Thread: Does the US media have a liberal bias?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Media Bias? What Media Bias? All 3 Network Anchors To Follow Obama Trip. That's 3 More Than Followed McCain

It makes sense. McCain is more well known and has more name recognition.

It's all silly news ratings. Same ol' same ol'.

^
Yeah, sure...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

^
Yeah, sure...

Perhaps you are insinuating there is bias for Obama. This, may be the case. I haven't delved into it. BO is definitely newer and more of an orator. He's less known, therefore I think he sparks more curiosity than the older, less charismatic, McCain.

McCain is scary. Someone should tell him to stop making that horror-smile.. :mccain horror smile:

OK, my 2 cents.

If I owned a newspaper, and that newspaper/TV station (or whatever media outlet) that said something which adversely affected my interests, I would probably find a way to remove the editor. Thats just basic self interest.

All large media outlets are owned by shareholders and controlled by boards of directors. Thus the controlling interests of even the most left leaning media still have to answer to directors and shareholders. Any competent board will be primarily interested in the profitability of the enterprise and not it's political leanings. However, if a story is being run which has some crossover affecting other interests directors may have, then pressure will be exerted (for example, ever wondered why Fox News never runs stories about Rupert Murdoch's enormous amount of editorial influence? - simple: because he owns a controlling interest in the shares of News Corp.). Thus our economic structure has a built in leaning toward 'not rocking the economic boat'. If we can describe the interests of large corporations as aligning better with the right, then we have a built in rightward leaning of almost all large media. This can be seen very clearly when analyzing reported media. It's not so much what is reported, but what is not reported that makes the difference. Terrorism is news, but the causes of terrorism are not. Immigration is news, but the fact that US agriculture would not run without hordes of illegal Mexicans is not. Abortion rights are news, but the economic imperatives behind most abortions (as in: "I am pregnant but I don't have a job") are not. All in all - a strong right wing bias.

Media is a business intending to make money like any other business.
If they can't make money, they die.
Reporting the actual, no-shit news generally won't make you any money.

That's why there's been a gradual shift to entertainment as news since the MTV generation in the 80s. Nobody delivers the news anymore. It's all packaged and processed and molded to fit the ratings parameters. If nobody's watching, you're irrelevant -- you're done.

Thirty years ago the news broadcasts had far less bias. People would, for example, chose to watch CBS over NBC because they trusted the announcer more. Today almost all media favors one political leaning or the other and viewers tune in accordingly based on whether they want to agree or disagree with the news.

Heh...so in the tank they don't even realize they're in the tank!

JustOneMinute: So In The Tank They Don't Know They Are In The Tank

I think the only unbiased news I have read is from The Economist, which reports, in my view, accurate news on the events and then throws in a few comments. The staff do seem to doubt BO's ability and whether folks should take him at "star" value. All show, no substance.

Welcome, Mr would-be President

Jul 17th 2008
From The Economist print edition
But foreigners would be wise to temper their Obamamania, if only to limit future disappointment

Jul 17th 2008
From The Economist print edition

...The Pew Research Centre reported last month that, in each of the main European countries, at least twice as many people have confidence in Mr Obama as in his rival. Elsewhere things are a bit more nuanced, but from Mexico to China, and from Russia to Australia, the foreigners are firmly in the Obama camp.

There are reasons for them to be more cautious. Marvellous orator and skilled electoral tactician though he may be, Mr Obama has not repealed the basic laws of politics. Most obviously, he may not win. Rasmussen, a pollster, rattled the Obama machine this week by showing the two candidates tied, and most other analysts agree that the bounce he enjoyed after seeing off Hillary Clinton has been small and short-lived. Mr Obama still definitely has the edge, but opinion at home diverges sharply from that in most of the rest of the world.

Second, President Obama would not be answerable to the world that so adores him. A president is elected by America’s more ambivalent people, and is accountable only to them. And his powers are mightily constrained by Congress, which is even more immediately accountable to its electorate.

Finally, there are some disquieting signs of a tendency on Mr Obama’s part to tailor his message to whichever audience he is talking to. All politicians do this of course. But Mr Obama’s two-steps have become Astaire-like...he has also been careful to give himself wriggle-room on its pace (Iraq withdrawal). Similarly, he once talked of negotiating with the Iranian leadership without preconditions: now he talks of the need for “preparations”.

....On all these fronts, in fact, there are doubts: doubts as to just what Mr Obama’s positions as president would actually be, and doubts over what he could get through Congress. Those doubts will not stop the crowds turning out for him, even if he fails to commandeer the Brandenburg Gate as his backdrop. But the fans should bear in mind that what they see is not precisely what they will get.

