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.'"
I'm glad someone is finally stating the obvious.
...the voters. Isn't it natural that the winning candidate will appeal to the journalists more aswell, than the losing one? Especially in a historic election as this one.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
What is really surprising is that this is news! The media has admitted to this weeks ago.
Even worse, you will see people deny that Obama was given better treatment than McCain. They will probably say something similar to that old Politico story that basically says, "We had to give Obama better coverage. It's not our fault that McCain sucks".
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
1) Go to Daily Kos or a similar site and retrieve a vanity post from 2004 whining about Bush stealing the election
2) Replace Bush with Obama, and post to FreeRepublic
3) Drink a shot everytime someone replies positively
4) Die of alcohol poisoning
Irony laden fun for the whole family.
If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
I don't see this as evidence of bias on the part of reporters, I see it at evidence of the Democratic Primary running as long as it did.
Also, the Republican campaign(s) threw a lot of mud which of course prompted coverage. If Mccain hadn't put Obama in the news so much, he wouldn't have been in the new so much. If the accusations had more merit the resulting coverage wouldn't have been as positive as it was.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
Of course there was a more favorable approach towards Obama, for all the reasons stated in the summary. I'd like to see a like-for-like comparison of Obama and McCain stories before the Republican sideshows of Sarah Palin and "Joe the Plumber" were introduced, because I did feel a lot more hate once they were on-board
The press over here in England still seem to be focused on the historic occasion of an African-American in power. It is a good thing and it has been noted, but I wish they would get back to focusing on how the right man won, regardless of race and what he is planning to do come January.
The media (with the exception of Fox News) has always had a pretty large liberal bias.
Really? To the rest of the world (or at least western Europe), even 'left wing' American newspapers appear hilariously conservative.
I ditched the TV 20 years ago, and the newspaper 5 years ago. I don't understand why anyone listens to the "main stream media" anymore. My in-laws think everything they see on TV "news" is Gospel, however.
Obama ran a better campaign?
Better campaigns get better press coverage. I know that sounds crazy, but generally people doing a good job get better reviews then people doing a bad job.
Of course, in the eyes of the idiocracy that is the modern Republican party, doing a good job is evil, and reporting on it is bias.
The goal of the media to sell advertising and papers. They do this by 'sexing' up the news as much as possible to make people want to read it. If it bleeds, it leads as they say. Why read boring stories about real substance when you can read Exciting! Stories! About Stars!
So its no surprise Obama had more favorabe coverage. He was by far the 'sexier' candidate.
(Tho Palin was hotter)
Do the numbers factor in Sarah Palin at all? I'm too lazy to sign up for the Post.
She was in the news quite a bit, at least a HECK of a lot more than Biden. I'm not saying her press was "good" but there was a lot of it.
Comparing Obama+Biden vs McCain+Palin probably results in closer numbers.
Besides, are we really surprised? Obama running as the Democrat nominee was history in the making. Of course he would get more press.
That's not "a pretty large liberal bias".
That is the Washington Post focusing on the easiest stories to "write". The ones that don't require any research. The ones that don't require any knowledge of the issues.
The election is done and over with. You can sleep now. [2]
And how exactly is this "News for Nerds" or, most importantly, "Stuff that Matters"????
I can't speak for other countries, but that was certainly the case here in Australia - Obama was being discussed as if he were already president, and McCain was rarely mentioned (the Americans being interviewed had to keep reminding the Australian reporters that McCain even existed). Perhaps it has something to do with the excitement of the possibility of the first black president, or perhaps the political alignment of Australia made us favour Obama, who knows?
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
Being outside America, I would agree that the media in the US by and large has, for the US, a liberal bias. But not "pretty large" by any measurement.
Fox News is an exception, but it is far more extreme "conservative" (if one can apply that label to such extremism) than the other outlets are liberal. Their use of the "fair and balanced" slogan is obscene (it would be false for other media outlets in the US also, but not remotely as ironic for any others).
The rest of mainstream American media would seem pretty centrist really outside the US, and much the same as the media here in Ireland which is mostly centre-left/right.
I stuck with US coverage of the election, as the Irish/UK coverage is rather "outsider looking in" no matter how well they tried to do it.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
Alright, put some numbers up. I've seen and heard comments like this for months, and the only numbers I've seen have come from Obama, numbers which contradict your assertion.
Come on, put up some factual data, with citations. You started a thread, back it up with something that can be verified and not some vague accusation like "He's a socialist" or "He said he's going to spread the wealth!"
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
What if all those stories were negative?
Isn't any pre-election article about one candidate also pretty much an article about their opponent(s)?
If I read an article about Candidate A concerning Issue X, isn't that article likely to mention Candidate B's stance on Issue X as well?
What if one candidate simply had more reportable news?
Simply having a greater number of stories written about you means absolutely nothing. If I'm a staunchly against Candidate A, it doesn't really matter how many stories I read about Candidate A's support of issues I disagree with... I'm still going to disagree with them. The Washington Post, I would say, has a fairly informed readership. There aren't many people that read it that are going to be making up their mind so close to an election.
sig.
Bush had a good run in the media especially in making "the case" in the war against Iraq. He got a nice handshake from the mainstream media then, but when the shoe is on the other foot it's like the end of the world. Besides, the Republicans got so unpopular after two Bush terms it would be hard enough ramming the same trash down people's throats again.
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
the sky is blue and water is wet.
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
Because the definition of "Nerd" has changed to somehow include the "Starbucks Mac Writers"
I'd say you've pretty much nailed it with that comment. A lot of the coverage of Obama was prompted by attacks that he was "pallin' around with terrorists" and whatnot. The press investigated, found that the concerns were baseless, and the result was what ammounts to a positive story for Obama. Then, of course, McCain keeps up the attacks and the press writes what ammounts to a negative story about how McCain is slinging mud on the campaign trail. It's not really that the press was biased (though I will give you that the media does tend to have a leftist tilt), so much as that they covered what was happening on the election trail. How was anyone supposed to spin the facts as a positive story for McCain? Obama, on the other hand, didn't give the press much chance to cover McCain. His attacks were far fewer, and according to most fact checkers nearly every one of them had merit.
