It’s been almost comical to watch the media overcompensate for accusations that they’re giving Obama a free pass while McCain has made gaffe after gaffe without any attention. The fact of the matter is that Obama does get more attention but it’s not because of any bias, it’s because he’s much more exciting. The media is a business just like any other: it steers itself towards where the money is. As Frank Rich pointed out in his Op-Ed today, even Access Hollywood saw a 20% spike in viewers when they put Obama on. But here’s the thing, he’s not getting a free pass. The added attention has led to more scrutiny than any other Presidential candidate has experienced and the amazing thing is that he’s held up. Over all this coverage and all this attention he has yet to really make any game-changing mistakes.
McCain on the other hand has been busy making mistakes. Rich points out a few:
Mr. McCain could also have stepped into the leadership gap left by Mr. Bush’s de facto abdication. His inability to even make a stab at doing so is troubling. While drama-queen commentators on television last week were busy building up false suspense about the Obama trip — will he make a world-class gaffe? will he have too large an audience in Germany? — few focused on the alarms that Mr. McCain’s behavior at home raise about his fitness to be president.
Once again the candidate was making factual errors about the only subject he cares about, imagining an Iraq-Pakistan border and garbling the chronology of the Anbar Awakening. Once again he displayed a tantrum-prone temperament ill-suited to a high-pressure 21st-century presidency. His grim-faced crusade to brand his opponent as a traitor who wants to “lose a war” isn’t even a competent impersonation of Joe McCarthy. Mr. McCain comes off instead like the ineffectual Mr. Wilson, the retired neighbor perpetually busting a gasket at the antics of pesky little Dennis the Menace.
The week’s most revealing incident occurred on Wednesday when the new, supposedly improved McCain campaign management finalized its grand plan to counter Mr. Obama’s Berlin speech with a “Mission Accomplished”-like helicopter landing on an oil rig off Louisiana’s coast. The announcement was posted on politico.com even as any American with a television could see that Hurricane Dolly was imminent. Needless to say, this bit of theater was almost immediately “postponed” but not before raising the question of whether a McCain administration would be just as hapless in anticipating the next Katrina as the Bush-Brownie storm watch.
Rich’s article was very good and actually not really focused on the media angle but on how Obama has come to be seen as the President in waiting. It’s definitely worth a read.
Loading ...
Wow, you are acting like the media is “self-correcting” due to GOP criticism and not reacting to a poll of real citizens. The liberal media bias is real, but Republicans are used to it and don’t really complain about it anymore. Real people have noted the media’s favoritism of Obama and have reacted negatively to it. Minneaotans especially reject being told how to vote. That is why people read MNPublius and MDE instead of the Strib and PP. At least Publius and MDE are honest about their biases.
I think that after years of getting burned by Bush and his republcan cronies, the press has decided to do due diligence. It’s pretty unfortunate for McCain, but it is good for America.
I love it when people repeat the charge of a “liberal media bias”. Would you please present some evidence? Something more than anecdotal, because that simply isn’t proof. And do a little better than that hoary old trope purporting to survey reporters voting preference. Show systemic effects demonstrating a liberal bias…or stop.
Matt,
I think the point is that since June Obama has had 166 minutes of coverage on the broadcast networks’ daily news shows while McCain has only had 67 minutes of coverage. It’s a cop out to say that Obama is more entertaining or compelling, even if that were true. There is a huge problem when networks choose to cover one candidate over another to a tune of nearly three to one. Whether it will influence the next election or whether the American people will resent the obvious favoritism remains to be seen. Even the L.A. Times had an editorial saying that the unequal coverage doesn’t benefit the American people.
Josh,
You said you don’t believe there is a liberal bias in the media. You asked for systemic effects demonstrating a liberal bias, as if there weren’t any. For starters there is the fact that the ratings for network news continue to hit record lows. As much as I hate to link to the Huffington Post, even they are beginning to notice and report on this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/28/new-record-low-for-cbs-ev_n_103984.html
While this is happening, Fox News still has more viewers than CNN or MSNBC. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6517290.html
Then there is the fact that the country’s largest newspapers have circulations on the decline.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E6D7103DF937A35756C0A9629C8B63&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FS%2FSales
In fact, seven newspaper companies had record low stock prices just within the last couple of weeks. http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2008/07/6-newspaper-stocks-hit-record-lows.html
Finally, if you want evidence that the media is liberal, check out this article which researched media donations. The reporter found that media donations favored Democrats 100-1. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569
Matt,
Be intellectually honest………….there’s no question where the majority of Media Sympathy lies in terms of Presidential favorites!!!
