Report: Media Biased AGAINST Obama

[Andy9o8 3]

There's been lots of commentary claiming that the news media seem biased in favor of Obama. Here's a study that reaches the opposite conclusion.


http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/28/media-biased-against-obama/?icid=100214839x1206715042x1200340828

Quote

Media Biased Against Obama

Now there's a headline sure to make Rush Limbaugh's face a little redder. The claim comes to us from George Mason University's Center for Media and Public Affairs, which has studied network newscasts for 20 years running. After analyzing the nightly ebb and flow of our current race, the center's researchers see a pattern

...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.


Just how does one measure "tougher," you ask?


During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks were 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.



Yes, it seems as though the "Big Three" (cable TV and print journalism were not looked at in the study) are so sensitive to the accusation of liberal bias that they're going out of their way to knock the Illinois senator.

McCain also has been the recipient of negative commentary, but not nearly to the same degree:


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.

[Trent 0]

What makes that study hard or impossible to accept is that watching tv, reading the newspapers, browsing online... you get a totally opposite picture. That's been my experience, and apparently it's similar to many many others' experiences.

Arguing that Obama isn't the media's golden boy is really really reaching...

Oh, hello again!

[lawrocket 3]

Hmm. It's not on their website. The website hasn't had any updates since before the Pennsylvania primary. And past releases were that the press boosted Obama and bashed Hillary.

I'm confused.

On top of that, the lefties say that the Center for Media and Public Affairs is a right-wing organization. The righties say they are left wing.

Which tells me it probably IS neutral.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

What makes that study hard or impossible to accept is that watching tv, reading the newspapers, browsing online... you get a totally opposite picture. That's been my experience, and apparently it's similar to many many others' experiences.

Arguing that Obama isn't the media's golden boy is really really reaching...

And how does your opinion of a politician alter your interpretation of the article?

Try a couple of headlines:
"Bush goes to Europe and is met by thousands of American flag burning protesters".
Is that an example of media bias?

"Obama goes to Europe and is met by thousands of American flag waving supporters".
Is that an example of media bias?

Is a story about public sentiment biased because of how it reflects on the politician?

[Trent 0]

Quote

And how does your opinion of a politician alter your interpretation of the article?

It doesn't. It just doesn't seem to be true at all. Percentages can be played with. Maybe the "study" is technically true, but more positive articles for Obama appeared as top stories. Who knows. I know what I see every day, and it's clearly more, and more favorable coverage for Obama.

Quote

Is a story about public sentiment biased because of how it reflects on the politician?

No, but the raw amount of coverage IS. Who can argue that it's normal to have as much coverage as Obama had on his euro-mideast campaign trip, for example?

And you used Bush as a comparison, but he isn't running. The comparison, in light of the OP, must be made to McCain.

Oh, hello again!

[rasmack 0]

In all fairness one should probably apply a more sophisticated method than just a counting average. I'm no American and I am thankful for not having to listen to all that election cr*p already, but I think I should point out that a better method here would be to

- apply a weight factor to commonly occuring words in the coverage of other politicians, say +10 to -10. This would give you a control sample.

- Apply the weights to the coverage of McCain and Obama thus giving a story about sadistic pedophilia a larger impact on your parameter than a possible inaccuracy in tax papers from 1978.

Such a method would ensure that boring "feel good" stories would have little impact while issues perceived as important would have a significant effect.

What I am saying is that we don't know if this is just an effect of different coverage profiles of the two. Are there more "family stories" on Obama's side (would be positive I'd guess)? Are there more stories from McCain's somewhat longer carrier (longer time = more "dirt")?

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[birdlike 0]

Quote

What makes that study hard or impossible to accept is that watching tv, reading the newspapers, browsing online... you get a totally opposite picture. That's been my experience, and apparently it's similar to many many others' experiences.

Arguing that Obama isn't the media's golden boy is really really reaching...

I agree.

I have gotten the overwhelming sense that the media consider Obama their "golden boy" as well. And what's more, the more it goes on, the more I keep thinking of him as Damien Thorn in the third Omen movie... Idolized, charismatic, adored, demagoguic, dishonest, two-faced... I just think that ill is going to come of it if he's elected to anything more than dog-catcher.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Percentages can be played with. Maybe the "study" is technically true, but more positive articles for Obama appeared as top stories. Who knows. I know what I see every day, and it's clearly more, and more favorable coverage for Obama.

In my observation Obama seems to be having a pretty good run of positive stories but I don't know if can attribute that to the media or to Obama. He's a very popular personality and the fact that he's so well received seems to be the story.
But also don't forget that he's had a history of constant press coverage, partially because of the hard fought battle with Hillary and also because of the mud fight that was brought on by the Hannity types.

Quote

Who can argue that it's normal to have as much coverage as Obama had on his euro-mideast campaign trip, for example?