One of the candidates (Obama) was a lot more newsworthy than the other, and the news coming out of both campaigns was decidedly different. You can't blame the press if MacCain campaign was all about a self-described "pitbull with lipstick" "hockey mom" with a $150K campaign wardrobe, a secessionist husband, and foreign policy experience that consisted of a geographical proximity to Russia. It's not the press making it up when McCain in rapid succession says he knows nothing about the economy, asserts that it is fundamentally sound, then suspends his campaign because he's so important in rescuing it (only to sit there silent in the meeting then return to his campaign). The press didn't make this stuff up - even the $150K clothes was somthing that was emphasized by disgruntled McCain insiders. The whole McCain campaign was about negativity - trying to shoot Obama down - while Obama's was much more positive - about change and hope and the future. You can't blame the press for reflecting the tone of the campaigns or reporting on their self-generated news (Joe the non-business-purchasing, non-plumber was even on the campaign trail with McCain), nor can you blame them for runnning more stories on the more newsworthy candidate. The press should be reporting on the news - they're not meant to be suppressing the differences and reporting both in equal column inches and in equally glowing terms ("Will Ameria elect historic first septuagenarian as president?", "Hitler sees bright future for germany!").
..."Reality has a strong liberal bias."
My take on this is that Obama's candidacy and success were in fact more newsworthy than McCain's. Obama changed the game in a lot of ways, both in terms of who he is and how he ran. McCain was more of a known quantity to begin with, and ran a fairly ordinary race. In fact, the most remarkable thing about McCain's campaign (apart from the stunt-casting VP pick, which generated plenty of news)was that it was so painfully typical, where McCain used to do things more his own way.
In short, if McCain had made more news, he might have gotten more headlines. Instead, he was mostly yesterday's news.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Indeed, journalism is dead. The only difference between the "mainstream media" and conservative talk radio is that the radio people are more honest, as in they admit that what they are doing is opinion, and state plainly their stances whilst the old media pretends to be "unbiased".
BTW, could it be that people are waking up to this have something to do with ALL the major newspapers losing circulation rapidly, and the Big 3 networks also continuing to lose viewers? Fox News is #1 not because they are any less biased, but because they ALONE in major media gives voice to the other side.
Corporatism != Free Market
On NPR's Talk Of The Nation show last week, they had callers from all over the world give reactions to Obama's victory. I was shocked to hear Palestinians, Iranians and everyone be so totally knowledgeable about US internal politics. They talked about the Christian Right, neocons, and more. They sounded just like American media junkie citizens.
Then it dawned on me. Thanks to satellite TV, now the whole world can watch US TV news. They are influenced by media coverage just like US residents are.
Then I tried to think of cases in recent decades where world opinion differed significantly from the US media's dominant spin. I can't think of a single one.
Maybe I'm not conspiratorial enough in my thinking. Have we allowed a self-appointed unregulated, unaccountable group of elites to take control of world opinion and thus overshadow the power of people and governments?
Is democracy a viable form of government if voter opinions are so readily influenced and shaped by the media?
Suddenly, I'm no longer so sure that absolute freedom of the press is such a good idea any more.
google "2012 Polling statistics". http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/election.png
Here's a personal account of an election worker in Iowa dealing with voter "purges":
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/10/precinct_elections_official/
Do not start talking about "fair" without also addressing those purges.
And from TFA:
So you're talking about a difference of 160 stories. Over almost a year. Let's just call it a year. That means we're talking about a difference of less than 1 story every two days.
Meanwhile, McCain's 786 stories equates to just over 2 stories every day for a year.
Compared to Obama's 946 which equates to ... just over 2 stories every day for a year.
But every THIRD day, Obama would get THREE stories and McCain would only get TWO stories.
Yeah, and you're going to complain about the press "favored" Obama?
Sure, you can survey the number of times this candidate was mentioned in a positive or negative light and give an `objective' metric to compare to other candidates. The problem is that such a methodology ignores whether or not a candidate deserves those positive or negative mentions. To take extreme cases, consider either Alaska's Ted Stevens or Louisiana's William Jefferson. One would claim that if media coverage of these two men wasn't disproportionately negative that this would show bias. Sometimes a candidate is deserving of being attacked (or lauded) more frequently than his or her opponent.
Compare the CNN to the CBC in Canada and you'd swear Canada is a quasi-Socialist country!
The CNN only 'appears' to be left-biased because the rest of the media is actually right-biased. In my eye, the CNN is quite centrist.
I don't think there really is a media outlet with a left-bias in the US... But I'm speaking as a Canadian with only a passing interest in American politics.
52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
If you care about the health of our democracy we better hope that the media does not treat Obama with kid gloves here on out, and end up becoming state press. I am quite upset that the WashPost did not add too and complete its story on the Barack Obama campaign credit card donation fraud. I provided evidence in the form of bank statements, screen shots, etc and was speaking directly to the reporter who wrote the article. He informed me that they were working on the story, even the day before the election, but nothing came of it. One wonders who squelched it. The media also needs to recognize the vast majority of McCain voters, voted against Obama not because of his race but because of his ideology and the direction we think he will take the country in. If they continue to treat all McCain voters by some sterotypical image of a bubba in backwoods somewhere, that is bad press and needs to be countered. Additionally, if BHO and his Democratic allies have their way, the voice of the conservatives on the AM dial will be squelched. The media should, in its own interest, understand this is not good for our democracy.
While listening to NPR, I was struck by how one-sided the coverage was. The pinnacle of the disparity had to be when, during a segment on McCain, barely mentioned McCain's but they stated Obama's positions in detail.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Meh.
You often hear hard-right folks complaining about liberal media bias. And I also often hear hard-left folks whining about the media's conservative bias.
Here's the reality: the media is fairly centrist, vaguely center-left. Obama isn't a hard-left liberal. He's pretty much center-left. Most voters are vaguely center-right, with a significant center-left contingent. The folks that complain the loudest are usually either hard-left, hard-right or some minority political position.
My blog
At least this election the people went for someone with a more wholesome family background. It might be a step in the right direction.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
Why, then, are we expecting that the bizarre campaign of a man who is a shadow of who he was running with an uninformed hatemonger and which wants to continue
would get as much positive press as a smooth campaign by two qualified candidates running on a platform of
Sometimes the reason the story is positive is because the subject is positive.
Why was this marked Troll? I find it a very valid statement.
Because it was loaded down with hyperbole and violated Godwin's law?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I think what makes Fox "fair and balanced" is that for the most part the commentators announce their bias. That way you can take what they say with a grain of salt. I personally think this is a much more honest way to present political news.
The other networks, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc, do not make the political views of the commentators known. For the most part it is known or implied, but not announced. So uninformed viewers that only pay attention during the election cycle think they are seeing "unbiased reporting".
I don't think there is such a thing as unbiased reporting. Any intelligent person is going to be biased, i.e. have an opinion. If someone is truly not biased then it just means to me they are not very bright.
