REALITY CHECK: McCain gets FAR more favorable media coverage than Obama

[BroncoBuff]

Study: Media rougher on Obama
Published: July 27, 2008 at 10:19 PM

LOS ANGELES (UPI) -- U.S. broadcast networks had more negative coverage of Barack Obama than John McCain during the first weeks of the general election campaign, a study indicated.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University in Virginia, which has studied network news since the 1980s, analyzed content on ABC, CBS and NBC news shows and found that when reporters and anchors expressed opinions they were significantly more negative toward Obama and more positive toward McCain, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday.

The researchers found that most statements by anchors and reporters were neutral, but when opinions were expressed 28 percent of statements about Obama were positive while 72 percent were negative. The study indicated opinions about McCain were 43 percent positive and 57 percent negative.

Robert Lichter, the director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, has been a preferred source of data among conservatives, the Times said.

"This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage," he told the newspaper.

The study is based on an analysis of content beginning June 8, the day after New York Sen. Hillary Clinton conceded the race for the Democratic nomination to Obama, and ending June 21, as Obama embarked on a trip to the Middle East, Afghanistan and several European capitals.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/...3191217211564/


This story has much truth in it, from a different angle: If Obama made even one of the ridiculous gaffes McCain makes every week ... he would be d-e-s-t-r-o-y-e-d!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

More evidence (as if we needed any) that the media isn't "liberal."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[BroncoBuff]

I must admit this seems odd to me, there's a disconnect with these numbers .... probably because this study is of NETWORK news only. The "Big Three Network News" have smaller and more compartmentalized reports ... as opposed to the wall-to-wall talking heads on the "Big Three Cable News." I'm a news junkie, but before Obama's recent trip, I hadn't watch the Big 3 NIghtly News shows in months.

Although, I think McCain is geting far more favorable coverage from the standpoint that in my opinion, his monumental gaffes - most of which he repeats over and over again (Czeckoslovakia, Iran=Sunnis, Anbar Awakening made possible by the Surge), I think the news shows should be asking:

1. "Are these persistent gaffes a sign of age?"
2. "Do these persistent gaffes raise questions of whether McCain is intellectually fit for the job?"

These gaffes are HUGE in my book ... no presidential candidate I've seen since I started watching in 1976 has made such ENORMOUS gaffes. .

[BroncoBuff]

I suppose Gerald Ford made ONE such gaffe, when he said Eastern Europe was "not under the influence of the Soviet Union." That gaffe probably cost him the election in '76. McCain's gaffes are of a similar magnitude (perhaps greater because we have U.S. boots on the ground at war).

But McCain does what Ford never did - he repeats the gaffes two, three and four times!

He is simply not fit for the job mentally.
.

[epicSocialism4tw]

This is a joke, right Buff?

I dont think I have ever seen a politician morphed into a movie star like the media has done with Obama.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

I suppose Gerald Ford made ONE such gaffe, when he said Eastern Europe was "not under the influence of the Soviet Union." That gaffe probably cost him the election in '76. McCain's gaffes are of a similar magnitude (perhaps greater because we have U.S. boots on the ground at war).

But McCain does what Ford never did - he repeats the gaffes two, three and four times!

He is simply not fit for the job mentally.
.

Do you have a link to the gaffes?

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

Do you have a link to the gaffes?

I gotta run now, but the "Czeckoslovakia" one was repeated three times, (and the repeating is what bothers me - it's one thing to say something dumb like '57 states,' but it's another thing altogether to say it over and over again, to not learn from your mistake).

Plus, he confused the Iranians with Sunnis ... said Iran was arming al-Qaeda and the Sunni militias (which is preposterous, Iran is Shi'a), and Lieberman stepped up to the mic and quietly corrected McCain. But McCain repeated the Iran-Sunni gaffe once of twice more in the same week!!!

Plus, he RIPPED Obama as "not getting it," and said "it's just a fact," that the Anbar Awakening (the Sunni militia standdown) was made possible by the Surge. Whoops! The Surge started 5 -7 months AFTER the Anbar Awakening. When confronted about this gaffe, McCain made it worse by saying there was a "Surge before the surge."

Plus, he claimed he never said sonething to Chris Matthews a couple months ago, and Matthews played the tape of him saying it the next day ... I don't recall what the statement was, but it was rightly very embarrassing.

There was another thing I don't recall that McCain himself chalked up to "a senior moment."

And there's more ....



