Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

[classicman]

Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.

The few instances where I think the press has gone too far -- such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain's daughter's MySpace friends -- can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media? So why weren't those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.

Michael S. Malone is one of the nation's best-known technology writers. He has covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury News as the nation's first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times.

[DanaC]

Except that TV news has way more impact than the newspaper press and there seems to be plenty of anti-Obama stuff on there.

[classicman]

Hardly! Please cite. He is the media darling.
I just hope he is all they made him out to be.

[DanaC]

Fox news.

I hear it has quite a high viewing audience.

[lookout123]

Fox news is shit, to be sure, but as a portion of the total volume of crap out there they are only a small part. The rest of the media does seem infatuated with Obama.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

The rest of the media does seem infatuated with Obama.

News is reported based on fundamental facts. Obama is running a clean and well organized campaign. McCain's campaign has suffered from schizophrenia ever since it inherited right wing Republican extremists on the staff. McCain's campaign was lead by moderates; voted for by moderate Republicans and independents. The same campaign was changed weeks before the Republican convention as it inherited right wing extremist Republicans. The campaign that earned McCain a Republican nomination would have never considered or selected Sarah Palin. His campaign now suffers from schizophrenia. As a result, McCain had to personally condemn his own supporters for promoting hate and racism. And that is what is properly reported in the news.

You can view that as bias. But the bottom line is that McCain was the adversary of and has condemned the same people who blindly support George Jr. Now McCain must ask for their support when their extremist agenda is difficult for McCain to accept.

On the day that AIG was crashing, McCain's speech writers wrote what they had written for George Jr. "The fundamentals of our economy are sound." Just another example of the schizophrenia since even McCain knew that was not true. Now McCain’s campaign must throw dirt and lies rather than deal with fundamental issues.

How does McCain claim to represent the interests of America without also condemning “Mission Accomplished”, the all but protect bin Laden action, this economic meltdown directly traceable to Republican party welfare to the rich and outright government corruption (K Street), destruction of the Oslo Accords, the foolish and embarrassing Middle East conference in Annapolis, and even how a silly spy plane incident was handled. How does McCain show he would never be that stupid and yet still get votes from wacko extremist George Jr supporters? McCain’s problem is apparent in the news stories – that some call bias.

Unhelpful is George Jr who calls for more corporate welfare. George Jr is now offering GM some of the $700billion TARP only intended to thaw credit markets. It’s no accident that George Jr would protect anti-American GM and its corrupt management - just as George Jr also enriched Haliburton. If McCain was running a McCain campaign, then he would have lead the charge against continuous George Jr corruption. The McCain whose campaign now contains wacko extremists cannot properly criticize George Jr. Just another reason why McCain is losing moderate and indepdent support – the people who nominated McCain to oppose those extremists.

Schizophrenia is a fact that belongs in the news. Schizophrenia because McCain had so often been critical of what Urbane Guerrilla, TheMercenary, classicman, and lookout123 have so often posted.

[TheMercenary]

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
By Meg Sullivan| 12/14/2005 5:36:31 PM
While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...px?RelNum=6664


Although we expected to find that most media lean left, we were astounded by the degree. A norm among journalists is to present “both sides of the issue.” Consequently, while we expected members of Congress to cite primarily think tanks that are on the same side of the ideological spectrum as they are, we expected journalists to practice a much more balanced citation practice, even if the journalist’s own ideology opposed the think tanks that he or she is sometimes citing. This was not always the case. Most of the mainstream media outlets that we examined (ie all those besides Drudge Report and Fox News’ Special Report) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than they were to the median member of the House.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

[piercehawkeye45]

And at some Palin ralleys people are shouting "terrorist" or "kill him" when Obama's name came up. Obama was accused of going to extremist Islamic school, was constantly railed for his last and middle name, was said to have the same views as Reverend Wright and Ayers, and had his wife's love for America questioned. All of this was done by THE MEDIA.

Attacks come and have came from both sides.

The reason Obama is the "media's darling" is because he will get ratings. Obama-fever has swept America so it is natural for the media to talk him up. He is younger, fresher, more charismatic, better looking, black (or half-black), and very popular. Of course he will get more attention.

The same media was viciously promoting the Iraq War and greatly helped Clinton get impeached. It works both ways.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

And at some Palin ralleys people are shouting "terrorist" or "kill him" when Obama's name came up.

And she hushed them. As did McCain. As did Obama. Biden, well maybe not. None of the rest of your post changes the fact that the media is, has been, and will most likely always be, left leaning. It is their nature. I think it is also a product of who goes into the business.

[Aliantha]

I don't agree that the media has always been left leaning although at the moment it seems to be in the US and also in Australia.

eta: Trends come and go. The media is only doing what's going to get it ratings. At the moment, that's to be nice about liberal politicians. At other times in history, that has not been the case.

My theory is that since George was elected, he's given the media so much to play with, not only with is war on terror, but also with all the stupid things he says. Combine the two and you're going to get media taking the piss out of the man and his politics. If he'd been a better President, I think you'd find the media would have been much kinder to the McCain/Palin camp.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

My theory is that since George was elected, he's given the media so much to play with, not only with is war on terror, but also with all the stupid things he says...

Oh, yeah? Name one!

[Trilby]

(that's a joke, ali. I am a rather fond, if cringing, collector of Bushisms--only Yogi Berra comes close in sheer quantity of WTF-isms)

[Aliantha]

I knew it was a joke.

[Trilby]

oh, good. Not too sure how the ol' hormones are holding up with you now! I recall being a bit hormonal during my pregnancies and then again last year when it allllllllllll went away!!! No worries!

[Aliantha]

Hormones are pretty good at the moment, although I think I've had a boost of serotonin since dazza got home, so my humour bone might be working better than other times.