Is Media Favoring Obama?

[molson_golden2002]

Or is McCain's campaing just so fokked up that the media coverage just reflects reality?

 

Seems to me the internet and other relatively new media outlets are playing a bigger role in this election and pushing the TV networks to cover this election differently.

[DC Tom]

Or is McCain's campaing just so fokked up that the media coverage just reflects reality?

 

Seems to me the internet and other relatively new media outlets are playing a bigger role in this election and pushing the TV networks to cover this election differently.

 

Media coverage reflects the more interesting story. Who do you think that would be, the old, white, 20+ year senator, or the relative newcomer who's the first black presidential candidate?

 

I'll bet even Fox covers Obama more than McCain, albiet in the "Why does the EEEEEVILLLL liberal media cover Obama more than McCain?" sense.

[molson_golden2002]

Media coverage reflects the more interesting story. Who do you think that would be, the old, white, 20+ year senator, or the relative newcomer who's the first black presidential candidate?

 

I'll bet even Fox covers Obama more than McCain, albiet in the "Why does the EEEEEVILLLL liberal media cover Obama more than McCain?" sense.

And the media storm that followed Palin was more negative because, well, it should of been.

[UBinVA]

If Palin had Obama's radical background and associations she'd be toast. The media has not done it's job concerning Obama or Biden for that matter. The MSM is in the bag for these guys and it shows.

 

Same goes for the bailout. The MSM is covering up the mess the dems made by years ago that got this whole ball rolling. But all you hear from the MSM and the dems is that it's the GOPs fault. Everyone has blood on their hands with mess including Bush, but to only blame the GOP and greedy wall street is a flat out lie.

 

McCain has not made this case known and is blowing this opportunity to state this to the people. When the GOP was pushing for increased regulations and warning about Fanny/Freddy. The Dems hunkered down and protected Raines/Gerlic et. al. and said everything was fine and that the regulators where out of order.

 

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/the...how_we_got.html

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060902626.html

 

View this and see the C-SPAN feed of the hearings.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/0...g_franklin.html

[finknottle]

Media coverage reflects the more interesting story. Who do you think that would be, the old, white, 20+ year senator, or the relative newcomer who's the first black presidential candidate?

 

I'll bet even Fox covers Obama more than McCain, albiet in the "Why does the EEEEEVILLLL liberal media cover Obama more than McCain?" sense.

 

Paying more attention to the newer or more interesting candidate is to be expected.

 

What's troubling is the question of whether the media is in the tank for one candidate. I don't mean editorial slants, but rather basic practices like applying inconsistent standards to what they say, what they investigate, what they suppress, etc. This cycle is by far the worst I've seen.

[molson_golden2002]

Paying more attention to the newer or more interesting candidate is to be expected.

 

What's troubling is the question of whether the media is in the tank for one candidate. I don't mean editorial slants, but rather basic practices like applying inconsistent standards to what they say, what they investigate, what they suppress, etc. This cycle is by far the worst I've seen.

Worse than 2003?

[finknottle]

Worse than 2003?

 

Easily, but I admit I'm not sure where you are coming from here by saying '03 instead of '04. The media went after both candidates pretty thoroughly, particularly Bush (though I assume that is not your point). Don't forget the Whole Air National Guard stuff was going on in that campaign, and the drug allegations resurfaced.

[molson_golden2002]

Easily, but I admit I'm not sure where you are coming from here by saying '03 instead of '04. The media went after both candidates pretty thoroughly, particularly Bush (though I assume that is not your point). Don't forget the Whole Air National Guard stuff was going on in that campaign, and the drug allegations resurfaced.

I meant the national debate over the war in Iraq

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Easily, but I admit I'm not sure where you are coming from here by saying '03 instead of '04. The media went after both candidates pretty thoroughly, particularly Bush (though I assume that is not your point). Don't forget the Whole Air National Guard stuff was going on in that campaign, and the drug allegations resurfaced.

Yeh, brilliant Rove set up and that got the media to back off and focus back on Gore's ineptitudes.

 

I am not sure about all of this Obama has definitely been getting better media attention since the debate, but the Republicans have brought some of it on there selves trying to portray Palin as something she isn't, but less accessible during obvious media stunts like the UN visit. And McCain's not looking at Obama and grouchy demeanor was painful to watch when he was obviously more knowledgeable than Obama on FP, except he came across as an ahole.

 

The reverse of the Bush Gore debates. GII came across as likeable, Gore boring aggressive and a know it all and arrogant...sounded a bit like McCain.

 

Part of the deal is the media is like a group of sharks that when they smell blood and they tend to get into a ridiculous frenzy.