Josh,
You say that the media is not biased and you asked for systemic effects demonstrating a liberal bias. Well, check out this article in Investors Business Daily which found that media donations favor Democrats 100-1. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569
There’s also the fact that ratings for the big three networks’ evening news is at historic lows. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/28/new-record-low-for-cbs-ev_n_103984.html
While Fox News still has the biggest cable news ratings. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6517290.html
And circulation for the country’s largest newspapers continues to decline. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E6D7103DF937A35756C0A9629C8B63&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FS%2FSales
And the rating of newspaper stocks was at an all time low a couple of weeks ago. http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2008/07/6-newspaper-stocks-hit-record-lows.html
ON THE MEDIA
In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias
Cable talking heads accuse broadcast networks of liberal bias — but a think tank finds that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Barack Obama than on John McCain in recent weeks.
…The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.
You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.
During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story
Who traveled to the MidEast and Europe back in March? John McCain. He got his coverage. He also went to Canada and Columbia supporting trade deals that are actually on the table now.
McCain has been a long time favorite of the Washington media. I think its hilarious that McCain and Republicans complain when McCain had them out to his ranch for a bar b que back in May. Can you imagine the uproar is Obama would have invited the main stream press to hang out at his house? And the media actually showed up and not to cover it but to eat and drink.
Anyone in the media will tell you that Obama keeps them at an arms length and it ticks them off.
McCain called the media his base back in 2000, after eight years of kissing up to Bush and pretty much lying about his positions, its turned ‘his base’ off.
Um. McCain signifies nothing but continuation of the policies of a failed and unpopular administration, while Obama signifies significant, if not monumental change.
Is it any wonder that the media pays Obama more attention? I think not.
That leaving aside a huge partisan enthusiasm gap, polling numbers which strongly favor Obama, and overwhelming democratic primary turnout, paired with pathetic republican primary turnout.
This was a great thread. I really enjoyed reading it, from Chris post of how much more media time is given to Obama to SeanH’s post on how during that (perhaps extra) time, the media is being harder on Obama. That was good stuff.
Then lojasmo comes along, and falls back on tired rhetoric. Continuation of policies of a failed administration? Do a bit of homework before you parrot what Obama tells the talking heads. Polling numbers which strongly favor Obama? The last 3-4 polls I’ve seen are all well within the margin of error.
lojasmo,
You may be right that McCain is running for a third Bush term. (Obama actually said fourth Bush term not long ago.) But at least he’s not running for a second Carter term, which is the monumental change you’re talking about. As for polling numbers, the polls have been pretty even between McCain and Obama which signals to me that the talk about an Obama landslide is just bluster.
SeanH,
If you think the media is in love with McCain and Republicans, why are they donating to Democrats over Republicans 100-1? http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2008/07/6-newspaper-stocks-hit-record-lows.html
Obama should be flying high right now. I’m surprised he is only even with McCain. Obama’s evangelist image should only be magnified in an open-air speech during the Denver Convention, so I think we’ll see a temporary bump then. McCain won’t have the same bump, because his forte is on policy and not on presentation. That won’t come through on a TV speech. People looking for a soundbyte President will have to vote for Obama.
Still, this is all looking to stay pretty even through November. Could be like 2000 where it is less about who is stronger throughout, and more about who just so happens to be ahead the day of the election.
Chris, I’m not arguing about what is or is not good for the political process, that’s a whole different line of discussion. All I’m saying is that this isn’t favoritism or bias, it’s just business as usual. Obama stories, pro or con, sell more newspapers and get more viewers. I’d be much happier if the networks spent equal time because McCain would be subjected to the same level of scrutiny that Obama has been.