If you have watched the campaigns of both McCain and Obama, there is also a clear difference in what has been said on both sides. It was even more clear for the month leading up to the election.
The Obama campaign has spent the most time saying what Barack Obama felt were the solutions to the problems, and talking about the problems out there. There was very little McCain/Palin bashing from the campaign. It may have been the press coverage, but I didn't see the Obama camp really stirring up anti-McCain feelings with fairly few advertisements saying why people should not vote for McCain.
On the other hand, EVERY rally that McCain and Palin were at showed no solutions, just reasons why they said not to vote for Obama. This shows why McCain lost, because he didn't show he was focused on why people should vote for him.
So, in the press, why should they cover, "Republican candidate bashes Obama but says nothing about how to deal with the issues" day in and day out? If McCain was more presidential BEFORE his concession speech, he would have done better.
Also, when a candidate ONLY focuses on his/her "base", it makes anyone not in that group feel that there is no reason to support that person. If people in the press have a normal bias toward a more moderate to liberal candidate, then those who are focused on ONLY targeting the conservative people, it just makes for there being no real news if that conservative candidate doesn't say anything new.
Did McCain EVER talk about having real solutions, or just how people should be afraid of having Obama as president?
I voted McCain; I was (and am) a fan of the pork-barrel spending cuts he wanted to implement
So what are you going to do to solve the other 98% of the Federal budget deficit after you get rid of earmarks? And what's pork? Most Americans would view stuff that their own Congressman brings home as "economic development" and stuff that the other 434 bring home as "pork". Might it just be that some earmarks actually serve a valid purpose and that purpose is lost somewhere in all the discussion about the abuse and excess?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
But the reactions here (on Slashdot) to articles about the candidates various technological positions did seem to do fairly well from a "number of comments" point of view.
I'd say that this is more a matter of the same phenomena that we see in every election now. The "pundits" talk about whatever is easiest for them to talk about. And they're words get coverage because it's easier for the "reporters" to just regurgitate whatever they've heard.
So, rather than research a subject and ask INFORMED questions of the candidates THEMSELVES we get the topic de jour from the pundits, then echoed by the reporters, then echoed by other reporters and then echoed by other pundits. Since all of the pundits and reporters are talking about it, it MUST be an important issue, right?
I think that is why we saw so many websites pop up this election that did independent fact-checking of the candidates' public statements.
> Really? To the rest of the world (or at least western Europe), even 'left wing' American newspapers appear hilariously conservative.
That would probably be because the USA is considerably more conservative than the rest of the world (well, primarily Europe). As a result, what passes for 'liberal' here is likely merely 'not as conservative' there.
But what's your point? The article is not about idealogical bias so much as it is about political bias. Related, yes, but free from the notion that centrism is the same as unbiased. What TFA is saying is that their stories tended to be biased in favor of Democrats. In the states, that is akin to saying "liberal bias", which they use instead because it flows better.
Is there any surprise? The media (with the exception of Fox News) has always had a pretty large liberal bias.
Having said that, Obama is young, charismatic, and is promoting the change America wants. He would have won either way.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias!
Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
Being apologetic is not a sign of cowardice. It is actually a sign of great courage that many leaders have the skill to do so.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
Okay, I don't really understand the big deal about the Press "favoring" Obama throughout the campaign. Does anyone think that maybe, just maybe, the reason why Obama got more favorable press coverage was because: 1. he didn't fuck up nearly as bad as McCain in all aspects of the campaign and 2. he actually tried to appeal to the people through actions and (admittedly) vague promises of reform and change, which thus led the media to dig deeper into Obama's issues and inform the public of (what would end up being good things) he actually wanted to do?
Hell, even McCain made it a point to focus everything on Obama, forcing the media to give the big O even more press coverage. Every time Obama talked about his plan, his policy, or whatnot, McCain just came back with talking about how Obama's plan was wrong, with little focus on his own plans. Hell, the only time McCain was ever in the news for something he did was some idiotic Palin shit or a gaffe. When both candidates are so focused on the actions of one of them (Palin's issues notwithstanding), of course the press is going to favor one over the other. In addition, when one candidate makes his platform consist of basically nothing but attacks on the other, I think that helps out the press coverage as well.
Yes, funny how the bipartisan investigation found her guilty, then suddenly before the election a hand picked partisan panel cleared her of all charges. Gee, I wonder why nobody took that seriously.
So, to summarize, the world is interested in a youngish, articulate man and some woman in a tight skirt - but doesn't care about some old fart! Sounds like everyone, everywhere to me.
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
...that maybe there were more favorable articles about him because he's actually a better person...?
Naw... can't be that. Must be media bias.
I love this line: "The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager."
Maybe because we're finally getting away from considering a person's past drug use as a delimiter of what kind of person they are?
The past two presidents before Obama have been admitted drug users, and they still got voted in.
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
To the US, much of Western Europe (minus perhaps the BBC) appears hilariously liberal - this coming from a regular reader of the NY Times (and who lives in New York) and someone who voted for Obama.
I do emphasize 'appears,' though, because I don't think this necessarily means there is a bias on the part of the reporters or the editors. By any objective measure I can think of, Obama was incredibly newsworthy. I wanted to vote for McCain (I'm a small business owner) but I couldn't stomach Palin; still, McCain received plenty of coverage around here. I think that the newspapers do their best to report stuff that they think is newsworthy, and having some arbitrary rule like 'we must publish an equal number of pieces about each candidate' is the type of gesture-laden but meaningless decision that is all too regular these days -- and it would ultimately result in fluff pieces or lowering the standards of what makes the news just so you get an even count.
My biggest beef with the NY Times is that, particularly since Obama was elected, it's been piece after piece about the 'barrier-breaking' historical significance of the event; the guy has gotten a big pass on making substantive policy statements just because he's such a 'game-changer.' I don't mean to take away the gravitas of the historical situation, but I think we've been congratulating ourselves so much on our enlightened stance that we've indirectly said that, had we elected McCain instead, it would've been nothing more than backwards racism at work (since electing Obama was so forward-thinking of us). We get quotes from people around the world like 'There is the feeling that for the first time since Kennedy, America has a different type of leader' (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/reactions-from-around-the-world/?scp=3&sq=america%20president%20rest%20of%20world%20follow&st=cse) and similar comments praising the basic fact of the event itself.
So it comes as no surprise to me that McCain would have to work twice as hard to get attention from such a 'landmark' event. I like and respect Obama, and I'm very interested to see how he'll do - but I think we let him skate by, particularly in the debates, with a lot of vague promises. I'll celebrate him being a game-changer once the game has actually changed.