As I mentioned above, his popularity overseas with both the citizenry as well as the leadership IS the story. When McCain went to meet with the same people a few months back I don't recall the public enthusiasm. Maybe it was there and not covered by the media but I'm having a difficult time believing that 200K German flag waving McCain supporters were not photographed and used by his campaign manager.

[Trent 0]

Quote

As I mentioned above, his popularity overseas with both the citizenry as well as the leadership IS the story. When McCain went to meet with the same people a few months back I don't recall the public enthusiasm. Maybe it was there and not covered by the media but I'm having a difficult time believing that 200K German flag waving McCain supporters were not photographed and used by his campaign manager.

I'm not 100% sure here... but I don't THINK that McCain arranged for his visit to include a free concert with 2 popular German bands and free brats and beer.

I feel like Obama is more marketing than substance and everything I read and see points in that direction.

Oh, hello again!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

I feel like Obama is all politicians are more marketing than substance and everything I read and see points in that direction.

Fixed.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

***
I'm not 100% sure here... but I don't THINK that McCain arranged for his visit to include a free concert with 2 popular German bands and free brats and beer.

Free brats and beer appears to be a rumor. There were apparently vendors selling those items. There does appear to be some live entertainment from "Patrice" and "Reamonn" before 7:00pm while people were waiting according to spiegel online international.

[Trent 0]

Quote

There does appear to be some live entertainment from "Patrice" and "Reamonn" before 7:00pm while people were waiting according to spiegel online international.

I think it's more along the lines of "People hadn't left yet after the concerts". I seriously doubt they'd have all been waiting there just to hear some foreign politician speak. Hell, if 2 bands I liked were playing, I'd stick around to see what some hyped up guy from another country had to say.

I wonder, did his campaign pass out the flags too?

Manufactured.

Oh, hello again!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

There does appear to be some live entertainment from "Patrice" and "Reamonn" before 7:00pm while people were waiting according to spiegel online international.

I think it's more along the lines of "People hadn't left yet after the concerts".....

Whatever makes you feel good dude.
Let's see, AC/DC in Donington drew about 65,000. And I think that Queen drew 250,000 in Rio. That's comparable. But looking at the pictures I'd say those two bands....(what were their names again?) sure draw a polite crowd. It was so very considerate of them to stick around and feign attentiveness and interest in Obama's speech. And if you look at the pics I promise you you'll find a McCain supporter if that helps.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Hey, if they were pro McCain then you wouldn't hear things like this in the mainstream media when he talks about his experience:

Quote

* 63% - How many votes in the Senate McCain has skipped during the 110th Congress (since January 2007).

* 96 - The number of Senate votes McCain has missed since his last recorded vote on April 8.

* 111 - The number of days since McCain last attended a committee hearing (of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on April 9).

* 25% - How many full SASC hearings McCain has attended during the 110th Congress.

* 89% - How many full SASC hearings McCain has skipped since April 2007 (32 out of the last 36 hearings).

* 2007 - The last year in which McCain attended any Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee hearings or subcommittee hearings.

The League of Conservation Voters noted in February that McCain has skipped every one of the 15 Senate votes on environmental issues that it deemed critical during this Congress.

McCain has so far abandoned his duties in the Senate that when he traveled to Colombia and Mexico 4 weeks ago to discuss trade and commerce, he felt obliged to treat it as a campaign rather than a congressional trip. Did I mention that he serves on the Senate Commerce Committee?

Oh wait...they are ignoring that! Only a few blogs from the Washington Post has gone over this.

But it's campaign time, it's impossible to work and do that! Well:

Quote

Barack Obama has been on the road too and missed 20 votes in the Senate since July 9 (many related to a single bill, S. 2731). Yet throughout the campaign Obama generally has not been absent from the Senate for any more than a couple weeks at a time.

You can find the rest here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/29/11201/1844/134/558201 (WOA! He just linked a liberal blog site, this entire post must be wrong then....or so the detractors that won't come up with counter proof will say.)

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[mnealtx 0]

Gotta love how they show McCain's numbers since the start of 110th Congress, and Obama's only since July... but of COURSE Kos is fair about it, right CBS?

Pah.

To give some ACTUAL numbers:

McCain has missed 398 votes (63.3%)
Obama has missed 281 votes (44.7%)

They are the two highest missed voters in Congress. Tim Johnson of SD is actually in between McC and BO, but I'm giving him a pass after a cerebral hemmorage in Dec '06. Hillary is right behind Obama with 202 votes missed (32.1%).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[vortexring 0]

Quote

I agree.

I have gotten the overwhelming sense that the media consider Obama their "golden boy" as well. And what's more, the more it goes on, the more I keep thinking of him as Damien Thorn in the third Omen movie... Idolized, charismatic, adored, demagoguic, dishonest, two-faced... I just think that ill is going to come of it if he's elected to anything more than dog-catcher.