Matt,
I’d say you were right except for the fact that the ratings for the big three are at all time lows and that includes the period focused on the primaries. Even the Huffington Post, which I hate to cite, has an article on this fact. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/28/new-record-low-for-cbs-ev_n_103984.html
The same is true for the nation’s largest newspapers who have seen their circulation plummet and stock prices fall. I don’t think Obama is selling many newspapers or, given the coverage and the hype, they would be going through the roof! http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E6D7103DF937A35756C0A9629C8B63&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FS%2FSales http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2008/07/6-newspaper-stocks-hit-record-lows.html
Matt,
I’d agree with you except for the fact that ratings for the networks’ evening news is at historic lows — and that includes this winter and spring during the primaries. I’d post a link to an article in the Huffington Post from this spring, but whenever I put the link in, my post disappears. Looks like you’re still having technical problems. Also, subscriptions to major newspapers are at record lows and newspapers are laying off reporters and cutting newsrooms left and right. The value of newspaper stocks was at an all time low recently. If Obama is selling the news, as you say, there aren’t many buyers.
I’d rather have another 8 years of Carter than 4 years of bush.
Let’s check McCain’s plan.
No plan to end this disastrous war…check.
Not talking about health care….check.
Keeping tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%…..check.
Against stem cell research….Check.
Against health care for kids…..check.
Against a woman’s choice to choose her health care….check.
No tax relief for the average earner….check.
Missed most votes in his current job….check.
Thinks Iraq borders Pakistan….check.
Doesn’t know the difference between Suni and Shi’ia…check
Nothing like Bush. Excellent analysis, DtM. 100$ correct, like all republicans!
Strong work, vaunted moderate Republican!
(tee hee)
Mediocre-piss poor academic record…check
Bad at flying jets…..check.
It goes on and on.
lojasmo,
You can’t be serious. Let’s look at Carter’s record:
52 American hostages held by Iran for 444 days…check
Failed rescue attempt…check
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan…check
18% Inflation rate…check
18% Interest rates…check
Gas lines…check
Stagflation…check
Malaise…check
Yep, we definitely want to repeat the Carter years.
I am perfectly willing to admit that when I watch Fox News it has a point of view slanted to my side. Why can’t some on the left admit that the overwhelming majority of media outlets that are not named “Fox News” favor a left leaning point of view? It doesn’t seem surprising or that hard to admit, but if you can’t, you can’t.
Scott Duncan,
Because what the Right has done is labeled everything Left that isn’t speaking the the talking points of the Right. Rush Limbaugh made his success in the 90’s by kicking ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC around for not beating up on Clinton like he was. Any fair shake or coverage given becomes evidence of liberal media bias.
For instance, MSNBC. They will go nuts over that accusation it leans to the left. Why? Because its dominant host can’t stand O’Reilly or the rest of the Faux News crew. Compare the hosts and pundits. MSNBC has under contract, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson do not equals on the Democratic side on Fox News. Dick Morris is not a Democrat.
So, to answer your question Scott, its not.
@ Scott Duncan
“Why can’t some on the left admit that the overwhelming majority of media outlets that are not named “Fox News” favor a left leaning point of view?”
Because people on the left prefer to rely on evidence and facts. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/business/media/07scene.html
Carter was responsible for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Inflation was 18%? My, I do love the fevered notions of a right-winger. Do they even know why interest rates were high? Do they not know of Reagan dealing arms for the hostages (ie, appeasing and negotiating with terrorists)? No, they just flail madly because they simply cannot face what a horrifically bad president Bush has been and McCain’s sincere efforts to continue the policies of Bush.
Free Dan Rather!!
Jimbo,
Yes, Inflation was 18% under the Carter administration. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921854,00.html And yes, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan happened under Carter as well as the Islamic Revolution in Iran which Carter did nothing about. Talk about being uninformed, sheesh…
Now my public school math tells me that Jimmy Carter was elected in the fall of 1976, took office in January 1977.
That’s 32 YEARS AGO PEOPLE! Carter was elected by defeating Gerald Ford a nice, if unremarkable caretaker President filling out the 2nd term of Richard Nixon who,by the way, resigned in disgrace and was pardoned by Ford. The Ford plan to deal with inflation was for us to wear WIN buttons (Whip Inflation Now) worked really, really good. Carter inherited a receding economy and followed the advice of his Federal Reserve Chairman (I think it was Paul Volker), a holdover from Ford, to tighten the money supply to correct the problem. This led to high interest rates, stagflation and deepened the recession.
The Nixon administration was rotten to the core, the most corrupt in modern times. His successor, Gerald Ford, brought us Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who later reappeared with Bush the Elder and later again with Bush the Lesser. Along the way they brought us preemptive war, torture as policy, and the Imperial Presidency, fulfilling the Nixonian Doctrine that “if the President does it, it’s not against the law”.