As for your original point, though, a (more liberal) friend of mine pointed out that, even in spite of the semi-regular absence of substance -- these were campaign promises, after all, and he's hardly alone in making vague ones -- there is an unavoidable perk in our reputation abroad not because Obama is a proven diplomat (he isn't) but because he's not George Bush and not a Republican.
Except they didn't...
Even in their own countries people opposed those dictators. Some didn't even know (their own fault in part I admit) the extent of the evil those men did. Most people were bystanders, who might have done something, but choose to stand aside because they didn't want to have their families hurt.
And seriously, how is four men, from four countries, "most of the world"? A large part of the rest of the world fought against them you know?
Not to count how the heck you can justify such a statement and how it relates to modern European and worldwide sensibilities, when most European countries are social-democrats, when those countries that lived under such monsters are now stable democracies (Russia excluded). Maybe you should pay more attention to what goes on in the world now, instead of wearing your post-WW2 rose-tinted Made in USA glasses (hint: they're Made in China now).
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Again, I didn't vote for Obama. Geez, you can't make one neutral comment on Slashdot without people from either side jumping all over you with assumptions and condemnation. Heaven forbid I like both candidates for different reasons!
The young, photogenic, would-be first black President gets more attention than the puffy old white guy? Say it ain't so, America, say it ain't so!
Of course, this is also easily explained by the fact that reality has a liberal bias.
A story about an American newspaper, dealing with American politics, and an American scale of liberal/conservative bias has nothing to do with the rest of the world.
i only wish that were true. the fact that you think it is only goes to highlight how ignorant some americans are about the ramifications of the behaviour of their government with regards to everyone else in the world. I'll clue you in. THEY'RE MASSIVE. And the behaviour of your government can only be influenced by the will of the american populace - so your attitudes as reflected through your media are of great interest to everyone else in the world.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Obama makes a major speech on race, lauded by all sides, which is dully reported by the media. Did Obama dominate the headlines for a week round that, under a positive light? You betcha.
McCain "rushes" to Washington, suspends his campaign and accomplishes exactly nothing, which is dully reported under a negative light? of course!
This isn't media bias. It is candidates getting their just desserts.
Media bias would be if McCain had given a historic speech, defining his candidacy away from Bush, Rove and the religious right and it didn't get reported. But that, my friends, never happened.
I'm just the opposite. My bottom line is the most important thing to me. Everything else in the world is secondary to me. Don't get me wrong, I would love the have the world all be sunshine and candy, but, that isn't reality. I'm happy if other people are happy, and the world is a happy place, but, not at my expense. Life is too short not to make sure my #1 concern is me and my situation. Once I'm safe....THEN, I'll worry about others.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Sometimes, I really wonder if any of you people "get out" and "see the world".
You want liberal bias? Watch or listen to PBS/NPR?
Although that said, it was NPRs in depth coverage of who Obama
actually is and where he actually came from that started to
demystify him considerably. If you scratch beneath the surface
he seems a lot less unreal (imagine that).
This is a good example of how journalists should be providing
a lot of useful information, so much so that there's enough
real information there to allow the audience to make up their
own mind and counteract whatever bias might be obvious in those
presenting it.
Enough information will eventually destroy all bias.
Of course Americans tend to be lazy and generally anti-intellectual.
So if the news is anything more than a sound bit or two it might just
get filtered out. Commercial media has to account for this.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The guy who makes my sandwich at lunch for minimum wage works harder than I do. Maybe he didn't work as hard in school, or isn't as smart or whatever, but you know, somebody has to make the sandwiches. I personally appreciate the people who do that (or who take out the trash, mow the grass at the park, etc). I don't mind paying 4% higher taxes so that they can be taken care of when they get brain cancer or something.
Conservatives need to get over this nonsense idea that rich business owners are the hardest-working members of society and the only ones who deserve all the perks. My salary is not determined entirely by how hard I work; a large part involves market forces outside my control. I'd be a moron to not realize that I'm at least a little bit lucky. This argument over who is working the hardest does not favor the wealthy.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Only if you're counting the popular vote instead of the electoral college vote. And if you're doing that then you need to look at who voted how in which state.
And who did NOT vote. People simply were not motivated enough by McCain to get out and vote for him. And that percentage is far larger than the difference in the coverage.
First off, Palin's own actions and words were what got her that kind of coverage on the comedy shows.
Secondly, the press did cover Biden's "gaffes".
But it is a self-referential system. Palin gave the comedy shows better material. Which means that the newspapers covered the comedy shows covering Palin. Which means that the pundits talked about the newspaper coverage of the comedy shows' coverage of Palin.
McCain chose Palin. That was part of his strategy to energize the Religious Right AND an attempt to get the female vote. It's his own fault if she ended up feeding material to the media that he would rather not have fed to them.
It's kind of like dealing with kids. They want candy, toys, and recess all day long. If you promise them that in exchange for work, they'll likely bite.
Give a kid $5 and he'll go buy the most expensive thing he can buy with $5 instead of buying the $3 toy and putting the $2 away for when he gets sick or stops getting allowance.
Obama was the cool Uncle who brought gifts. McCain was the evil Dad who made you go to your room.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Oh, and when asked about his drug use back in October 2006 said "Of course I inhaled. That was the point". On video.
No, I have no idea why the media would not want to spend reporting resources and column inches covering this repeatedly.
And would you agree that Obama has been far more open about his illegal substance abuse than certain other presidents?
Is there any surprise? The media (with the exception of Fox News) has always had a pretty large liberal bias.
To be fair, reality has a known liberal bias.
Seriously, though, what the fuck are you talking about, "liberal media?" That's just a bullshit talking point you're being spoon-fed by your winger radio guys. The media has a corporatist agenda, fuck this liberal shit. How seriously was the evidence examined before the Iraq War? There wasn't any examination. It was all fawning softball coverage. The media sat on all kinds of explosive reports that would have blown Bush out of the water. Why did they do that? Because management felt Republicans would be good for business. Karl Rove lobbied Jack Welch over at GE trying to persuade him it would be good to give favorable coverage to the Bushies. Welch's response was along the lines of "I don't see why NBC has to maintain this fiction of impartiality, they should be pulling their own weight and doing what's good for the company." And part of the company line is speaking no ill of the company.
I'll tell you what, not all of that Obama coverage was positive. How much time was devoted to trying to gin up scandals for him? Remember, corporatist media. They're whores in it for the money. How many of them were telling us that the race was close, tightening, when all the insiders already knew there was no way McCain could win? Because horse races sell money. If McCain is up, they'll tear him down and boost Obama, then reverse course when McCain takes the lead. They want a frenzy of hype that will keep people watching.
