing. The people around that bad source all said those letters were faked--but they also said that what the letters suggested regarding Bush's effort to get out of service--they were all true.
Kerry became the anti-war hippie wus, while Bush became the War Hero.
Kerry did a good job all by himself creating that image. I don't recall Bush being portrayed as a war hero.
And really, you should revisit the Gore/Bush stuff. I am not exaggerating.
I believe you, but I also recall how the media also portrayed Bush as such an intellectual lightweight (fair) and Gore as being so much smarter, despite the fact that he had flunked courses and didn't have all that stellar of an academic record.
He used a bad source, no doubt, and his people didn't vet it well.
No kidding and he paid the price in his zeal to run with that story. I shouldn't have suggested that Rather made it up, but he certainly bears some responsibility.
Perhaps. Though the Swiftboating and how the media responded to it (reporting it as just another viewpoint) certainly didn't help. On the other hand, they were more interested in whether the claims about Bush's past were "true." With Kerry, that was not terribly important.
Perhaps they portrayed Bush as an intellectual lightweight, though he did more to create that than Kerry did to make him an anti-war hippie. Bush disdained reading, couldn't pronounce words, etc. But the media was far kinder to him than they were to Gore. You are right, they held Gore to a higher intellectual standard. If he didn't have all the facts, they were on him. With Bush, they just about clapped when he pronounced a word right.
Post a Comment