Beyond the history lesson WTF does that have to do with today? I can’t find any parallels with Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama other than that one did, and one will, follow unpopular Republican Presidents.
Digging yourself in deeper, Chris? Very predictable.
One thing an educated person knows is that journalists aren’t very reliable when it comes to data, specifically in economics. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you’d be able to consult actual CPI data and learn that the maximum year-to-year inflation during Carter’s time in office was reached in March 1980, at a level 14.8% higher than the preceding March. That is simply a fact. The highest inflation rate year-to-year for a given year was in 1980, at 13.5%.
The highest monthly number for Nixon was 12.3% and for Reagan it was 11.8%. So there’s no substantial difference between peak inflation rates during Carter’s time in office and that of Nixon and Reagan. That’s the sort of thing that happens when one goes through oil shocks, and in Carter’s case, one deregulates the price of petroleum (which is the cause of high inflation in 1980). The high interest rates were a response to the high inflation — to slow it down. Standard monetary policy. Again, something one would know if one knew what one was talking about.
As for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, you merely point out that it occurred during his term (duh). This is not a causative argument (per your original assertion), once again demonstrating your basic lack of knowledge of both history and logic.
I return the shovel to you to dig yourself deeper in your hole, as clearly that is in your nature to do so.
Bonus quiz: what happened to the unemployment rate during Carter’s time in office?
Oh, by the way…
“The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.
During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.” http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story?page=1
I love the way you keep saying that “people” rely on facts when it was a poll of those “people” that has y’all all tied up in knots. Those are the facts.
The media likes a winner and Obama is that. When Obama speaks, he speaks with such passion for this country. I am fired up.
When McCain speaks, I feel the need to go and take a nap. McCain has been more of the whiner of late because Obama has been getting the media attention. He’s berating Obama for taking him up on the suggestion to go to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East, stopping in Europe in the meantime??? McCain can’t have it both ways.
Like the Frank Rich piece said, the “liberal” media has given McCain a free pass on his countless gaffes and flip flops.
Once again, I am glad Mr. Rich agrees with you. The poll was American voters. You can argue the point all you want, but you cannot deny that the perception by the public is there. I suggest you keep telling the American public what they should think or feel. They love that.
Kathy,
The media likes a winner and Obama is that??? What a joke! If you think it’s the role of the media to pick winners and losers, you’re proving the point about bias. I’m glad you’re fired up, Kathy. But why do you say Obama is already the winner? The USA Today Gallup poll taken from July 25-27 actually has McCain up over Obama 49-45. Rasmussen has Obama up over McCain 47-46 over a similar time period. The point is that your dazzling candidate is quite underperforming in the polls and especially among women aged 40 and above.
How can the press get on your side when your big news of the week is having a cancerous growth cut off your face? If John McSame actually did anything newsworthy, I think the press would cover him. As is he isn’t doing that, just reacting to Obama.
Chris, I agree 100%,
There are some who might think that Obama will win, because November is quite a ways away and the polls were actually quite inaccurate during the primaries.
These are the same people who point out that Hillary was the assumed Democratic nominee according to the media before the primaries. They also would say the media was too focused on what slice of the American people were not supporting Obama, and offered no explanation as to why that slice was important.
They are just moonbats who hate America and want us to lose in Iraq, so they do not deserve recognition or respect.
Great Job, Smartest Man In The Room Chris
#1 Internet Stalker,
If Obama is the sainted one that’s going to ride in on a white horse and save the planet from George Bush, why is he doing so poorly in the polls. If the overwhelming majority of Americans are people like you and the overwhelming minority of Americans are people like me, why is McCain leading Obama in yesterday’s USA Today/Gallup poll? And why are women aged 40 and above supporting McCain over Obama by 13 points?
Chris, I agree 100%,
The answer is that Obama hates America and wants us to lose in Iraq, obviously.
McCain is going to win easily.
Thats why we Republicans need to continue to stalk Liberal blogs and show these moonbats who the smartest men in the room are.
Great Job, Smartest Intellect In The Room Chris
why is McCain leading Obama in yesterday’s USA Today/Gallup poll?
Gallup daily tracking poll
Obama 48
McCain 40 http://www.gallup.com/poll/109126/Gallup-Daily-Obama-48-McCain-40.aspx