Looks like the media has launched an anti-Mccain offensive...

I thought this was a pretty good article from the Post. Basically it admits the Post's coverage has been uneven and provides numbers for both candidates in several outlets.

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.

www.washingtonpost.com...

reply to post by Dronetek

I cant chronicle every instance of the media actively campaigning for Obama. However, its pretty much a constant, so you can just turn on the news and see for yourself.

So we should just take your word? Sorry, burden of proof is on you when you title your thread "Looks like the media has launched an anti-Mccain offensive..." . This title is a very broad accusation. You should have titled it "Looks like SOME OF the media has launched an anti-Mccain offensive..." with the proof you have brought forward. I have news networks (all of them) on for about 8 hours a day on average so I do see for myself. Networks have an agenda to make money, sure some networks are biased (Fox & MSNBC) but not ALL of them are in the tank for anyone and I have yet to see proof of the contrary.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
My reaction to the topic of this thread was: it's about time!

That's exactly what I said! LOL

The media has been covering Barack Obama more, it's true. But a lot of that coverage has been negative. NOTHING much has been said about McCain, positive or negative. He's just been skating. They've been in Obama's face every step of the way, positive and negative. I think more coverage of McCain is warranted. And if it seems like an attack to some, it's just what Obama has been dealing with for months now.

Welcome to the big boys' club.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

The media has been covering Barack Obama more, it's true. But a lot of that coverage has been negative.

Its almost as if we're living in two different realities. I'm a new s junkie and I can say with great confidence that I never see anything negative about Obama, unless Fox is laying in to him.

MSNBC,CNN,ABC,NBC and CBS are constantly disproving attacks against Obama and constantly attacking McCain. How in the world you translate that to "always negative against Obama" is really quite striking to me.

reply to post by Multiple Junkie

So we should just take your word?

Uhhh no, I said see for yourself......

Sorry, burden of proof is on you when you title your thread "Looks like the media has launched an anti-Mccain offensive..."

You haven't addressed a single one of the outrageous statements put out by people who are supposed to be respected journalists. Instead, choosing to attack me.

I seriously doubt you can find these kind of quotes in relation to Obama. I again challenge you to prove me wrong.

I'll keep posting examples of the media's newest onslaught against McCain, but no matter how many examples I post, we both know you'll just dismiss them.


How about this:

pewresearch.org...

or the ninth time in 10 weeks, moreover, Obama generated more coverage than his rival, even during a week when he was vacationing. The Democrat registered as a significant or dominant factor in 63% of the campaign stories studied, compared with 50% for McCain.

You know why? Because McCain destroyed Obama in the debate and the media cleverly came up with the "cheating" story so they could attack McCain some more.

Or how about ABC news last night, struggling to dismiss the debate to save Obama? Note this is the same ABC "journalist" who said McCain has no character.

MCFADDEN: While the crowd gave both candidates standing ovations, John McCain's answers clearly played better in the room. On Sunday, an NBC reporter claims people associated with Obama's campaign suggested that McCain may have had unfair access to Warren's questions, a charge both Warren and McCain deny. You know, there are some people who feel that this is kind of a sham operation. That really, we know you, as an evangelical, are a Republican, a John McCain supporter. The numbers seem to support that, that most evangelicals overwhelmingly already are registered as Republicans and support John McCain.

Thats right, so just forget it! Obama is still the man and McCain is an evil, racist, old white guy who cheats! Oh yeah, thats some fair, objective journalism right there!





[edit on 20-8-2008 by Dronetek]

You must either be ignorant or out right lieing. The MAJORITY of Obama coverage is Negative. Studies show this. McCain is given a free pass.

Thats right, so just forget it! Obama is still the man and McCain is an evil, racist, old white guy who cheats! Oh yeah, thats some fair, objective journalism right there!

I guess this is the part where I ask you where I called McCain an evil, racist, old white man. You will then respond and put more words in my mouth. Not worth my time. This has become too predictable.

reply to post by Dronetek


So you went to all this trouble and comprehensive OP to tell us that parts of the media favor Obama.

Well spotted, great investigating.

Thank you for this breaking information, I will adjust my political understanding accordingly.

Originally posted by Dronetek
Its almost as if we're living in two different realities.

Oh, that's true enough. We ARE. I honestly believe that people like you don't really register news about Obama when it's negative because you agree with it. If it's negative against "your guy", you notice it because you disagree with it. It evokes emotion in you, just as positive Obama coverage does.

I can say with great confidence that I never see anything negative about Obama, unless Fox is laying in to him.

Liberal Bias-bias

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.

What reality are you in?

How in the world you translate that to "always negative against Obama" is really quite striking to me.

The fact that YOU just translated me as saying "always negative against Obama", when IN REALITY, what I said was "a lot of that coverage has been negative" gives me an inkling of who is seeing reality and who is living in a fantasy. Sorry. You "never see anything negative about Obama" along with your translation of what I said, tells me who is not seeing it the way it really is.


[edit on 20-8-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

He's a Neocon, what do you expect? God Himself could come down and endorse Obama and he'd run to Satan for help.

