Bias in the Election Coverage

I'm a registered Democrat, but I agree...the mainstream news bias toward Obama has been shameful and embarrassing.

Hey, jrock5, I bet my list of things the media hasn't explored about Mr. "the-media-is-my-base" McCain and his media-darling running mate is three times as long.

the media pursued Ayers? ROFL, they said that Obama was eight when Ayers bombed buildings..... the press acted as puppets for Obama's talking points.

Jake Jake Jake... again where have you been? The press did the same thing to Hillary that they are now doing to McCain. You all can't even see yourselves out of your own lousy paper bag.
the popular story is that Hillary was negative, McCain is negative, Sarah is stupid and unprepared and NOT ONE of you has the guts to stop telling that story because... I don't know, ... maybe you won't get invited to the best parties aymore.

Someone has actually edited a post of mine now. Not because of profanity or anything either.

I had a long list of issues the media has not explored concerning Obama and Biden. Gone.

I am disappointed that my comments posted yesterday evening have been deleted. It proves that the american people are not encouraged to investigate on their own about Obama but just to believe what they are spoonfed by the media. I encourage everyone to research on their own-don't take anyones word at face value-not cnn,abc, fox or anyone. you may be surprised what the real Obama stands for, and why he will not elaborate or many subjects.

2000 - Gore was a "the clear winner/a sure thing" throughout that election.

2004 - Kerry was way ahead in the polls.

2008 - Looking forward the McCain/Palin administration in 2009!

And Jake Tapper is in the tank for Obama.

Josh:

Please read the last line of the project, so you don't look foolish. Also, read what you cut and paste. I twisted nothing.

You are right about the stats in the 100% single week Obama twisted to make it sound as if McCain was negative for the entire campaign...he dropped down for that one week to only 34% negative...that's still negative, and in prior weeks (not many) he had more negative ads than McCain. I don't have every stat in my mind at all times, but I apologize for the error.

However, the stats for the entire campaign since June stand...of course these things are difficult measure, but the basic point is sound. Obama has been only slightly less negative than McCain. The point is all the zombies on these blogs fawn over Obama's positivity. It works like this...Obama says "Americans are tired of the same old games..." and then cuts deep with a "100 years in Iraq" lie or something similar. I am not saying that McCain has not flubbed facts as well...

I love how you cut the text from the study that absolutely proves my point, and yet you act as if I am "twisting" something. Read the last line in the article...the tone has been the same, more or less.

Politifact rated his comment about McCain's ads in the debate as "pants on fire," and that has a liberal slant.

Go worship your idol and believe every word his fake deep voice says.

It would be nice if Michael Malone actually gave us some specific points of bias other than the raving malarkey in that op-ed piece. Every point he makes is trivial - whining about Joe the Plumber? Please. It's fairly clear Malone did not pay any attention to any of the detailed reporting from the primaries on both candidates.

So, I'm not going to get worked up about the views of an obvious McCain supporter who is in the habit of yelling at the TV, like Michael Malone.

He is talking about the same media that was all rah-rah in the lead up to the war and painted anyone who questioned Bush's tactics on the war on terror and war on Iraq as anti-American.

If there is any criticism of the media in this election it is that there is more focus on the horse race, rather than on actual intelligent exploration of issues. It is the dumbing down of the media (and Americans in general), not bias, that is the problem.

If there was exploration of policies, it would be easily shown, for example, how disasterous John McCain's health care plan would be for businesses and their employees.

And, I would expect any reasonable person (even the most unbiased reporter) would view it negatively if:

-on the day the financial industry went over the cliff , you said the economy was “fundamentally sound”;

-you chose such a historically unqualified and uninformed person for the second most important position in our government, such that even respected members of your own party were dumfounded and appalled (and said so anonymously and for attribution to the press);

-your VP nominee went weeks without answering questions from voters or the media;

-you attacked the media for simply asking questions (and wanting to ask questions) of your unquestionably unqualified vice-presidential nominee;

-you switched your economic messages multiple times within a few weeks while the economy tanked;

-you flipped back and forth about what companies to rescue and not rescue and whether you were for or against a rescue package;

-you came across as angry, erratic, and sometimes even unprepared in the most important and highly watched forum of the campaign (debates);

-you ran commercials on completely irrelevant topics, ignoring the major issues and difficulties that the country faces;

-while you already had a well-earned reputation for questionable negative attacks, you doubled-down and made even more negative attacks;

-your campaign has been so erratic and poorly managed (as illustrated above) that prominent conservative columnists and party members criticized your actions and message repeatedly;

-people’s dissatisfaction with your message and erratic candidacy was easily revealed in declining polling numbers and favorability ratings;

-it increasingly became clear to both your opponents, friends, and colleagues that you neither had the ideas, temperament, nor judgment for the job of president of the United States.