Repeat after me: it's all stage-managed bullshit.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Plenty of Fox commentators don't announce their political views (unsurprisingly, given apparently many of them are liberals who are paid to push a conservative agenda. The left has been using the term "Media Whore" for a while to describe these people, not just on Fox but on many of the other networks too, especially in the period from 1998-2003 where every news network was slanted so far to the right it's surprising the nation's TVs didn't topple over), and plenty of non-Fox commentators do. Some, like Chris Matthews, claim they're liberal (though spent the entire Clinton administration attacking him, voted for Bush, and supported Fred Thompson for President this time to a level many consider homo-erotic), others like Ken Olbermann and Phil Donahue have never made any secret of their liberalism.
The real issue with Fox is that it doesn't try to be balanced. It has few commentators that attempt to find the truth and report it. It does, occasionally, have some very strong journalists - Shepard Smith would spring to mind, but as a network it plugs a right wing agenda, distorts the news by over-reporting anti-liberal reports and under-reporting anti-conservative or pro-liberal reports, and promotes divisiveness and hatred. One black panther dominated Fox on election day. Prior to that bogus claims of election fraud were levelled against an anti-poverty group, so successfully the right still thinks ACORN was the aggressor, not the victim, and many on the right think ACORN was actually submitting votes rather than registrations. Ashley Todd's story was reported when Fox believed it, and then virtually wiped off the network when it became clear it was a hoax. I'm really not finding any evidence any of the other networks acted that way.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
And seriously, how is four men, from four countries, "most of the world"?
Re-read my post. I said:
So? Much of the world supported either Hitler, Emperor Hirohito, Mussolini or Stalin. Does that mean they were right?
If the whole world jumped off a cliff... Oh, never mind.
Much != Most
But, when you consider that three of the men were Axis leaders and the Allies were on the side of Stalin, that pretty much covers MOST of the world anyway. I would even say a "vast majority".
But the whole point is, What is good for the rest of the world is not necessarily good for America. The "rest" of the world has been known to do some stupid stuff from time to time (not that America hasn't, just making a point).
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
But then the "red" states would suffer. You see, they take from the economically more productive "blue" states, on average. It is ironic that the GOP whines about income redistribution, when their states benefit from it.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/11/29/8192719/index.htm
Really? To the rest of the world (or at least western Europe)
Amerocentrism bad, eurocentrism good!
"Nerds" are not wholly unaffected by government. It's unfortunate, but true.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
* The democratic primary was a race for significantly longer, hence more coverage
* Obama has a better face to put on a cover if your aim is to attract people to buy the thing - see all the magazines who don't care about the news and who they put on the cover (pretty faces).
* McCain spent more time on the "Obama is the wrong because" theme, than Obama did on the "McCain is wrong because" theme. If Obama is talking about Obama, and McCain is talking about Obama it's not a surprise who the press talks about.
* Obama is a more interesting story from a news perspective. Dog bites man isn't news, man bites dog is. Old white male running for President isn't news, (relatively) young black male running for President is.
* I suspect Palin stole some of McCain's coverage too. Again (relatively) young woman is news, and pretty faces on the cover sell.
Vetting does not consist of "Obama! Obama! RAH! RAH! RAH!", which is what appears to have happened. The media was too busy cheerleading for Obama to actually vet him.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
This is a good example of how journalists should be providing
a lot of useful information, so much so that there's enough
real information there to allow the audience to make up their
own mind and counteract whatever bias might be obvious in those
presenting it.
Exactly. Had the media been doing their constitutional duty rather than merely cheerleading the outcome during the primaries would have been decidedly different for both parties. For McCain the cheerleading had been going on since 2000 and for Obama since his convention speech in 2004. But since the media has gravitated toward large top-down government, these are the candidates they promote, and why there really was no choice between the major party candidates in this election.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."
Forgive me. Palin is clearly a highly moral and ethical person. She exudes intelligence, forethought, and and compassion.
Palin 2012!
I wanted to vote for McCain (I'm a small business owner)
That would have been a mistake. Unless your business is insanely profitable, you would've gained nothing from McCain. His health insurance plan, for instance, would have been a disaster for everyone but insurance companies. In general, conservative policies are only good for big business and the investor class.
We've had the same BS with Sarkozy here; he claims he's pro-business, but his fiscal measures only profited the wealthiest. And most small business owners aren't that rich. In particular, just like McCain's plan, he targeted income tax; if your small biz is incorporated, as it should be (mine is!), this makes no difference at all to the business itself. It only matters when you've made so much money that you are going to pay yourself.
And if you don't want to pay that income tax, just invest that surplus money into expanding the business. Corollary: with decreasing income tax, it becomes more attractive for the small biz owner to just take more of the profits, instead of investing and hiring.
The press at times seems to show clear bias, but aside from openly partisan forums (fora) like
MSNBC and Fox News, the press seems slanted towards stories that resonate with the public.
For example, the New York Times, which is the favorite flogging horse of the right, pursued the dead-end Clinton Whitewater scandal long after it became clear there was nothing there. Conversely they gave eight columns of uncritical support to the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).
It is just that at that point in time, headlines about Whitewater and WMDs sold newspapers.
In fact, Obama had cinched the election long before the election (at least two weeks earlier by McCain's own internal polling as reported after the election in CNN). Did the supposedly Obama-biased press report this? Of course not. They went on pretending it was a nail bitter right until the second the California polls closed, when they informed the nation that Obama had lapped the field and would become the next president.
What? Are saying that it might be possible that a guy who voted for Obama isn't that much different than another guy who voted for McCain?!?! I'm shocked I dare say. This is us vs. them...
It's actually sad how the even the more tempered left/right will buy into the idea that your opponent has some fatal flaw or deficiency that keeps them from ever being better. I mean, heartland American is gonna be different than your LA or NYC guy, but are we really all that different in what our core needs/wants are?
import system.cool.Sig;
He showed McCain's 2008 concession speech: boos from the republican crowd.
He then showed Kerry's 2004 concession speech: no boos from the democratic crowd.
Notice how it's the right always claiming that the other side is just as bad as they are. Authoritarians: it's not bad/illegal when WE do it!
Obama and Biden had far more gaffes than McCain's campaign. But you only saw them on YouTube.
McCain's campaign was a lousy poorly managed campaign. Of course, he was facing a campaign that had raised more money than Bush & Kerry combined.