 

Similarly, if Biden makes and arrogant mistake or Palin has another major gaff, you will see it again. However, if either keeps a low profile and low tenor during the debates despite gaffs they should win. Not sure it matters in the Presidential, but if Palin can tone down the pit bull and relax a little, emphasizing her strengths and leadership abilities while acknowledging she doesn't have Biden's experience while somehow baiting him into some arrogant statement, it could turn this election back around again. But I think the Rs are in defense mode and battling, not cool, not relaxed and not the way to win an election.

[UBinVA]

Experience is no substitute for judgment!

 

Look at Senator Biden’s IDEAS on foreign policy. It quickly becomes apparent that Senator Biden gets it wrong more times than he gets it right. For example, an article by Amir Taheri in the New York Post documents some of Senator Biden’s lack of judgment in the foreign policy arena:

 

** In 1979, Senator Biden agreed with President Carter that the fall of the shah in Iran represented progress in the area of human rights. He agreed with the President that we shouldn’t use force, or react strongly, to the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy and the parade of blindfolded hostages. Carter’s namby-pamby response is the reason we had so many days of the Iranian Hostage Crisis on late-night TV.

 

** Senator Biden opposed President Regan’s “hard line” stance against the Soviet Union. He believed that we should continue the failed policy of “détente.” President Reagan’s policies won the Cold War. If we had taken Senator Biden’s approach, we may still be paying subsidies to the “Evil Empire.”

 

** After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Senator Biden voted against the use of force to kick Iraq out of Kuwait in what became known as the Gulf War.

 

** Although Senator Biden did vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom, he has since been a vocal critic of the war in Iraq. He’s stated that the war has been lost and opposed the surge strategy.

 

** Senator Biden proposes to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home by partitioning Iraq into three separate, semiautonomous regions; one for the Shi’ites, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Kurds. He calls it the “Biden Plan.” He apparently got the idea for partitioning a sovereign country, despite their wishes, from the partitioning of Bosnia in the 1990’s something he was also involved with. (Look how successful that’s been. The US military is still there.)

 

** In 2004, Senator Biden spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and trashed the US as a democratic country. In his speech he claimed the US had no moral authority to preach democracy in the Middle East. He said, “We don’t have much of a democracy ourselves. Remember our own presidential election; remember Florida!”

 

** Senator Biden, like Senator Obama, supports entering into a dialog with the leaders of Iran, without preconditions.

[The Big Cat]

Experience is no substitute for judgment!

 

Look at Senator Biden’s IDEAS on foreign policy. It quickly becomes apparent that Senator Biden gets it wrong more times than he gets it right. For example, an article by Amir Taheri in the New York Post documents some of Senator Biden’s lack of judgment in the foreign policy arena:

 

** In 1979, Senator Biden agreed with President Carter that the fall of the shah in Iran represented progress in the area of human rights. He agreed with the President that we shouldn’t use force, or react strongly, to the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy and the parade of blindfolded hostages. Carter’s namby-pamby response is the reason we had so many days of the Iranian Hostage Crisis on late-night TV.

 

** Senator Biden opposed President Regan’s “hard line” stance against the Soviet Union. He believed that we should continue the failed policy of “détente.” President Reagan’s policies won the Cold War. If we had taken Senator Biden’s approach, we may still be paying subsidies to the “Evil Empire.”

 

This is quite the broad stroke here, suggesting that Ronald Reagan single handedly won the Cold War!

 

** After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Senator Biden voted against the use of force to kick Iraq out of Kuwait in what became known as the Gulf War.

 

And what was the point of the Gulf War? Why was it wrong to oppose it?

 

 

** Although Senator Biden did vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom, he has since been a vocal critic of the war in Iraq. He’s stated that the war has been lost and opposed the surge strategy.

 

It seems everyone who insists we "not fail" in Iraq has a tough time coming up with a definition of "success." You're looking at the revenue of the surge (decreased violence) without considering the margins (at the cost of American lives). Still dont know why opposing the surge is a "mistake."

 

 

** Senator Biden proposes to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home by partitioning Iraq into three separate, semiautonomous regions; one for the Shi’ites, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Kurds. He calls it the “Biden Plan.” He apparently got the idea for partitioning a sovereign country, despite their wishes, from the partitioning of Bosnia in the 1990’s something he was also involved with. (Look how successful that’s been. The US military is still there.)

 

Yep, the military's also still in Germany and Korea. If you're going to call Bosnia a mistake because we're still "there," then I guess WWII was a colossal failure.