Barack Obama on tour | Welcome, Mr would-be President | Economist.com

US news sources -- geez, pretty left-leaning in support, innit? Except for FOX. If I see that Huffington Post pretty boy leftie on MSNBC one more time, I will pay for a Nazi dentist to pull drill his teeth sans freezing.

STRESSING AN OBAMA ASSASSINATION THREAT, while editing out a threat to Bush from the same guy. And, Media's self censorship is a bigger scandal than Edwards.

Well, considering the media sat on the Edwards mistress story since before the Iowa Caucuses, I'd say yes it is biased. The NYT ran the unsubstaniated McCain lobbyist affair. That story wasn't even at the level of specualtion. They got Edwards so tightly wrapped and bowed, he had to admit it.

Thats actually a very good editorial from the Economist. While Obama may well be ascendant, those who think he's the Great 'half-white' Hope are likely to be disappointed. Depressed inner cities will not blossom into high tech knowledge centres overnight. Neither will climate change and global warming evaporate, and there will still be some 'Bad guys' out there trying to harm US and Western interests.

Obama is not the Messiah! Otoh, neither will newly emboldened 'Soul brothers' invade your leafy suburbs demanding your daughter in tribute. And honestly, Microsoft and Big Oil will not be nationalised for the public good.

The pressing concerns of a new Democratic administration will be somewhat more mundane, given their more conservative approach to economics than the modern Republican party. Such things as reducing the budget deficit and restoring faith in the financial system, so that the banks can start lending again (a bit more sensibly).

I suppose the NYT running 32 successive front page articles on Abu Ghraib might be considered a slight media bias.

They can impose a winfall profits tax like Carter did. That worked just great. Why in the hell does anyone allow the Democrats to define their tax as a 'windfall'? They make it sound like it was mana from Heaven so it should be rightly distributed to all God's children. Are these present revenues recorded as a gain in Other Income when the journal entries are made?


Have the Democrats computed the US standard of living after the 'windfall profit' tax and income tax and capital gains tax? Howabout the effects of global warming compliance on the US stanard of living? Alternative fuels, alternative energies? Come on folks, chime in. What other hits to the US standard of living can we look forward to? Increased illegal immigration suppressing wages?

It's becoming a tired old mantra that I repeat, but panic mongering about Democratic economic policies given the respective track records of the Bush and Clinton administrations just seems weird. One would have thought McSame would be the one sending shivers down the collective spine.

Higher taxes, less incentive to succeed, European style equality.

Misery loves company. Milquetoast businesses and heavy reliance on Uncle Sam to make sure the shiftless and lazy are supported by the dynamic and ambitious.

Everything's free -- but everything sucks.

It seems I missed something, although in fairness I havent been to the US since 2004. Did these legions of welfare dependent deadshits dwindle under Bush' enlightened policies? Heck, I just thought the country had gotten itself mired in Debt, and run up a recort budget deficit.

I sure do love to read my Economist every Tuesday morning. Well written, little bias and a brill editorial staff. Always a laugh in every story. Their coverage of the US campaign has been pretty poignant and well balanced, IMO. First is an oped.

Lexington
Obama fatigue

Aug 7th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Is America beginning to weary of “Yes we can”?


Illustration by KAL
THE most politically potent emotion of the past 18 months has been Obamamania. This condition allowed a neophyte senator from Illinois to seize his party’s nomination from the jaws of the formidable Clinton machine. The big question now hanging over American politics is whether Obamamania is giving way to Obama fatigue.
...
The junior senator from Illinois is strikingly self-obsessed even by the standards of politicians. He has already written two autobiographies. He seems to be happiest as a politician addressing huge crowds of adoring fans. His convention speech at Denver was always going to be an extraordinary moment, given that he will be delivering it on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. But Mr Obama decided to move it to a local sports stadium that has room for 75,000.
...
Mr Obama is undoubtedly an enormously talented public speaker. But his rhetorical tropes can begin to pall, particularly in a campaign that has already gone on for 18 months. How many more times can Americans hear the phrase “Yes we can” without wondering whether they really want to? George Will, a conservative columnist, notes that Disraeli’s gibe about Gladstone might well apply to Mr Obama—he is “inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity”.
...
And, of course, The Econo is always fair:
Mr McCain needs to win over undecided and independent voters if he is to have any chance of winning the White House. He also needs to come up with his own version of a “change” agenda for an electorate that is desperate for something new. But the more he employs Mr Bush’s footsoldiers and borrows from Mr Rove’s playbook, the more he opens himself up to the criticism that he is offering another four years of Mr Bush. The same polls that show the race narrowing also show that Mr McCain has not managed to break 46% in the Gallup tracking poll since Mr Obama won the nomination.
The Obama machine also remains formidable: it is impossible to wander around American cities these days without coming across enthusiastic young canvassers. But Mr Obama needs to reframe the election so that it is less about him and more about the issues. And he needs to abandon the rhetorical high ground for the nitty-gritty of policy. Otherwise the general election could prove to be the second coronation in a row, after Hillary’s implosion, that has ended with a surprise.
Lexington | Obama fatigue | Economist.com