Of course, what the GOP does at that meeting, what is it called, where they rape children, have gay orgies, they just had it like last month in California when Bush went there. Gah, can't remember the name!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

Your study only covers the very beginning of the election. Since the primaries have been over, its been all positive coverage of Obama, as the study I linked pointed out.

I've actually pointed out that McCain's coverage was much more positive in the primaries. I beleive this is because they wanted people to think he had the best chance of winning, so that once he was chosen they could beat him down.

All this stuff about me being a "neocon" is pretty laughable too. I'd have to be the most liberal neocon in existence.



EDIT: Also, stop acting like its ME claiming media bias and not several studies done over the last couple years. The left wing bias is pretty well documented at this point. I'm sure you'll stick to the studies that back your perspective though.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Dronetek]

reply to post by Dronetek


The first 6 weeks of the general election. GENERAL election. That's after the primaries.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You're right, my mistake. That still doesn't explain how those results seem to fly in the face of what I see with my own two eyes. Not to mention other studies done that show a huge deficit in positive coverage of McCain. One of which I posted and has been ignored by you and the others.

If I may make a "neutral" observation or two:
First - McCain does seem very decisive... if you want bumper-sticker answers to complicated problems. Bumper sticker thinking is what got us where we are today.
Second - Obama is a darling of the press - not because they agree with him, but because he's new and different. They may agree with any Dem who comes along, but this guy has "news appeal".
Finally - McCain, whom I really respect, has not helped himself a lot. His delivery and mannerisms may be normal for the "cold war" generation (like me), but he comes off as weird and somewhat creepy to younger voters. This shouldn't matter - but it does. I have a feeling that there is a groundswell of Obama voters out there that the polsters aren't tapping into because they aren't as "reachable" as people were in the past. For instance, like my grown children, I do not have a land line, so pollsters probably won't be calling me. Also, when it comes to people saying: "Well, now that news is out about Obama, his margins will tank"! The same people who listen to the conservative radio talk shows and get pumped up about Obama's flame-out are people who would NEVER have voted for him anyway. In polling my students (avg. age 28+), I have yet to find one who gave up supporting Obama because of conservative pundits.

Originally posted by Dronetek
I'm sure you'll stick to the studies that back your perspective though.

Yes. As will you. But I can see that there are 2 sides. Two valid perspectives. Can you? Depending on the polls you look at, how the questions were asked, who did the polling and their judgments, it can be seen either way.

There is both negative and positive press on both candidates. If they've amped up the negative toward McCain, it's because for months, they've been saying things like, "His middle name is Hussein. He attended a Madrassa, his brother is a Muslim and his wife made a "whitey" tape." If you don't call that negative press, I don't know what it is!

Nice post, Mr. Office.

reply to post by Dronetek


Wow Dronetek. According to that study...Republicans find Fox News most credible while Democrats find NPR most credible.

What is telling about those stats...Fox is owned by who? Funded how? Who is their demograpic? NPR is a NON COMMERCIAL News organization...no Commercials, no news for money...which party do you think is getting the most OBJECTIVE, non bias news?

reply to post by Dronetek

You're right, my mistake. That still doesn't explain how those results seem to fly in the face of what I see with my own two eyes. Not to mention other studies done that show a huge deficit in positive coverage of McCain. One of which I posted and has been ignored by you and the others.

From your source:

The answer is that in 2008, the candidates and their campaigns were driving the message more than any other source, with journalists themselves close behind.

Overall, roughly four-in-ten (39%) statements studied came from the contenders themselves or their surrogates. The press was almost as prevalent a source for these master narratives, with 36% of the statements coming from journalists or talk show hosts. Other groups shaping the campaign narrative were not heard nearly as often. Voters, for example, made only 6% of the assertions counted in this study, the same percentage for people considered independent experts. And 4% of the assertions about these personal narratives about the candidates originated from poll results.

According to your source over half of the narrative came from the candidates or surrogates themselves. Considering that high profile events might generate more exposure and using your logic Obama, not the press, is getting disproportionate media attention because his media events are drawing much larger numbers! Wow, I just gave you your next thread:

"Obama manipulates media through coverage of campaign events"

I will be sure to star and flag that thread.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by buddhasystem
My reaction to the topic of this thread was: it's about time!

That's exactly what I said! LOL

The media has been covering Barack Obama more, it's true. But a lot of that coverage has been negative. NOTHING much has been said about McCain, positive or negative. He's just been skating. They've been in Obama's face every step of the way, positive and negative. I think more coverage of McCain is warranted. And if it seems like an attack to some, it's just what Obama has been dealing with for months now.

Welcome to the big boys' club.

Beautiful, Simply Beautiful..

I said it before and I will say it again. The Media hasn't even touched John Mccain yet. If they did their Job we will see what a true Maverick he is. No Morals (left his crippled wife for a younger version) , Not Intellectually Sound (Graduating 894 out of a class of 899) and he actually thinks you guys that are voting for him are idiots. That's the funny part..We have to drill here and we have to drill now. How many experts do you need to tell you that it WONT make a difference.

um no disrespect meant, but this isn't really a launch. maybe an increase, but i don't know if it's even that.

it's been this way for months now, with most if not all the focus on obama. even the bastion of the GOP (ie fauxnews) was bashing mccain for a long time now, although it lightened up a little when it became apparent he was the presumptive.