Media bias favors McCain, not Obama

[Whack-a-Mole]

@kidchameleon

Oh yeah, you got me there. Since the data do not provide conclusive answers, this has altered the past and John McCain didn’t run for the presidency back in 2000.
Way to fight ignorance!

I honestly have no idea why your quote got caught in there with Magiver’s. I was not responding to you and apologize for the confusion.

My ignorance in this case seems to be proper operation of this message board. :smack:

[kidchameleon]

@Whack-a-Mole

I honestly have no idea why your quote got caught in there with Magiver’s. I was not responding to you and apologize for the confusion.

My ignorance in this case seems to be proper operation of this message board. :smack:

Good thing I didn’t whip out the :rolleyes: in my response, or we’d probably be brawling in the pit for no good reason.

[Magiver]

@Whack-a-Mole

::sigh::

I’ll try this once again…read their conclusions (bolding mine to help):

Still confused. your post talked about a newspaper deliberately withholding a damning video of Obama. There should be a pile-on of news outlets trying to bring this forward as part of the vetting process.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Magiver

Still confused. your post talked about a newspaper deliberately withholding a damning video of Obama. There should be a pile-on of news outlets trying to bring this forward as part of the vetting process.

Huh?

You responded to BrainGlutton that MediaMatters cannot be trusted because they are a liberal funded organization. So I provided a different cite to a study done by the Pew Research Center which likewise said it could not find conclusive evidence of overt bias one way or another.

The damning video of Obama was something brought up by someone else. I merely provided a link that talked about that video. A different issue entirely and personally a bogus one I think but not what I was after you about.

Re-read the thread.

[Magiver]

@Whack-a-Mole

Huh?

You responded to BrainGlutton that MediaMatters cannot be trusted because they are a liberal funded organization. So I provided a different cite to a study done by the Pew Research Center which likewise said it could not find conclusive evidence of overt bias one way or another.

The damning video of Obama was something brought up by someone else. I merely provided a link that talked about that video. A different issue entirely and personally a bogus one I think but not what I was after you about.

Re-read the thread.

**The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one. **

That would jive with my opinion that Obama was not properly vetted by the MSM.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Magiver

**The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one. **

That would jive with my opinion that Obama was not properly vetted by the MSM.

Not sure how that follows from what you quoted.

The media did not delve into Wright or Ayers enough for you? Rezko passed without a mention?

Where did the media miss the boat? Only adherence to the conservative preconceived notions is proof of no bias for you?

And the bottom line of the Pew report still cannot be ignored which is they found no convincing evidence of a media bias which goes to the OP. Neither did MediaMatters in their study but you hand waved that one away.

[MovieMogul]

@Magiver

**The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one. **

That would jive with my opinion that Obama was not properly vetted by the MSM.

Or, there could be a less paranoid reason:

Before answering the question, indulge us in noting that the subject of ideological bias in the news media is a drag. The people who care about it typically come at the issue with scalding biases of their own. Any statement journalists make on the subject can and will be used against them. So the incentive is to make bland and guarded statements. Even honest ones, meanwhile, will tend to strike partisans as evasive or self-delusional…

There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site — when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring — has made us cringe.

As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.

Beyond the particular circumstances of McCain v. Obama, there are other factors in any race that almost always matter more than the personal views of reporters.

The strongest of these is the bias in favor of momentum. A candidate who is perceived to be doing well tends to get even more positive coverage (about his or her big crowds or the latest favorable polls or whatever). And a candidate who is perceived to be doing poorly tends to have all events viewed through this prism.

Not coincidentally, this is a bias shared by most of our sources. This is why the bulk of negative stories about McCain are not about his ideology or policy plans — they are about intrigue and turmoil. Think back to the past week of coverage on Politico and elsewhere: Coverage has been dominated by Sarah Palin’s $150,000 handbags and glad rags, by finger-pointing in the McCain camp, and by apparent tensions between the candidate and his running mate.

These stories are driven by the flood of Republicans inside and out of the campaign eager to make themselves look good or others look bad. This always happens when a campaign starts to tank. Indeed, there was a spate of such stories when Obama’s campaign hit turmoil after the GOP convention and the Palin surge.

For better or worse, the most common media instincts all have countervailing pressures. Countering the bias in favor of momentum is the bias against boredom. We’ve seen that several times this cycle — an outlying poll number being pumped to suggest big changes in a race that is basically unchanged. There’s a good chance you’ll see this phenomenon more in the next week.