(Notice I'm not jumping on his "we'll be in Iraq 100 years" comment, because I understand what he meant, and it wasn't a big deal. But these other things are BIG deals ... he's missing a screw, he doesn't learn, he makes the same mistakes ocver and over, and they;re mistakes about WAR. Maybe worse than Ford's gaffe).

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by angryllama

This is a joke, right Buff?

I dont think I have ever seen a politician morphed into a movie star like the media has done with Obama.

It's not a joke. While it's true that Obama is getting more coverage than McCain, more does not necessarily mean that coverage is favorable, which is the purpose of this study. Or perhaps you missed the presses flogging of Rev. Wright and most recently the canceled hospital visit? Why are the press flogging these incidents to death and actually editing out gaffs made McCain if they actually favor Obama? The bottom line is there is no liberal or conservative bias in the press at large--there is a RATINGS bias. McCain is old and dull and is currently spending his time visiting remote backwaters--unannounced in at least one case--and then complains that no one covers it. Obama is young and new and controversial and is therefore better for ratings. It's not really a help to Obama though when the press pounds every perceived gaff into the ground, while your opponent makes appalling gaffs--not perceived gaffs but actual ones--that get very little coverage.

Oh, and, this isn't a study from some liberal think-tank. Conservatives including O'Reilly and Hannity have cited studies from this organization. They are known for being bipartisan.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by angryllama

This is a joke, right Buff?

I dont think I have ever seen a politician morphed into a movie star like the media has done with Obama.

What Inferno said ... plus, these are the "Big Three Networks," which air shorter, capsule stories only, and without endless talking head comentary. I agree the "Big Three Cable" outfits are more favorable, llama, or at least like Inferno says, give more TOTAL coverage to Obama.

Inferno makes a good point about Rev. Wright too.

[davidtkd]

Hey BB, look, I'm finally posting!

http://www.mccaingaffes2008.com/

how anyone thinks that Obama is a media darling is beyond me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIAsS9VXiM

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

What Inferno said ... plus, these are the "Big Three Networks," which air shorter, capsule stories only, and without endless talking head comentary. I agree the "Big Three Cable" outfits are more favorable, llama, or at least like Inferno says, give more TOTAL coverage to Obama.

Inferno makes a good point about Rev. Wright too.

I believe that Bill O'Reilly broke that story, no?

If the big three media outlets were interested in tearing down Obama for ratings, you would have heard more about his other sketchy associations.

Sure, mass media is first and foremost a business. Here's the deal...just as gossip rags do, "reputable" outlets can sensationalize and create stories about whatever issue they choose.

Lets not forget that the moment Obama said the smallest thing in retort regarding Crazy Uncle Wright, that the matter was closed. Did Obama EVER get asked a legitimate question about how that philosophy effects his political philosophy? Did we ever get an answer?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by angryllama

I believe that Bill O'Reilly broke that story, no?

If the big three media outlets were interested in tearing down Obama for ratings, you would have heard more about his other sketchy associations.

Sure, mass media is first and foremost a business. Here's the deal...just as gossip rags do, "reputable" outlets can sensationalize and create stories about whatever issue they choose.

Lets not forget that the moment Obama said the smallest thing in retort regarding Crazy Uncle Wright, that the matter was closed. Did Obama EVER get asked a legitimate question about how that philosophy effects his political philosophy? Did we ever get an answer?

Are you really this silly? The Wright thing went on until the media had squeezed every last drop out of it. Hell, they're probably still not completely done with it. I can't tell you how many times Obama had to publicly repudiate, reject, disclaim, Wright and his philosophy. It was turning into a public thesaurus regarding words that mean "disown." Where were you? I don't even like Obama and I was sick of it.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Are you really this silly? The Wright thing went on until the media had squeezed every last drop out of it. Hell, they're probably still not completely done with it. I can't tell you how many times Obama had to publicly repudiate, reject, disclaim, Wright and his philosophy. It was turning into a public thesaurus regarding words that mean "disown." Where were you? I don't even like Obama and I was sick of it.

Did you not understand why I mentioned that O'Reilly broke the story? Are you that silly?

If you are too silly to understand why it would be relevant to get a straight answer out of Obama (which he never gave) about why he spent 20 years in that house of swine with his family in tow and displaying obedience to its ideals, then you are just plain silly. If you cant understand why his nefarious connections should be called into question, then your silliness goes beyond what I had expected. Silly.

