Slashdot Mirror
Press Favored Obama Throughout Campaign
narcberry writes "After complaints of one-sided reporting, the Washington Post checked their own articles and agreed. Obama was clearly favored, throughout his campaign, in terms of more favorable articles, less criticism, better page real-estate, more pictures, and total disregard for problems such as his drug use. 'Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics. The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that. McCain clinched the GOP nomination on March 4, three months before Obama won his. From June 4 to Election Day, the tally was Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both.'"
They will probably say something similar to that old Politico [yahoo.com] story that basically says, "We had to give Obama better coverage. It's not our fault that McCain sucks".
Well, you can't rally refute that.
In another survey, the Dali Lama consistently got more favorable press coverage than Kim Jong-il.
The whole election was a complete farce and "you people" are arguing over whether the media is liberal? The Republican party ran the most unelectable ticket possibly in its history with a man dying from cancer paired with a psychotic dingbat in order to force the election to the Democrats this year - but Obama voted both for FISA and for the $700B handout, so clearly he is in favor of illegal wiretaps and handouts for the rich. The Media has been married to the government ever since Hearst utilized his (news) paper industry to attack the (hemp) paper industry by demonizing marijuana - which not only served the goals of the group within the government to which he belonged, but also helped protect his (wood pulp) paper industry. And just in case anyone thinks that McCain had anything to do with his choice of running mate, candidates really DON'T get to make that kind of choice themselves. Their party assigns them a running mate, and they do as they are told. An amusing anecdote along these lines is that when Reagan was paired with Not-Yet-Mass-Murderer-George-Pervert-Fucker-Bush, his response was "anyone but that guy" - but we made the former head of the CIA our vice president, and the rest is history.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The press didn't favor Obama, fucking REALITY fucking favored Obama. Is it his fault he was more interesting than the other guy? Is it the media's fault? This article makes me very angry. If a volcano erupts in the middle of the Atlantic, is it legally required to get the same media coverage as a volcano that erupts in the middle of Tokyo? MORE INTERESTING THINGS DESERVE, AND GET, MORE NEWS COVERAGE. Obama was interesting. McCain was not. Is every newspaper obligated to split their front page down the middle and print mirror image articles about how great and wonderful every action of each of the twin candidates is? Does the fucking Washington Post even realize that it's not their obligation to print the exact same number of articles about everyone who runs for president? ARGH. Stupidity.
I always like how the "liberally biased media" claim is laid out there with no explanation. Yes, people who are more educated and more well read tend to be more liberal than those who pride themselves on ignorance. While, of course, there are people all over the spectrum at all education levels, those that seek to understand more actually have a better chance to build up compassion, which, despite being one of the main tenants of the Christian faith, somehow has earned the label "liberal". McCain's campaign, and especially the Palin portion of it, was one that celebrated ignorance, defining the most ignorant among us as heroes and creating campaigns of fear that prey on ignorance. Is it any surprise that there is more to write about knowledge than the absence of knowledge?
Brilliant! That's my point exactly. The press (assuming for the same of simplicity that they act in unison) may have made a decision as to who was the better candidate and thrown their weight behind that one. Whether that was a good or bad idea is not the point. I'm trying to highlight the fact that the exercise of free speech does have an impact upon those around you, and thus we cannot ignore irresponsibly used speech to go by hand waving and mumbling something about a free press.
We all, for example, complain when Fox news pushed that fear mongering article about the Anonymous hackers, or when copyright violators are talked about like raping psychos, or any other thing we don't like.
Yet, when other people complain about the media saying things that they don't like (such as some religion complaining about an offensive remark) we deride that group because we don't care about the remark made.
I'm not saying that one is right or wrong, just that we have to recognize and factor into our internal decision making process and our internal ethical systems the fact that free speech is not inert, it is in fact a very powerful tool, and, like any other powerful tool, can be dangerous if used carelessly.
You, dear sir, go in the "yes" column :)
I hate printers.
Perhaps it's because Obama actually had something interesting to say. Something with a little thought behind it. Something that the other candidate did not. The Press is about giving coverage to news ... new developments, new ideas. If one candidate has something interesting to say, and the other does not, well you will get a bias. An unbiased Press is not necessarily about giving both candidates 50% page real estate and 50% of the positive stories.
[rant mode on]
And then there is Governor Palin. Articles about her were generally negative, but is that the fault of the Press? It beats me how anyone can write a positive article about someone that clueless. Someone who muffs interviews because she can't be bothered to prepare for them (against the advice of the campaign staff), and who has the brazen presumption to consider herself suitable for the office of VP or even the Presidency (in case her running mate suddenly retires for lack of a pulse) and doesn't know whether Africa is a country or a continent.
