22 replies [Last post]
bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Study: Coverage of McCain vastly negative

Found these articles interesting.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10789105

BTW, Denver Post endorses Obama.

A longer AP article on the same topic.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiE-7-7YbMg-msHxLrN2b_g8RF7gD93VQU481

I find it strange that the authors could not find a bias despite the data showing an imbalance in positive to negative coverage when compared to Obama. Palin seems to get far more coverage than Biden, but a very high percentage of it is negative....

Peggy Noonan wrote a great piece column last week that was interesting as well, touch on the media basis as well.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/declarations.html

Moving on from the media bias topic... Peggy is right, regardless of what happens in the election the U.S. is still a center-right nation politically. If Obama wins and he does not at least stay center-left he will fail and fail quickly, the public simply will not tolerate far left. The problem is that his history in IL and his brief run in Congress, along with his associates, seems to show that he is not center-left but far left on most issues.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Study: Coverage of McCain vastly negative

Personally, I find it ridiculous that major newspapers would bristle at any accusation that their coverage is biased, and then announce that their official position is to endorse Obama for president.

Here's another one for you -- from ABC news, no less:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1776
Re: Study: Coverage of McCain vastly negative
bitmasher wrote:
Palin seems to get far more coverage than Biden, but a very high percentage of it is negative....

Peggy Noonan wrote a great piece column last week that was interesting as well, touch on the media basis as well.

Well duh......... Don't you think she brought a lot of that on herself. Hell, even prominent conservatives have expressed great disappointment in her due to her lack of polish or knowledge. Also, she has been an attack dog from day one. Talk about negative her whole campaigning has been smear attacks. She is even sticking a knife in Mccains back, now that she's sees it's pretty much a done deal, by starting to campaign for herself.

Tell you what she may fire up the base, people who live and breath evangelical religion and NRA members, but she turns off far to many Americans to ever gives you guys a chance at power if you decide to back her as the leader of the repub party. I hope you guys do though.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Study: Coverage of McCain vastly negative

Funny how they let Biden have a pass when he talked about Roosevelt going on TV after the stock market crash in '29, though, isn't it?

There you go again, SoCo..."The One has spoken...he has only been positive. The One has spoken...he has only been positive."

Learn to think for yourself.

Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Posts: 723
Study: Coverage of McCain vastly negative
Quote:
Personally, I find it ridiculous that major newspapers would bristle at any accusation that their coverage is biased, and then announce that their official position is to endorse Obama for president.

That's because newspapers largely have little contact between editorial writers and news writers. I watch Faux News and there is zero difference, a reporter is free to editorialize mid interveiw. I regularly watch interviewers argue for McCain. I'd suggest a look at some better sources. Read the Times, McCain staffers scurry to get copies when his plane stops, they know what he likes to read. Heck look at that long interview with his senior staff in last Sunday's magazine. They have a ton of neutral or postive stuff about him in the past 2 weeks.

Biden had a gaff, so what, the sky isn't falling.

Think about what has happened since the convention, a never ending series of terrible decisions mostly by Steve Schmitt. Tactical failures one after another lurching from bad to worse. Palin has been more of a negative than Bush, what a horrible mistake. Often I feel sorry for McCain, then I think of how he could have not endorsed Bush, and McCain knew what Bush is like.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Study: Coverage of McCain vastly negative

Soco and civetcat, if the decks were turned you would clearly say that the majority of the media is not playing fair. The media supports your choice in candidate and therefore you do not challenge the assumptions underlying the story. P.S. I don't watch or read fox on a regular basis.

For me at least, this election cycle, the media portrayal of the candidates, and the publics reaction to it; leave me having questions about our modern democracy.

Democracy goes beyond the three branches of government and the right to vote. Democracy's achilles heel is the citizens and the way they get there information about the candidates. Democracy requires a few things:

1.) An informed electorate.
2.) A critical thinking electorate.
3.) A vibrant and competitive media.

These three things are not mutually exclusive. The MSM is not competitive nor is it vibrant, many have written for years (I've posted links here) about the non-competitive nature of the media. This allows a few to shape the story and the presentation that the masses consume. This knocks-out point 1.

Palin is the poster-child of media influence in this election. America learned about her daughter's pregnancy before they learned about her. The only ones that really knew her background were AK residents. All she needed was a warm reception at the RNC and a few polls to show high interest with the potential VP and the media attack machine went into high gear.