Then there is the bend-over-backward bias. This is when journalists try so hard to avoid accusations of favoritism that it clouds critical judgment. A good example were stories suggesting Palin held her own or even won her debate against Joe Biden when it seemed obvious she was simply invoking whatever talking points she had at hand, hanging on for dear life.

They don’t claim to be perfect, but at least they’re somewhat self-aware about the issue and are thoughtful about the potential for bias out there. I’ve yet to see a Right-friendly site that isn’t similarly circumspect (since they’re usually too busy playing martyr at how “unfair” everything is “always” depicted).

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Whack-a-Mole

The media did not delve into Wright or Ayers enough for you? Rezko passed without a mention?

Only because the Clinton campaign brought it up. I can’t remember how far back the Ayers controversy goes.In any case, the charges have been poo poohed and the media line is they are irrelevant.

Even the famously non-partisan Larry King has shown bias in recent weeks. Quickly cutting off responses to his questions by McCain supporters and asking questions of them like “Do you really believe Ayers…”

What I find interesting is the “unbiased” Media Matters bringing up an issue of McCain real estate dealings that weren’t even brought up by the Obama campaign to compare to Rezko. If the Obama campaign hasn’t made an issue of it could it be there’s no story there?

[Fish]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

If the Obama campaign hasn’t made an issue of it could it be there’s no story there?

I couldn’t arrive at that conclusion. At best I could say the Obama campaign doesn’t perceive an advantage in pursuing that story — that’s not the same thing as saying there’s no story.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Only because the Clinton campaign brought it up. I can’t remember how far back the Ayers controversy goes.In any case, the charges have been poo poohed and the media line is they are irrelevant.

Even the famously non-partisan Larry King has shown bias in recent weeks. Quickly cutting off responses to his questions by McCain supporters and asking questions of them like “Do you really believe Ayers…”

What I find interesting is the “unbiased” Media Matters bringing up an issue of McCain real estate dealings that weren’t even brought up by the Obama campaign to compare to Rezko. If the Obama campaign hasn’t made an issue of it could it be there’s no story there?

And if there is no story with the Media Matters article why cannot it also be true there is no story with Ayers?

I honestly think Ayers has not gotten traction because the main stream media is, generally, populated by reasonably intelligent people with some critical thinking skills. There is just nothing there and even so the media tried (lord knows FOX “News” beat it to death). They like nothing more than a good kerfuffle to stir the pot. It sells papers. At the end of the day Ayers was a pure fabricated bullshit smokescreen. Larry King is not stupid and despite liking controversy as much as any reporter could not continue to parrot that crap.

[kaylasdad99]

@Magiver

**The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one. **

That would jive with my opinion that Obama was not properly vetted by the MSM.

In many instances, I might be tempted to point out that the word “jibe” more accurately conveys your likely meaning.

But, on reflection, I’ve decided that your way is better.

[What_the]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

If you can’t cite it how the hell do you know about it?

How would a cite prove my point?

Why don’t you post a few cites from all the straight down the middle media calling for the LA Times to release the Khalidi tape?

[Marley23]

It’s far too simplistic to say the media favors one candidate over the other. Media coverage is skewed in certain ways, primarily ratings-driven, that can favor one candidate over another at different times for different reasons. Momentum, as already mentioned, is one major skewing factor. “Narrative” (‘stuff we have been speculating about for months’) is another, “the newest thing” is another. There has been constant coverage of race and racism issues in this campaign, although it has rarely been an issue in any conclusive way. That is not favorable to Obama in my opinion. It helped keep Rev. Wright in the news for an absurd amount of time in the spring.

On the other hand, the “newest thing” issue DOES mostly favor him. That coverage of Obama as a phenomenon [what I call the Obamanomenon[sup]TM[/sup]] also paved the way for McCain’s “celebrity” ad, which did hurt Obama in the polls for a while as best I can tell, and the charges that the media loves Obama, which were dealt with by SNL, for example.

And let’s not overlook the bias in favor of drama, which I don’t think anyone has discussed. That’s the source of every “the polls are tightening” story - it’s probably not doing much of anything for McCain but I think it did make Clinton’s primary chances of victory look far stronger than they really were. “Obama has a huge lead” is a one-time story, you can’t really follow up on it much. “Obama maintains lead” is boring. So if a poll shows the national gap narrowing a little or McCain getting a little closer in a key state, that gets more emphasis.