 

 

** In 2004, Senator Biden spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and trashed the US as a democratic country. In his speech he claimed the US had no moral authority to preach democracy in the Middle East. He said, “We don’t have much of a democracy ourselves. Remember our own presidential election; remember Florida!”

 

A nice little bullet you added to your laundry list, but doesn't say squat about foreign policy "mistakes." And besides, have you picked up a newspaper lately? Frankly, I'm okay with someone calling the US a failure right now. I know people like you tend to paint such a statement as un-Patriotic, etc, but frankly, ma man we don't have a moral leg to stand on in the world right now, and we've got a HUGE pile a crap to deal with here at home before we involve ourselves with creating a new democracy in the world's most tumultous region.

 

 

** Senator Biden, like Senator Obama, supports entering into a dialog with the leaders of Iran, without preconditions.

 

Yeah, this is just a false statement.

[drnykterstein]

I think they favour Obama. I don't mind though, since Obama is just flat out better all around, so...

[finknottle]

I think they favour Obama. I don't mind though, since Obama is just flat out better all around, so...

 

Again, favoritism I don't mind - it's inevitable. What I worry about is the lack of professionalism stemming from partisanship. In the past, you investigated potential scandal/insight regardless of your preference. Getting a story seemed the goal, but no longer. There is a complete disconnect, for example, between the investigation intop McCain's recent affair (apparently completely false) and the lack of investigation into Edwards (which was true). The same with the speed with which reporters rooted about in Palin's education, and the (still) absence of any investigation into Obama's academic record. The media defends Obama being a community organizer, but does not mind the fact that the records and activities of his organizations are being kept secret. Nobody seems interested in telling the national public the story of his rise in politics, how he disqualified the other candidates in his state run, whatever connections he had to the Chicago political machine, and so on. Maybe there is something scandalous/uplifting/whatever there, maybe not. But it's the willfull disinterest in even looking that I find disturbing. I don't think they care about news any more - getting Obama elected has become the main priority, and news takes a back seat.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Again, favoritism I don't mind - it's inevitable. What I worry about is the lack of professionalism stemming from partisanship. In the past, you investigated potential scandal/insight regardless of your preference. Getting a story seemed the goal, but no longer. There is a complete disconnect, for example, between the investigation intop McCain's recent affair (apparently completely false) and the lack of investigation into Edwards (which was true). The same with the speed with which reporters rooted about in Palin's education, and the (still) absence of any investigation into Obama's academic record. The media defends Obama being a community organizer, but does not mind the fact that the records and activities of his organizations are being kept secret. Nobody seems interested in telling the national public the story of his rise in politics, how he disqualified the other candidates in his state run, whatever connections he had to the Chicago political machine, and so on. Maybe there is something scandalous/uplifting/whatever there, maybe not. But it's the willfull disinterest in even looking that I find disturbing. I don't think they care about news any more - getting Obama elected has become the main priority, and news takes a back seat.

 

They even ignored the whole Jeremiah Wright thing.........

[finknottle]

They even ignored the whole Jeremiah Wright thing.........

 

Pretty much. They played it passively - what kept Wright in the news was, well, Wright.

 

I'm unaware of the major media outlets, for example, doing feature pieces chronicaling Wrights teachings, or investigating the family connection (like I've seen recently with McCains aide). They stuck to reporting what was reported elsewhere

[Max Fischer]

Experience is no substitute for judgment!

 

Look at Senator Biden’s IDEAS on foreign policy. It quickly becomes apparent that Senator Biden gets it wrong more times than he gets it right. For example, an article by Amir Taheri in the New York Post documents some of Senator Biden’s lack of judgment in the foreign policy arena:

 

** In 1979, Senator Biden agreed with President Carter that the fall of the shah in Iran represented progress in the area of human rights. He agreed with the President that we shouldn’t use force, or react strongly, to the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy and the parade of blindfolded hostages. Carter’s namby-pamby response is the reason we had so many days of the Iranian Hostage Crisis on late-night TV.

 

** Senator Biden opposed President Regan’s “hard line” stance against the Soviet Union. He believed that we should continue the failed policy of “détente.” President Reagan’s policies won the Cold War. If we had taken Senator Biden’s approach, we may still be paying subsidies to the “Evil Empire.”

 

** After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Senator Biden voted against the use of force to kick Iraq out of Kuwait in what became known as the Gulf War.

 

** Although Senator Biden did vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom, he has since been a vocal critic of the war in Iraq. He’s stated that the war has been lost and opposed the surge strategy.