Some people might say that a VP candidate doesn't need to know one end of the world map from another (for the record, I disagree), so lets judge her on her professed area of competence. Our "energy expert" has this to say:
Ah right. Presiding over the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commissions counts as "working on energy independence"? And her "oversight" brought something to the table? *shrugs* And how about that claim of 20% of our energy production? Well, factcheck.org disagreed with our little "expert":
Right. Right. Mistaking 14% of our domestic energy production for 20% is all in a day's work. A detail. And confusing 20% of our domestic oil production with 20% of our energy production is something any "expert" would have trouble keeping apart, am I right? And mistaking 14% of our domestic oil production for 3.5% of our total energy production is another trivial mistake. Sheesh. I like it when a politician knows what he or she is talking about. Especially regarding "what she brings to the table".
Ah well ... perhaps I'm too gloomy. Perhaps I'm missing something. Some golden glimmer of insight somewhere in all gaffes. You never know. Only I wouldn't know how to write a positive article about that, but then I'm no trained journalist.
On the contrary. I'm biased against terminal ignorance. In students it's not that bad: they don't pretend to know it all and they are generally willing to learn. And they typically *do* learn before the end of term. Most of them.
Unfortunately politicians don't *have* to learn. For them it's an optional extra that takes valuable time from doing appearances. Some do learn (Governor Schwarzenegger for example). Some don't.
[rant mode off]
It's true, unbiased sources might give slightly more coverage to the more popular candidate. However, we shouldn't find "more favorable articles, less criticism, better page real-estate, more pictures, and total disregard for problems such as his drug use".
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I will agree though, that the media has abandoned almost entirely any sense of journalistic integrity that they once had. Witness the last eight years of White House reporters rolling onto their backs and peeing on themselves rather than risking the wrath of those who assigned the seats. The Bush Administration's disgraceful mistreatment of the press corp, the traditional medium by which the workings of our government are made know to those whom it ostensibly represents, would not have worked had there been a more universal refusal to dummy-up and not ask hard questions.
Oh, and by the way, the McCain/Palin campaign was very long on appeals to mouth-breathing Fox news watchers and relatively short (very short) on intelligent, well-thought-out solutions to problems that Americans are concerned about. In other words, lying to the American people that "Obama, who pals around with terrorists, ya know, , is going to raise your taxes..." isn't exactly offering up a credible solution. The Obama campaign, which communicated at length and in detail about what they would actually do can hardly be faulted for observing this disparity. John McCain continued to embrace the discredited "trickle-down" voodoo that has been such a disaster every single time it has been foisted on the American people. Again, observing this fact is not "negative" when you have actually offered up the details of an alternative.
Why even bother to have elections any more then? Let's just put Mensa in charge and walk away. That should work, right. Right?
"Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."
Given that in WW2 we were fighting against right wing ideology
Keep repeating that and keep showing your ignorance. Nazi's were socialists ...
Nationalsozialist
You obviously don't know what a "right" or "left" wing is. The ultra right are .... anarchists. Ultra left are government solutions to every problem under the sun.
Socialist was kind of trendy and upbeat when the Nazis chose it. The Nazi party was into big government, limiting civil rights and preventitive war ... hmm
Taking a word out of its historical context and pretending it meant the same thing then as it does now is the rhetorical equivalent of wearing a dunce cap.
As a case in point the Liberal party in Switzerland is one of the right-wing parties along with the Radical party. There is a good historical explanation for this of course but that would require some intellectual flexibility on your part to understand it.
A)It's Democratic Party. Learn your political system.
B) Today's Republican's have all of the Nazi's love of Big Government, with the additional love of military and unquestioning patriotism.
There was more to Nationalsozialismus than just work programs, you know.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Well, the reason they didn't cover Ayers or the coal industry "story" is because those are both examples of right wing propaganda designed by and for dittoheads such as yourself. I'd like to add that if you really believe that the Ayers connection was anything other than a smear job, you lack the judgement and critical thinking skills a person should have to make an informed vote and you should avoid ever exercising your franchise.
The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
Since Faux News in one of the biggest news organizations around, I seriously doubt that 90% figure. I also strongly doubt it since this is the same figure quoted back in the 1970's. This "statistic" is bullshit and simply keeps getting repeated again and again ad nauseum over the decades.
Similar to the upcoming US election results