Funny, I was about to respond to the parent by saying that some people mistakenly think Godwin's law is an actual law. But you kindly demonstrated for me.
There, fixed that for ya. America has a population of ~305,621,847. 57,434,084 (which is 46% of the popular, not 48%, by the way) voted for McCain. 57,434,084 / 305,621,847 = 18.8%. Aside from the 21.4% who voted Obama, we can't really know what the other ~60% of the American population thinks. And if you want to adjust the numbers based on the voting age population only, check this link here.
'cause so did I.
The press is not free because the current government allows it, but because representative government requires it. Without free speech and the free press, there are no other freedoms.
This line alone trumps all the BS in the GP.
This poo is cold.
You're overlooking one critical aspect of responsibility: it's not an external decision imposed on you. It's an internal decision you impose on yourself.
Yes, the First Amendment gives you the right to say almost anything you care to. Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an example of something the First Amendment does not give you the right to do. The example of the Westboro Baptist Church, on the other hand, is something that is protected under First Amendment rights.
Where does responsibility meet the First Amendment? In the first case, by not spreading false and potentially harmful information. In the second case... there's no act of responsibility behind that particular organization's communications.
"For every right, an equal responsibility..."
>>>Had the media been doing their constitutional duty...
I cannot lay my hand on any part of the U.S. (or States') Constitution that says, if I owned a tv studio, I have a duty to report the truth. All it says is: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In other words I can say whatever I feel like saying using my tv studio. Or my newspaper. Or my blog.
If you don't like what I'm saying, then get yourself a tv studio, newspaper, or blog to say the opposite of what I said.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Speaking about Germany here, don't know much about the other countries mentioned...
Most people did not oppose those regimes because it wasn't in their own best interest. If bad things happened to other people, what did they care? Many of them even profited from the actions of the ruling class: a whole section of the populace was driven out or outright murdered, leaving behind a wast fortune in real estate, money and other property that was made available to basically everyone else. This washed loads and loads of money in to the pockets of ruthless enterprises as well as many a private citizen who all used the situation to their advantage. And if you look at the details, you will find it was impossible to not know, at least if you didn't live under a rock. I know it goes against what most people believe in, that humans are basically good, but the sad fact is that people will accept any kind of calamity as long as it doesn't effect them personally. That's one of the reasons why capitalism works so well. People look to their own advantage and don't give a shit about anyone else.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Wouldn't the three months of additional primary battles account for the difference of 160 articles? Since there's primary coverage every day, it should at least account for 90 of them. Also, if you're talking about a level playing field, McCain went into this with a tremendous advantage in terms of past favorable coverage. He has been about the most covered, and best-liked by the press, senator for at least a decade. Obama was not starting with that positive press advantage, while McCain was mostly running on that "maverick" brand which a friendly press had established for him - and which was in many respects, which the press failed to illuminate since they rarely cast doubt on their own creations, more myth than fact.
It also appeared to be McCain's own strategy during the later Democratic primaries to lie low and avoid getting headlines, while Obama and Clinton blasted each other. If he'd cut a higher profile, he'd have made himself more of a target for them, and they wouldn't have concentrated so fully on damaging each other. It would have been nice if the Post had focused on McCain more during that period, from a Democrat's POV.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
If the Democrats had nominated an old guy who'd been around forever and the Republicans had nominated someone fresh and dynamic whose candidacy was historic, the coverage disparity would have been the other way around. It's a mistake to say this is evidence of media liberal bias. Obama was simply more newsworthy and interesting.
You want liberal bias? Watch or listen to PBS/NPR?
Because responsible reporting is unfair to conservatives.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
My biggest beef with the NY Times is that, particularly since Obama was elected, it's been piece after piece about the 'barrier-breaking' historical significance of the event;
I think that is likely because it was a historically significant, barrier-breaking event. I don't disagree that the # of articles saying such has become overwhelming, but that is hardly unexpected.
the guy has gotten a big pass on making substantive policy statements just because he's such a 'game-changer.'
I kept seeing this all the time during the campaign, and it made no sense then either. His website has a very long list on its issues page, each with links to more detailed policy positions. There *is* a wealth of information out there on his policy preferences and stances. He certainly does not stand up and read such policy papers...because that would be *boring*. However, they exist, and in more detail than the 90% of voters care about (shit, I clicked on a random issue..."rural" and got a 13 page policy paper).
Additionally, it is pretty traditional that a president-elect not encroach too much on the current president's arena, the whole "There is only one president" construct. Lame duck though he may be, Bush is still the only one who gets to fulfill presidential duties for another couple months.
but I think we let him skate by, particularly in the debates, with a lot of vague promises.
That is no different than the treatment McCain got (ie his proclamation that he would balance the federal budget in 4 years followed by no actual discussion or questioning of what combination of spending cuts or revenue increases could produce such an situation) Debates have turned into pablum (for the leading candidate) and sound-bite attacks (for the trailing candidate), and the actual information content is just a dribble.
I'll celebrate him being a game-changer once the game has actually changed.
Well that's the point of those congratulatory articles...election of a black man has changed the game on one level. You can now tell little black boys (but not white or black girls, or homosexual, or native american, or etc etc) that they could grow up to be president and have it be more than theoretical fantasy. That is a major change for the country. Will Obama be successful as a president? Will he be able to improve governance? As you point out, that still remains to be seen.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
If it bleeds, it leads as they say.
Except at Happy News. :o)
Is this really a surprise, Obama had 8 (!) covers of TIME in 2008, 2 of which he shared with McCain. McCain had 1 cover that he didn't share. Call me crazy, but that's way over the line.
But this isn't anything new... Bill Clinton had 7 covers while campaigning for office, one of which he shared with Tsongas, another two with George H.W. Bush.
In THAT election, George H.W. Bush (a sitting President!) had exactly 1 cover, plus the two he shared with Clinton.
It's deja vu all over again!!
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
Actually, it's not. To be responsible for something is precisely to be answerable for it.
I opened this thread expecting one thing: to see a bunch of replies saying, in a nutshell, "It isn't biased if it is true." Pretty much what I am seeing here. Obama is the most unvetted President in recent history, and you all know it. The media didn't investigate because they didn't want to. We all know, however, how much Palin spent on clothes and that a plumber in Toledo doesn't have a license.
I call bullshit. Even in Europe. Reality has a center/center-right bias. Even among people who claim to be liberals, most people oppose immigration and the change that comes along with it, support what they (regionally) consider to be traditional values, and have strong religious beliefs.
The "reality has a liberal bias" quip is cute. But it's bogus. You'd have to live in a hole (ivory tower?) to actually believe it.
