Ronald Reagan wanted the press to be stenographers with amnesia–unthinking robots who meticulously record what the candidates say without processing it, a self-serving goal of a would-be master spinner. But data is processed, in this case for its importance. Assuming that each gaffe is only a momentary mental lapse (which I would say is clearly the case with Obama, whom even his worst enemies would concede probably does know the number of US states, while McCain has made the same gaffe repeatedly and even his strongest supporters would concede that McCain knows less about the internal religious factions of the Middle East than Obama does about the basic facts of the US government), who is offended by each misstatement? Obama’s error (if error it was–since he was trying to describe the number of contests in non-states, such as Washington DC, Guam et al, and simply described them all as “states”) offends no one, other than schoolchildren, perhaps, trying to master the number of US states. McCain’s OTOH is a problem if he were to persist in mixing up Shias and Sunnis when he is in office, displaying a lack of respect for people we will need to negotiate serious US foreign policy issues with in the coming years. If they think he doesn’t know–or doesn’t care to keep straight–basic facts about their society, that could be a serious problem. So the attention McCain’s gaffe drew is due to the importance of the mistatement, not to any bias of the press.
This was either a very poorly chosen example of media bias, Shodan, or or a ludicrously desperate attempt to paint inequalities as equal. I suspect the latter. You’re far too careful with words to have made such a gross error inadvertently.
So you’ve combined purely personal anecdotal evidence with a studious failure of imagination and come up with systemic media bias. Well done - we’re all falling over with the putative force of your insight here.
But let’s be a little more sophisticated in the approach for second. Even given your sample size of n of 1, might CNN’s coverage have something to do with Obama’s campaign simply being better run in terms of deploying better surrogates to punditry land, and being tactically better at promote its cause in the media, and sucking oxygen from the McCain campaign? Might it also have something to do with Obama’s clear popular momentum, which creates a self-reinforcing effect for any commercial outlet that is biased towards political narration and sensationalism? Might it also be that as the historic first black candidate ever, running against an old white guy, that Obama’s personal charisma and celebrity aura simply gives him an edge in terms of commercial newsworthiness?
When talking about biased coverage, it’s absolutely pointless when you don’t even try to make a rudimentary effort at a control. Gross frequency tells us nothing.
Yeah, that’s why Gibson grilled Obama for 90 minutes about wearing a flipping flag pin, whilst handling McCain with kid gloves. That’s why Obama gets constantly harangued about socialism and endless trivia.
Obama has been the victim of constant xenophobic smears and innuendo, so you have some temerity to suggest that he’s the one who is race baiting and polarising.
Except those articles are clearly wrong. Whites vote for Obama strongly. Indeed, the only group where McCain has any advantage is whites with no more than high school education, evangelicals and Republicans. Obama leads in all other demographics, including all other white cohorts and minorities. Are they all racist too?
But even cursory research would have showed you that, so I guess I’m beginning to feel sceptical about the sincerity of your remarks here.
What are you alleging here? If you’re trying to say black people only support Obama because he’s black, then their consistent support of white Democratic Presidential candidates proves exactly the opposite.
Anyway, the figures are closer to 95% and 88%, which hardly tells us much; any ethnic or religious flavour to a candidate can be expected to elicit such a boost in that demographic. It is hardly sinister. Or do you not think Kennedy didn’t win any more Catholics than the average Democrat?
On the other hand, if you’re trying to suggest there some kind impropriety about blacks favouring Democrats, then you’re just showing your ignorance of history. The black vote used to split approximately 35-45% during the time of Eisenhower. It’s no mystery why there was such a dramatic consolidation of black support for the Democratics in modern times. The Republican party became home to the racists and Dixiecrats, they used code language to oppose things like the Civil Rights Act, and generally embraced the racially divisive Southern Strategy.
Even as a Caucasian person, I find that to be significant and ongoing moral degeneracy associated with the Republican Party, why would black people?