 

** Senator Biden proposes to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home by partitioning Iraq into three separate, semiautonomous regions; one for the Shi’ites, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Kurds. He calls it the “Biden Plan.” He apparently got the idea for partitioning a sovereign country, despite their wishes, from the partitioning of Bosnia in the 1990’s something he was also involved with. (Look how successful that’s been. The US military is still there.)

 

** In 2004, Senator Biden spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and trashed the US as a democratic country. In his speech he claimed the US had no moral authority to preach democracy in the Middle East. He said, “We don’t have much of a democracy ourselves. Remember our own presidential election; remember Florida!”

 

** Senator Biden, like Senator Obama, supports entering into a dialog with the leaders of Iran, without preconditions.

 

So says the neoconservative author. Yeah, lots of credibility there.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Pretty much. They played it passively - what kept Wright in the news was, well, Wright.

 

I'm unaware of the major media outlets, for example, doing feature pieces chronicaling Wrights teachings, or investigating the family connection (like I've seen recently with McCains aide). They stuck to reporting what was reported elsewhere

 

Really? You really think the Jeremiah Wright stuff was covered less than it should have been?

[elegantelliotoffen]

Experience is no substitute for judgment!

 

Look at Senator Biden’s IDEAS on foreign policy. It quickly becomes apparent that Senator Biden gets it wrong more times than he gets it right. For example, an article by Amir Taheri in the New York Post documents some of Senator Biden’s lack of judgment in the foreign policy arena:

 

** In 1979, Senator Biden agreed with President Carter that the fall of the shah in Iran represented progress in the area of human rights. He agreed with the President that we shouldn’t use force, or react strongly, to the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy and the parade of blindfolded hostages. Carter’s namby-pamby response is the reason we had so many days of the Iranian Hostage Crisis on late-night TV.

 

** Senator Biden opposed President Regan’s “hard line” stance against the Soviet Union. He believed that we should continue the failed policy of “détente.” President Reagan’s policies won the Cold War. If we had taken Senator Biden’s approach, we may still be paying subsidies to the “Evil Empire.”

 

** After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Senator Biden voted against the use of force to kick Iraq out of Kuwait in what became known as the Gulf War.

 

** Although Senator Biden did vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom, he has since been a vocal critic of the war in Iraq. He’s stated that the war has been lost and opposed the surge strategy.

 

** Senator Biden proposes to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home by partitioning Iraq into three separate, semiautonomous regions; one for the Shi’ites, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Kurds. He calls it the “Biden Plan.” He apparently got the idea for partitioning a sovereign country, despite their wishes, from the partitioning of Bosnia in the 1990’s something he was also involved with. (Look how successful that’s been. The US military is still there.)

 

** In 2004, Senator Biden spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and trashed the US as a democratic country. In his speech he claimed the US had no moral authority to preach democracy in the Middle East. He said, “We don’t have much of a democracy ourselves. Remember our own presidential election; remember Florida!”

 

** Senator Biden, like Senator Obama, supports entering into a dialog with the leaders of Iran, without preconditions.

 

Plagiarist!

 

http://harmlessness.blogspot.com/2008/08/s...y-judgment.html

[finknottle]

Really? You really think the Jeremiah Wright stuff was covered less than it should have been?

 

In time it was covered - as measured by airtime - but I think it was investigated far less than it would have been had it been any other candidate.

 

Think about the investigative stars of the media: the Washington Post, the NYT, etc. They have done no features on Wright and what he preaches, or indeed no substantive investigative reporting whatsoever on anything potentially damaging to Obama. McCain and the possibility that he had an affair with a lobbyist? NYT, page 1. Palin? The Post is all over the conversation she had at the library. Do you have a book coming out that slams the administration? They'll serialize it for you. But no investigative journalism about Obama, not a single in-depth feature about his past. When it comes to Obama, the only damaging things they will print will be other peoples reporting, and portrayed as such.

[The Big Cat]

In time it was covered - as measured by airtime - but I think it was investigated far less than it would have been had it been any other candidate.

 

Think about the investigative stars of the media: the Washington Post, the NYT, etc. They have done no features on Wright and what he preaches, or indeed no substantive investigative reporting whatsoever on anything potentially damaging to Obama. McCain and the possibility that he had an affair with a lobbyist? NYT, page 1. Palin? The Post is all over the conversation she had at the library. Do you have a book coming out that slams the administration? They'll serialize it for you. But no investigative journalism about Obama, not a single in-depth feature about his past. When it comes to Obama, the only damaging things they will print will be other peoples reporting, and portrayed as such.

 

So if I gather this correctly, the information about Obama which may or may NOT exist sways your opinion of him AND the media?

 

Why don't you do your own investigating if you're so rooster sure theres skeletons in those closets!