Why are you so angry? It's not bogus, nor is it bullshit. You simply have to understand the context where it's valid.
The statement is used when Reality on the ground does not match the Reality in the rhetoric of the far Right (in America, that is). They have this skewed view of Reality and then when Reality does not match up to their views it's a Liberal plot, conveniently ignored or they sing as a rallying cry - "the Media has a Liberal Bias!" conveniently ignoring the reported facts.
Certainly, taken at face value the phrase is untrue. Reality does not have a bias at all. But when someone says "reality has a liberal bias" they are in fact pointing out that the idiots on the extreme wing actually have a bias that is not consonant with Reality. It points out the inflexible nature of this type of mindset; in effect I'm not wrong, Reality is! It's also turning around the phrase the far Right has been using and making it less effective.
"Drug use" would not be seen as a problem. ALL of us use drugs. The only difference is that the government approves of some of those drugs (alcohol, caffeine, etc.) but not others (cocaine, marijuana, etc.)
A much bigger problem is Obama's long track record of shredding Constitutionally guaranteed rights as a senator . . and his announced intention of doing so even further. Not that the Repugs have been/would be much if any better.
But the biggest problem by far is not them, but us. It is that we as a nation were willing to elect anyone, of either party, who has amply demonstrated his or her willingness to violate the very rights they are sworn to protect. It is our willingness to give up liberty in exchange for the illusory promise of "security" or "prosperity" or anything else. Without liberty there can be neither of those things in the first place. What has made our nation weak, sick, vulnerable, and poor is the fact that we allow and even insist that others rule over and provide for us, rather than each of us ruling and providing for ourselves and our own loved ones. Until that changes, we can only expect things to get worse, not better, regardless of who is elected, and regardless of how many non-government-approved drugs he or she did or did not ingest.
Nonaggression works!
Funny how nobody has stopped to ask... but WTF is this story doing on Slashdot? If I wanted useless partisan bickering over a news story (about news stories) I would go to Yahoo's message boards.
Oh wait, even they figured out that hosting an open forum on the Internet about politics is like giving angry monkeys a bucket of poop. That's why there's no more comments section on articles.
"News for nerds." Let's stick with that.
CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
Of the old media, newspapers are the best. You can get right and left versions, and you will usually find the info they would rather hide buried at the end of the 3rd continuation of the article on page 25. There is still some remnant of journalistic integrity.
TV, by its very nature, can only present a tiny slice of information. So the reporter has to be highly selective in what information he presents. The selection process is highly biased, no matter how objective the reporter tries to be. And these days, they don't try. So it is nearly impossible to get a non-misleading snapshot of events from TV, whether Fox or NBC. And then there are the outright fabrications (CBS).
I dropped newspapers because it was more trouble to chase down the crucial facts they try to hide (but feel compelled to include somewhere) than it was to google for opposing views. When google figures out how to politically bias search results (if they haven't already), then we are really in trouble.
Oh for the *really* old media (1960), where reporters were determined to get to the bottom of a story, and looked for the dirt on *all* the candidates. Or maybe that picture was fabricated by Hollywood. I wasn't alive back then.
... something like "There is class warfare alright, and my class is winning."
Stick that red-baiting up yours.
/ (very) small biz owner
He promised a government that will listen, and asked sacrifices of every american. He's not even in office yet and he already feels obligated to start keeping the promises he made. Vague promises? Are you kidding me?
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
I'm generally bothered when folks trot out statistics claiming that the news media ran more negative articles/clips on one side of an argument than the other, and thus is hopelessly biased. What law of nature says that "fair" coverage has to have a balance between positive and negative for the two sides? If one side strays farther from reality on verifiable, important things, the news media should call them on that. The media shouldn't pick a side a priori, but it also has a responsibility to speak up when the facts are clear (which, admittedly, they aren't always).
That said, I'm not going to argue that there is no bias in the media, nor that the recent election cycle was completely fair. If nothing else, Obama had a huge structural advantage in news coverage because he was vastly "newer" in numerous different ways. I'm sure the personal views of the news staff play some role as well. This study of the Washington Post is unusually comprehensive and interesting.
The above should be taken as a more general rant about this kind of tit-for-tat comparison, whether trotted out by Fox News to attack the "liberal media" or in "balanced" science pieces where a crackpot gets as much airtime as legitimate science. I just don't find this general metric for judging bias particularly compelling.
If you ask me, treating the People (with the strange capital letter P) as one body is already a step in ther wrong direction. The people don't hold any one thing in common other than the fact that we're humans, and we live inside the same country. Saying that we all have some common best interest or collective opinion in any one case is akin to claiming that your somehow better off than someone in another country because you happen to live closer to some winning olympic athelete than they do. The U.S. is a collection of individuals. Contrary to popular belief, implementing the rule of the majority always ignores the minority. The specific cases requiring actual available facts to be considered are always abandoned in favor of those that require sweeping generalization and ideaology instead. Perhaps it's this constant reliance on tugging at the heartstrings of the so-called supposed majority that leads to most if not all of the friction we have in dealing with our local 'bretheren.'
I think America is the greatest place to live in the world, but that doesn't mean I think it's perfect. Some people are more qualified to make policy than others. (I don't claim to be one of them, but I do concede there are indeed experts out there.) Honestly, would you take a poll of public opinion as to whether or not we should operate to remove half of your liver? Why is it any different for things like who runs the government?
That all being said, I can't think of a better way to do it. *Shrug*
Speak for yourself.
The size of the American Nazi party has nothing to do with the support of Hitler by Americans. Many wealthy industrialists including IBM, Disney, Prescott Bush (grandfather of our current president) and Henry Ford opportunistically supported the Nazi regime. It was about the money, not the ideology. There was also a significant isolationist movement that opposed any intervention in Europe.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
It wasn't an issue of "balance", the Obama visit was simply the bigger story.
And generally, Obama was a far bigger story than McCain. I mean, "My God, our next president may well be an elderly white man who married into money! Who'd have ever thought that such a thing could happen!" honestly doesn't make for such an interesting news discussion.
If journalists were discussing the potential significance of someone with Obama's background becoming president, it was difficult not to be positive. It was difficult to think of as much positive material relating to the idea of someone with McCain's background becoming president.
So Obama's campaign won a lot of positive news coverage by providing news stories that were difficult not to cover positively.
Where the situations were reversed was with the choice of VP. Biden was a hellishly boring VP candidate, and consequently didn't get much coverage. Old white guy with worthy credentials and a lot of tedious experience. Snore. Nothing to see, move along.