Biden/Obama don't have to attack her, the media does it for them and passes it off as unbiased. I've never seen such venom in journalism and it disgusts me. First impressions are huge and the attacks started immediately because that is the most critical time for the media to influence opinion.

One could easily forget that Palin is a governor and has a high approval rating. The implied but unstated message is that Alaska is filled with fools, which is of course absurd.

Civetcat the point isn't that Biden made a "gaff", the point is that it was non-point with the media reporting. The same words uttered by Palin would have drawn the snickers of journalists on many fronts. Biden gets a pass.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Study: Coverage of McCain vastly negative

Well said, Bit. Dan Quayle misspelled "potato" back in '92, and the media's response is still legendary. Sarah Palin refused to fall into a Katie Couric gotcha by naming news sources, and they had a field day claiming she was out of touch.

But Biden claims that Roosevelt was president in '29 and went on TV, and they wave it off as irrelevant.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1776
Study: Coverage of McCain vastly negative
expatriate wrote:
Well said, Bit. Dan Quayle misspelled "potato" back in '92, and the media's response is still legendary. Sarah Palin refused to fall into a Katie Couric gotcha by naming news sources, and they had a field day claiming she was out of touch.

But Biden claims that Roosevelt was president in '29 and went on TV, and they wave it off as irrelevant.

Oh dear, oh wise one, please tell us of the great relevance we are missing by not getting our shorts in a bunch over the 29 thing! Should we riot in the streets over it?

Location: Butte, MT
Joined: 01/02/2006
Posts: 234
Study: Coverage of McCain vastly negative

Not trying to get personal here, but I notice that SoCo is not actually denying the basic premise of this thread. The media has covered McCain's campain mostly negatively and Obama mostly positively. The majority of the media has followed this guy around, fawning all over him, like a 15 year old girl with a crush on the team captain. This is pretty obvious, and regardless of who you intend to vote for, it should be recognized as a problem.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1776
Study: Coverage of McCain vastly negative
Sage of the Sage wrote:
Not trying to get personal here, but I notice that SoCo is not actually denying the basic premise of this thread. The media has covered McCain's campain mostly negatively and Obama mostly positively. The majority of the media has followed this guy around, fawning all over him, like a 15 year old girl with a crush on the team captain. This is pretty obvious, and regardless of who you intend to vote for, it should be recognized as a problem.

I believe much of the negative coverage had to do with them, not the media. Let's say Mccain picked someone like Condi Rice and she accepted his choice to run with him. I am no fan of Condi and wouldn't support her, but I would be guaranteed she would campaign and perform like a seasoned professional with class and dignity. Same could be said of a Kay Hutchinson. Again, I wouldn't agree with any of their policy stances, but they'd have my respect as capable candidates put forth by their party able to conduct campaigning with high intellect and knowledge.

Instead he chose Palin, refused to let the media speak to her when she's only running for the second most important position in our Government, and started her off like an attack dog throwing red meat to the rabid repub base. Then when interviewed due to her own ineptitude she sounded like a bumbling nitwit.

Face it, other then firing up the base, where most of them believe "that there obama feller is a muslim terrorist and you know dems are communists and want to steal my money, guns, and bible,!" She was a huge flop and contributed to many solid and high ranking members of the repub party to abandon ship.

Her and Mccain were negative from day one slinging slime and mud and that's why the coverage was negative, what they gave was negative. Obama's campaign for the most part has been run as efficiently as can be without the degree of venom spewing negativity the repubs have used so effectively now and in the past.

That's the reason rationale folks can see. But, repub diehards will follow their talking heads like limbaugh and coulter and cry about the "evil lib media" destroying the pure and honorable repubs.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Study: Coverage of McCain vastly negative

Obama hasn't been positive. He's been letting the media and underlings rip people apart while he sits back and claims that it isn't him.

His tactics are quite stale, as the Clintons have been using them for years. Have third parties do your dirty work for you, and if it goes badly, cut the person loose and claim you don't support them.

The only difference is that McCain and Palin don't have the media to do their dirty work for them, and are willing to stand by what they say rather than standing behind others.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Paris Hilton's mom wants her money backcivetcat508/06/2008 17:54 pm
The Right Is Wrong on McCainbitmasher1402/15/2008 08:45 am
Another broken campaign promisecowgal403/19/2009 08:51 am
NRA Interviews McCainbitmasher605/30/2008 21:07 pm
An interview with John McCainbitmasher107/31/2009 23:05 pm