I WAS a former McCain donor and supporter and was completely agnostic about the whole Democratic primary, but based on the first few weeks of the general election campaign it was fairly clear to me who was the better prepared candidate to be president of the united states.

You know what, the GOP fellas have my sympathy on this matter. The succubus and incubus that trouble you folks is easily treatable and all exorcism costs is your conscience (and that is not a fortune, is it?). And this is how: You all should go take a lesson on fair reporting (I also know a little about that as a journalist, even from a third world country) from faux, heck no, Fox News. That is the GOP organ where I saw the 'best'interview with the pathetic Palin and the sidekick tagged "maverick" McCain, who has never hidden his disdain for a peaceful world because all he knows is about "war", "victory", "fight with me", "country first" (by their words thou shall know them). It is the only news organ where I had a contributor dismissed Colin Powell as an "ingrate" for supporting Obama. How such a reserved and urbane man who served America so meritoriously and rose to the highest rank in the miltary can be expected to kow tow to the blundering even if blungeoning GOP simply on the account of having served in Bush's government beat one's imagination. But that is the first lesson in "fair reporting" (GOP et al). You can also quickly jump at the bandwagon of one faceless black man attacking a McCain campaign volunteer and etching a 'B for Obama' mark (even the first rule of journalsim of 'when in doubt, leave out' does not apply to the GOP School of Fair reporting, please!)and when you are found out to have been used to start a campaign of calumny against poor Obama (mark it that this is one of the things that rankles Mr Powell about the GOP campaign), simply say on air "this is the end of the story" (yes, because you are not even accountable to your conscience, or better still, kill your conscience before you start this lesson in fair reporting, it will help your level of assimilation of its dicta!) All is fair when you are on the "country first" vehicle, except you do not belong to the real America (Palin et al).

America knows more about Joe the plumber from Ohio, his background, how much taxes he owes, how much childcare support he owes, what he earns and his family background than Obama who wants to be President.

This sums up the media coverage (ABC, NBC, CBS) coverage of the campaign. Pravda press is more objective that the american media.

Will the last honest reporters turn the lights off.

Seen a lot of this "McCain is negative, so the coverage is negative" idea lately...is this a talking point? That is ridiculous.

PLEASE read the Wisconsin Advertising Project's findings, which clearly shows that both Obama and McCain have aired roughly equal numbers of negative ads since June 4.

Oh, and the week that McCain's ads were 100% negative, Obama's were 77% negative or so...

Drop the holier than thou attitude.

I am from Singapore.
Coming from a country far distanced from US politics, it is very obvious that the press is extremely biased against the McCain/Palin ticket.
Over here, we read US news articles of the failures and defects of the GOP side but hardly any word of the Obama defects. Are they really angels?

The press has incessantly hounded the McCain campaign as dirty and attacking. Never hear much about Obama's lies against McCain concerning social security, medicare, stem-cells, immigration, etc. Obama has been dirtier and gotten away with it.

Shame. You've got it wrong. Obama has answered every charge from Wright to Ayers - he even confronted McCain about Ayers in the last presidential debate. And McCain had nothing!! Seriously, after Obama explained his position, all McCain could do was mumble into his shirt about how he had wanted Obama to explain that's all.

The media has covered both those stories and ACORN. The problem is there is nothing there. ACORN is a complete red herring thrown out to try to taint a very successful campaign.

8 years of Republicans in the White House was enough. The electorate is about to give them the boot.

It's as plain as the twitching of John McCain's eyes.

Total biased, the press as they did after 9/11 when they were afraid to criticize Bush; now they are afraid to criticize Obama. How much do we know about Obama? Why they haven't even interviewed Ayers or Rezko or anyone here in Chicago? where are the press hunting for news or fair coverage for anything about Obama or Biden. Is like Obama and Biden suddenly have no records or we don't know about it. We now know more about Sarah Palin than about Biden or Obama records in Illinois.
Sooner or later we'll know the real stories and who knows what would be. All we know about Obama is based in his own books.

Shame

Then the next day, when he doesn't have to face Obama in person . .. he and Palin are back badmouthing him for Ayers . .. what a cowardly way to behave.

*how

Another thing, what a coward McCain is. Calling out all this stuff about Ayers behind Obama's back. So Obama calls him out in the last debate, explains William Ayers and says basically to McCain 'bring it on' . .. . and what has McCain got? Nothing.

McCain (after Obama's detailing the 'relationship') mumbles into his chest - no damning evidence, not condemnation, no accusations ... just some mumbling into his chest about who he had just wanted Obama to explain.

That was pathetic. He had nothing on Obama. Nothing.