McCain OTOH deliberately chose an "exiting" VP candidate, and consequently got huge amounts of media coverage off the back of it.
Unfortunately for the McCain camp, there was a lot more to say about Palin that was potentially negative than potentially positive, and even a lot of republicans winced at the idea of "President Palin", because the person honestly didn't seem to know enough to be considered presidential material. And Palin seemed to love the attention - the McCain people couldn't complain that news people were putting undue emphasis on Palin, because that's why McCain chose Palin - to get headlines and try to stir up some excitement. But other than McCain himself, it was difficult to find anyone in the Republican Party with any experience who was prepared to stand in front of a camera and declare that they thought that Palin would actually be a competent President if anything should happen to McCain. So that then generated a further tendency for negative stories about the McCain campaign compared to the Obama campaign, and that in turn generated discussions about the relative judgement of the two candidates, since Obama was generally considered to have run an excellent campaign despite his relative inexperience, and since McCain seemed to have made at least one critical error, in his VP choice.
If that was the situation, then reporters were obliged to report on it. They weren't obliged to try to impose a corrective bias onto the news in order to force an artificial 50:50 balance in airtime, if the available stories and information didn't justify that balance.
Eric Baird
I thought that one of the first things you learn in Journalism is to be objective when reporting the news. I barely saw that element throughout the whole political coverage. People were so much tougher on McCain when asking him about issues than they were about Obama. It's almost as if people were afraid of making him mad. Also, I didn't think it was right seeing journalists cry when reporting that Obama won. While I realize that it was an historic moment for the country, journalists are supposed to, again, remain objective. Yes, we're all human and we're all emotional, but I don't like turning on the TV and watching someone report the news with such a bias for the candidate he obviously wanted to win. I really don't think that there are any TV outlets (or newspapers for that matter) that are unbiased. They always seem to lean one way. How are people supposed to make an informative decision if people are telling them to go in a certain direction?
Actually, there was not. There was a Nazi party here, but even most of the German-Americans didn't really appreciate it because they didn't like the new Germany as it was not the same country they originally had left. The Nazi party here only got into a few thousand members at it's height, and they were in constant watch of the FBI (we even deported one of it's first leaders). I'd hardly call that support.
Then perhaps you should actually learn something about it?
Most of the powerful interests in America were avid supporters of the Fascists. Including Hearst, Ford and even our own Dear Leader's grandfather Prescott Bush.
Fascism is right wing extremism, hence elitist and good for only the wealthy and powerful. That is what the political right *is* after all.
Most Americans were Liberals at the time (back when that word was still used for what it actually means) and so were isolationist and didn't want to get involved. The American Left, back when we had one to speak of, were the ones agitating to fight Hitler, while the wealthy and powerful wanted to either stay out and profit off of the war or to join up on the side of the Fascists.
The Nazi party membership in America at the time is meaningless.
A bit of extra cash doesn't do anything to really help that person. We need to help that person long term, and most of those tools are already in place.
1) Increase the level of education. My state is one of many that uses the lottery (tax on people who are poor at math) in order to fund higher education. Community college is fully funded here, so if you're not going why not?
2) Job help. Already done. Lots of free places funded by donations and tax dollars that will help build a resume, give interview practice, etc...
3) Public transportation. Some places it's good, some bad. I think if we do another 'stimulus' it should be spent modernizing our rail system and adding new lines, etc..., but that's another argument.
For the go getter many of the tools are already there to get out of their situation. More money isn't going to do much long term.
Well banks do use that money to lend it out, but on top of that how do you think people become wealthy? They spend less than they make. Period. It's not rocket science. When the average credit card debt in the US is over 8k/person that should tell you something. First that people are poorly educated about finances and second, that they spend way more than they make.
You want to talk about bias? How about they report how many stories were done about the Green, Independent or Libertarian candidates; or any of the other 33 viable political parties in this country?
No, the press is biased. Period. Where I see it is in their dumbing down of America to just a two party system (neither of which was popular until the 20th century.)
America is screwed until we as a people realize that there are many of ways of thinking and solutions don't just boil down to tax the rich or fear of war.
Politics is not just dems vs GOP, not just taxes vs military, not just abortion vs God. Politics is not a zero-sum game.
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
The ethics laws said you can't do something to benefit yourself or people you know. Now if that was the case behind the firings, that would mean that the laws were violated and therefor the firing would be illegal.
And the committee found that to be the case, that she had violated the ethics law. Yet, as you note, that was not the purview of the investigation. When they say the firing was not illegal, that means with regard to the laws of interest to the investigation. Illegal in one context, not illegal in another, it isn't a contradiction.
That could very well be. I know a lot of people who didn't like her for a number of reasons ranging from her being a woman to the way she talked and everything in between.
It could be that my opinion of her was not significantly affected by some local Alaskan politics, and rather it's between her XY chromosome or her colloquialisms? Thanks. Frankly, it's what she said that turned me off. Between her stated stances on the issues, and her flagrant ignorance, I couldn't care less whether she abused power in Alaska, I don't want her to have any power in this country. And while I'd love to have a woman president (or VP), I'd rather not have it one who is bound and determined to set women's rights back two steps for the one step forward that her election would be.
The enemies of Democracy are
Despite the article count, I believe most people who didn't vote for Obama still feel we don't know enough about him. Mainstream media coverage isn't sufficient information to choose a candidate, only necessary information to make us fall in love long enough to vote.
Why are we grouped into Obama or McCain? I didn't vote because, well first my vote doesn't really matter.
Also because I think none of the candidates had my best interests in mind. With all the technology that is out now, why don't we elect our president by popular vote? We now have the precision and speed able to do so. Shouldn't that be a topic for debate over the next four years?
Amazing how everyone can agree that in the last decades pretty much all public values and personal virtues degrading.
Amazing how it all coincides with abandonment of the Christian religion and its morals.
Actually, if you looked at the real world you'd have noticed that it coincided with the rise of religious fundamentalism in politics in the US. There's a reason that the founding fathers explicitly rejected religious nuttery as a basis for government. You, in fact, just pointed out exactly why.
"Christian morals" is an oxymoron.
Really? To the rest of the world (or at least western Europe), even 'left wing' American newspapers appear hilariously conservative.
Are you saying it's all backwards? In the rest of the world is...
gun control conservative and anti-gun control liberal?
socialization conservative and privitization liberal?
abortion conservative and pro-life liberal?
Is your view not issue based?
I keep hearing this same sentiment from Europeans and I just don't get it. Can you please elaborate and provide examples.