This article about Colorado voter makeup is also interesting, seeing as how the Demo Con will be held there this month. I like the bit about the vote on affirmative action. Fek, CO used to be Rep, and then all those damn leftie Californians moved in. Bladdy Sundance movie festival tag-alongs. *sniff*

The swing states: Colorado
Suburban cowboys

Aug 7th 2008 | DENVER
From The Economist print edition
How a reliably red state ended up in the purple camp

...This month the Democrats will hold a convention in Denver—the first time in 100 years that they have dared to meet anywhere near the Rocky mountains (see article). But John McCain is pushing back, assuring voters that he must carry Colorado if he is to win the White House. The polls are balanced, with most showing paper-thin leads for Mr Obama. A Senate race is similarly tight. Colorado may be worth just nine electoral college votes, but it is likely to be the hardest-fought state in the western half of America.
...
Floyd Ciruli, a Denver pollster, points to another hazard. Thanks to Ward Connerly, a black political activist and yet another Californian, Colorado’s voters will vote this November on an amendment that would ban preferential treatment on racial grounds—in other words, affirmative action. They are likely to approve it. Mr Obama, who supports affirmative action with reservations, may well end up on the wrong side of the argument. If so, his post-racial image will be tarnished.

The swing states: Colorado | Suburban cowboys | Economist.com

Obama's edge in the Coverage Race

By Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
August 17, 2008

Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party's presumptive nominee June 4. Obama has generated a lot of news by being the first African American nominee, and he is less well known than McCain -- and therefore there's more to report on. But the disparity is so wide that it doesn't look good.

In overall political stories from June 4 to Friday, Obama dominated by 142 to 96. Obama has been featured in 35 stories on Page 1; McCain has been featured in 13, with three Page 1 references with photos to stories on inside pages. Fifteen stories featured both candidates and were about polls or issues such as terrorism, Social Security and the candidates' agreement on what should be done in Afghanistan.

This dovetails with Obama's dominance in photos, which I pointed out two weeks ago. At that time, it was 122 for Obama and 78 for McCain. Two weeks later, it's 143 to 100, almost the same gap, because editors have run almost the same number of photos -- 21 of Obama and 22 of McCain -- since they realized the disparity. McCain is almost even with Obama in Page 1 photos -- 10 to 9.

This is not just a Post phenomenon. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has been monitoring campaign coverage at an assortment of large and medium-circulation newspapers, broadcast evening and morning news shows, five news Web sites, three major cable news networks, and public radio and other radio outlets. Its latest report, for the week of Aug. 4-10, shows that for the eighth time in nine weeks, Obama received significantly more coverage than McCain.

{snip}

Numbers aren't everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates.

Deborah Howell - Obama's Edge in the Coverage Race - washingtonpost.com

***

Hard to dispute this evidence coming from the paper's own leadership.

^ Even the raving Right wing Blogs, and Faux, devote more coverage to him than McCain.

Originally Posted by sabang

^ Even the raving Right wing Blogs, and Faux, devote more coverage to him than McCain.

Link?
Source?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by sabang

^ Even the raving Right wing Blogs, and Faux, devote more coverage to him than McCain.

Link?
Source?

Would be herculean job for Sabang to copy and paste all the links you have used in Issues. Your right, it's the rules but cut him some slack just this once.

Originally Posted by Norton

The more important question is; has the media unfairly supported Obama by going easier on him than McCain when they have the opportunity to ask questions?

I can find no evidence he is being treated with kid gloves in this regard.

Maybe, Norts, but I find most America media fauning over BO while doing OpEd jabs at McCain.
One reason I quit reading the IHT several years ago -- it just turned so bladdy leftie, even the news stories were slanted. Really POed me as when I trained it to BKK, it had been a great pleasure to read the IHT over morning coffee at the station.

Originally Posted by Washington Post Ombudsman

Numbers aren't everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates.

The hallmark of any good paper is objectivity. If there is merely more to write about a community coordinator/freshman senator than a retired captain/veteran lawmaker, so be it.

I think it's bias. Unfortunately for BO, it doesn't always turn out to be good -- even if the coverage is generally positive.