Are you so silly as to introduce every silly one of your silly ideas with some kind of reference to silliness?

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by davidtkd

Hey BB, look, I'm finally posting!

http://www.mccaingaffes2008.com/

how anyone thinks that Obama is a media darling is beyond me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIAsS9VXiM

YES! First cheese, then Badgers, and now links to McCain's many "senior moments." How about this davidtkd, guys? He signed up on the OM three days before me, but I have him beat in post by FIFTY to ONE!!


What's that? You say I have a neurotic need to be paid attention to? No, no, that's not true at all. Well, yes, I did raise my hand a lot in school, but I don't see what that has to do with it. Are you ... are you mocking me?!

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by angryllama

Did you not understand why I mentioned that O'Reilly broke the story? Are you that silly?

If you are too silly to understand why it would be relevant to get a straight answer out of Obama (which he never gave) about why he spent 20 years in that house of swine with his family in tow and displaying obedience to its ideals, then you are just plain silly. If you cant understand why his nefarious connections should be called into question, then your silliness goes beyond what I had expected. Silly.

Are you so silly as to introduce every silly one of your silly ideas with some kind of reference to silliness?

Somehow, I got caught in a conversation with Richard Simmons.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Somehow, I got caught in a conversation with Richard Simmons.

I think that you've been channelling him for awhile now.

It's time to give "Sweatin' to the Oldies" a rest, man.

Maybe Tae Bo can take its place?

[davidtkd]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

YES! First cheese, then Badgers, and now links to McCain's many "senior moments." How about this davidtkd, guys? He signed up on the OM three days before me, but I have him beat in post by FIFTY to ONE!!


What's that? You say I have a neurotic need to be paid attention to? No, no, that's not true at all. Well, yes, I did raise my hand a lot in school, but I don't see what that has to do with it. Are you ... are you mocking me?!

Don't forget beer, we like our beer.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by davidtkd

Hey BB, look, I'm finally posting!

http://www.mccaingaffes2008.com/

how anyone thinks that Obama is a media darling is beyond me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIAsS9VXiM

I went to the first site about McCain and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what McCain was talking about when he said "we won the war easily." McCain can separate two distinct fields of victory which for whatever reason, the above site can't. One, the war to end Saddam Hussein's rule was easy and quick. That war is over. Two, NATION BUILDING takes alot longer, which is now where the war is in Iraq.

So, is McCain right when he says the war was won easily--yes, when talking about the war to end Saddam Hussein's regime.

But, is the war over as of now? No, because there is a process to try and establish a stable democracy in Iraq, and this is what is taking so long.

I didn't bother reading the rest of the gaffe stuff. What's the point.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

I went to the first site about McCain and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what McCain was talking about when he said "we won the war easily." McCain can separate two distinct fields of victory which for whatever reason, the above site can't. One, the war to end Saddam Hussein's rule was easy and quick. That war is over. Two, NATION BUILDING takes alot longer, which is now where the war is in Iraq.

So, is McCain right when he says the war was won easily--yes, when talking about the war to end Saddam Hussein's regime.

But, is the war over as of now? No, because there is a process to try and establish a stable democracy in Iraq, and this is what is taking so long.

I didn't bother reading the rest of the gaffe stuff. What's the point.

Ha ha ha!

That was a pretty amazing spin job.

[frerottenextelway]

Anyone that doubts there's a double standard, answer this. If it was Obama's wife that got caught stealing prescripton med from a charity because she was an addict, what kind of news coverage ya'll think that would get?

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Ha ha ha!

That was a pretty amazing spin job.

Too bad you can't you can't think for yourself, but whatever. It took me all of 2 seconds to find this article on google which just validates what I said, albeit it looks like an anti-American article (perhaps pro-Islamic slant).

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/192340.php

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

Too bad you can't you can't think for yourself, but whatever.

This from a guy whose McCain damage control and spin sounds like it was copied and pasted from the latest RNC talking points?

That's rich.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

This from a guy whose McCain damage control and spin sounds like it was copied and pasted from the latest RNC talking points?

That's rich.

Ah yes, the personal attack. It works well when your argument is groundless. Ignore my point, and focus on perceived character flaws.

Talk about spinnnnnnnnn...

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by frerottenextelway

Anyone that doubts there's a double standard, answer this. If it was Obama's wife that got caught stealing prescripton med from a charity because she was an addict, what kind of news coverage ya'll think that would get?

Oh man ... did that happen? Cindy McCain?