Study: Media Pro-Obama by 2 to 1 - as if we didn't know

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • 4sarge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    5,897
    99
    FREEDONIA
    Study: Media Pro-Obama by 2 to 1


    Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:36 PM

    NEW YORK — The coverage of John McCain’s campaign has been overwhelmingly negative since the conventions ended, a study released Wednesday found.

    Even as it found more than half of the stories about McCain were negative — compared to just over 36 percent for Democrat Barack Obama — the Project for Excellence in Journalism said its findings of a bias against the Republican were inconclusive.

    “It's quite possible for there to be elements of enthusiasm for one candidate or another," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Washington-based think tank, told Fox News. “That's a failure of professionalism if it's there. But this report can't suss it out."

    McCain and Obama have received an equal amount of media attention since the conventions.
    But if the quantity matched, the quality was wildly at odds. The project judged 57 percent of the stories about McCain as negative, with 14 percent positive. The rest were neutral.

    Obama's coverage was mixed: 36 percent positive, 29 percent negative, 35 percent neutral, the study found.
    “I guess it's inevitable, but it does reflect the relentless degree to which winning begets winning,” Rosenstiel said. “The polls are so ubiquitous that it is difficult for them not to be the picture frame through which the press views everything.”

    McCain's poll numbers have been sinking. As a result, many of the stories about him are about why his poll numbers are sinking — and how whatever he says or does is an attempt to stop his poll numbers from sinking, he said.

    The economic crisis, and McCain's response to it, also played poorly for him in the press. His attempt to deflect attention with attacks on Obama and his ties to 1960s radical William Ayers did even worse, the study found. During this time, news organizations also did critical fact-checks on some McCain ads, including one on Obama and sex education.

    Financial cutbacks also meant less time for news organizations to do enterprise reporting, again making for more repetition.

    Rosenstiel noted that Obama's coverage was negative during the week after the GOP convention, when the surging McCain had the Democrat on his heels and talking about lipstick and pigs. McCain's negative coverage closely tracks the tone of Democrat Al Gore's during the 2000 campaign, he said.

    A similar thing happened during the latter stages of Hillary Clinton's campaign against Obama, said David Gregory, host of MSNBC's "Race to the White House."

    “There's a lot of focus on the campaign that is in decline to explain why that is happening, and then it becomes in the eye of the beholder whether that is fair or unfair treatment," Gregory said. "The best we can do is challenge both sides substantively.”

    Sarah Palin has received three times the press attention as the Democratic vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden, the study found. Her stories were judged 39 percent negative, 33 percent mixed and 28 percent positive.

    Palin's coverage started out positive but turned when reporters went to Alaska to check on her record as governor. The study found only five percent of the stories were about Palin's family, most of them in the days after it was revealed her daughter was pregnant.

    The Project for Excellence in Journalism studied some 2,412 stories from 48 news outlets for its study, including newspapers, Web sites and broadcast and cable news. A smaller sample, 857 stories, was used to judge the tone of the coverage.
     

    jsgolfman

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 20, 2008
    1,999
    38
    Greenwood
    What's even worse is when the media actually comes out and backs one candidate over another. The Star does this and has received numerous mailings from me voicing my displeasure.
     

    Bigum1969

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 3, 2008
    21,422
    38
    SW Indiana
    I saw a discussion of this topic this morning on Fox News Sunday, and even one of the panelists who is from NPR agreed that there is more negative coverage of McCain/Palin.

    I'm not sure there's a darn things we can do about it. I'm a Journalism school graduate and remember (it's been 15 years) most of my fellow grads were very liberal.

    I think those of us who have conservative values and care about the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rapidly becoming a minority in this country. As I always say, our country cares more about style than substance.
     

    huawilso

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 8, 2008
    675
    16
    New Castle, In
    It is becoming more clear everyday, leading up to this election that the liberal media is what's pushing the election of the most liberal senator in the senate. It is so one-sided it makes me sick. We have a do nothing accomplish nothing liberal on the verge on being elected President of the United States of America. America wake up go to the polls and vote an American hero in as our President and stop the liberals post election party that seems to be already starting. God Bless America
     

    dburkhead

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    3,930
    36
    What's even worse is when the media actually comes out and backs one candidate over another. The Star does this and has received numerous mailings from me voicing my displeasure.

    Actually, at least in that case they're honest about it. It's one thing when their biases are explicit for all to see. It's quite another, more insidious, thing when they pretend to being "impartial" while aggressively promoting one side or the other.
     

    96harley

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 23, 2008
    608
    16
    Martinsville
    Too bad the libs don't protect the 2nd like they do the 1st. The 1st is really a taboo to mess with because if intervened with as in most countries with questionalble ethics and dictatorial leadership they are silenced. We don't want that here.

    By the same token disarming a nation leaves them at the whim of a ruthless power hungry monster who will groom the media, as is it weren't already, to edify and bless everything he does.

    Is there a watchdog for the media? The media sure watchdogs every other aspect of society from doctor's ethics to the garbage man taking treasures home instead of to the landfill.

    Everybody still with me? With all said, yes the media needs to have someone to answer to. I guess we can all stop buying papers, stop watching liberal news agencies, and start buying our ink by the barrel.
     

    dburkhead

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    3,930
    36
    Too bad the libs don't protect the 2nd like they do the 1st.

    Unfortunately, they do.

    "Hate speech," The Obama campaign's "truth squads," etc., are all direct attacks on the Free Speech. And what in the world is the "fairness doctrine" but a direct assault on a free press.

    Freedom of religion is written primarily as being a protection for religion from government and less of one the other way. This whole "separation of church and state" (which is not what the Constitution says) carried to the extent that people are forbidden to practice their religion in many ways is a direct violation.

    And so on.
     
    Top Bottom