When there are such obvious and natural readings for their support, I frankly find this spectre of illegimacy that some people try to raise against black choices to be belittling and infantilising. Invariably we hear similar crap from some right-wing libertarians who are so caught up in their ideological battle against the welfare state, that they cannot but see support solid support as a sign of irrationality.
I’m not saying you’re a racist, though you appear to have chronically misinformed views and you’ve demonstrated in this post the paucity of your thinking about race, politics and political dialogue.
At this point I’m calling BS on you being a Democrat. It’s clear you’re not. So why pretend otherwise?
Obama has gotten more brutal scutiny and vicious, negative coverage than any candidate in recent memory. Palin and McCain have basically gotten a free ride. Especially Palin.
If the media coverage was fair, we wouldn’t be seeing garbage about Wright and Ayers, and we’d be hearing more about Palin’s ethics violations, secessionist leanings and extreme social policies.
In a world with more objective media, Obama would be double digits ahead instead of mid single digits.
No one is totally even handed and objective, so even if things were able to be presented in that way, which is impossible, the information would be processed as it is presently, though the filter of our perceptions and prejudices.
It isn’t a fact that Obama has skated through while McCain has been unfairly attacked. Consider the two candidates respective choices for VEEP. McCain made a risky choice of an unknown and set off an entirely foreseeable media feeding frenzy about his choice and her background. McCain supporters view that as another example of biased and unfair treatment, but as I said it was entirely foreseeable conduct that he brought upon himself, so who’s fault is it, the media’s or McCain’s? Obviously it was McCain’s fault. When you make bad choices and the media hops all over you about them, that isn’t the media’s fault.
That’s the point, and I apologize for not expressing it better. McCain and his supporters considers the treatment he and his selection received to be biased and unfair treatment at the hands of the liberal media, when it was wasn’t.
Huh? The OP asked for an opinion. I gave it. You want a cite that what I gave is actually my opinion? Of course my response to that would have to be “my post is my cite”. The OP posed a hypothetical and asked what we thought would be the case. Maybe you heard that I’m working on a Multiple Reality Assessment Simulator. Unfortunately, it is not ready yet.
Now if you want a cite that I think would prove or convince you and other deniers, that’s something else. Something I have no desire to waste my time on. But I did come across this.I don’t offer it’s contents as anything that will penetrate the wall of denial, only as another thing you can handwave away.
Also, we may say with certainty that the “PUMA” phenomenon is hurting McCain far more than Obama. And it’s hurting him because he’s made some very, very poor choices. Not all the defectors say McCain’s campaign is craptacular, but many do.
Really, it would be a huge injustice for McCain to win. No one who runs such a crappy campaign deserves to win an election.
For the benefit of those of you poor souls who are not fluent in baseball, Lincecum and Zito were both pitchers for the 2008 San Francisco Giants. Lincecum, though younger than Zito, was considerably better than Zito was last year.
For the last time. It isn’t racist to vote for Obama because he’s black. Anyone who believes that it is just doesn’t have any meaningful cpomprehension of racism.
Trying to get somebody into the tent is not the same as trying to keep them out.
While this is absolutely true, the contention that I have heard repeatedly voiced – and to which I must most strenuously object – is that the only conceivable motivation for not voting for Obama is racism.
Obviously that’s wrong too, but I don’t think I’ve really heard it alleged that often. More often, I’ve seen it suggested that enough racist voting could cost Obama the election. I think some people interpret that as an allegation that anyone who votes against Obama would be racist, but I think that’s a misreading. It’s really just a fear that the percentage of racist voters might be high enough to cost Obama the election. I think there can’t be any real question that some percentage of that kind of voting will occur, and perhaps that percentage will be non-trivial, but I still think it will be only a small percentage of total McCain voters.
I think that most of those voting for McCain will be doing it for the same reasons they always vote Republican – abortion, guns, taxes, etc.