Funny you say that. My Mrs said pretty much the same thing to me the other day.

And she's always right.

p.s. sorry for saying you're full of shit earlier.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Trent 0]

Quote

Let's see, AC/DC in Donington drew about 65,000. And I think that Queen drew 250,000 in Rio. That's comparable. But looking at the pictures I'd say those two bands....(what were their names again?) sure draw a polite crowd. It was so very considerate of them to stick around and feign attentiveness and interest in Obama's speech. And if you look at the pics I promise you you'll find a McCain supporter if that helps.

I've learned that no matter how bad Americans think the euro-music is, that they have huge followings over there. Weird.

Funny you mention AC/DC and Queen. I'm wondering..... would they have drawn bigger crowds if their venues not space limited and ummmm.... FREE???? Hmmm?

Hey, maybe you're right. Those Germans just love him so much they probably skipped the concert and just showed up before the speech. His popularity in Europe would just be one more reason to NOT vote for him.

Oh, hello again!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Those Germans just love him so much they probably skipped the concert and just showed up before the speech.

Dude - you ARE talking about people that idolize the Hoff, ya know...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

His popularity in Europe would just be one more reason to NOT vote for him.

Yep. The LAST thing we want is a president who ISN'T hated around the world.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

His popularity in Europe would just be one more reason to NOT vote for him.

Would you agree that it's easier to work with your allies when they like you?
We live in a globalized world: labor, markets, entertainment etc. is now global and that's not likely to change. We're falling behind in education, innovation and health. We have two significant powers over the rest of the world, the ability to consume and the ability to blow up anyone and everyone on the planet. Neither of those are particularly marketable. The next few Presidents are going to have to work WITH other countries, not against them. As recent history indicates, working against them is expensive and counter productive.

[mnealtx 0]

Amazing how we should listen to world opinion when it's OUR leaders or our government being discussed, but we should shut up about anyone ELSE's leaders or government.

People keep forgetting that it's the President of the UNITED STATES...not the free world. Is it best to have someone that can effectively work with other world leaders? Absolutely. Should I let what someone from another country thinks of my government/President sway me in my vote? Fuck no.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Trent 0]

No comment on the concert being free and space unlimited then?

And I want our president to do what's best for us and our constitutional rights. If the rest of the world went wacky commie on us, I would LOVE that they did not like a leader of ours who stood up to that shit.

The US is not like the rest of the world in many great ways and a few bad ones. I don't really want a leader that puts foreign opinions above ours.

Oh, hello again!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

No comment on the concert being free and space unlimited then?

Not really, no. You think the concert drew the crowd and you're entitled to your opinion. I think that you're looking for any possible justification to explain the turnout other than that people want to see/hear him. He gets record turnouts wherever he goes, inspired record turnouts during the primaries and is driving record turnout for new voter registration.
Ok, so I guess I do have a comment.

Quote

And I want our president to do what's best for us and our constitutional rights. If the rest of the world went wacky commie on us, I would LOVE that they did not like a leader of ours who stood up to that shit.

Agreed, because then we might be under an immediate threat that would justify the use of our military, as per the Constitution, which would be in direct contrast to the current region building exercise.

Quote

The US is not like the rest of the world in many great ways and a few bad ones. I don't really want a leader that puts foreign opinions above ours.

Neither do I. But I want one that recognizes and respects those opinions. As Mike pointed out, we are not electing the President of the World, which means that you work with your foreign counterparts. You don't dictate their policies.
If Bush's arrogant and aggressive policies would have resulted in something positive for the country then maybe there's an argument to be made supporting his actions, and imperialistic one but at least you could weigh the cost to the benefit. But that's not the case.
He's leaving us a train wreck and we're going to have to pick up the tab for clean up.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

...His popularity in Europe would just be one more reason to NOT vote for him.

Look mate, it's just that easy: After years and years the US got out of control under these Bush monkeys' regency, we were too curious about the possible follower. He should be on eye level with us (Europe), no?



PS: What are we (the Europeans) losing if he will lose? Nothing. So, what?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Gotta love how they show McCain's numbers since the start of 110th Congress, and Obama's only since July... but of COURSE Kos is fair about it, right CBS?

Pah.

To give some ACTUAL numbers:

McCain has missed 398 votes (63.3%)
Obama has missed 281 votes (44.7%)

They are the two highest missed voters in Congress. Tim Johnson of SD is actually in between McC and BO, but I'm giving him a pass after a cerebral hemmorage in Dec '06. Hillary is right behind Obama with 202 votes missed (32.1%).

Big surprise re: all 3 of them.
Re: giving Johnson a pass: you're such a wuss.