The media wants Obama to win

This meme has already started, and is gaining traction. It is complete and utter nonsense, not supported by the facts, and untrue.

To counter this, all the Dems on the teevee need to point out the free ride McSame is getting. But none of them do it. So this meme will very soon be accepted as the ultimate truth, if it isn't already.

And it would be so EASY to counter it....what is the Dems' problem? Grrr.....

:grr: :banghead: :shrug:

the SNL thing, the "want another pillow" remark at the debate? It worked for her--the media suddenly turned nasty on Obama. Why wouldn't the GOP start complaining to the refs too?

That's a given. Why aren't we fighting back?

more benefit of the doubt than McCain. In fact, the talking heads "interpret" his gaffes into "what he REALLY meant to say". They didn't even TOUCH the story about how he substituted the Steelers for the Packers in his famous POW torture tale--that should have been a screaming red flag that he either totally made the story up to begin with, or pandered to Pittsburgh, or just plain is going senile.

GOP = Bunch of Whiny-Ass Titty Babies. :-)

Carl Jung would probably say that based upon McCain's verbal gaffes recently.

That NYT article about how the anchors were following Obama to Iraq, with the McCain campaign complaining about equal coverage, McCain staffers complaining to New york magazine that "Hillary Clinton received the worst coverage since Nixon, and now it's happening to us!", the Rassmussen poll, and now the Drudge story that McCain was supposedly turned away from writing his own NYT op ed (and it really wasn't an op ed, more like a reaction. The NYT said that they welcomed McCain wrote a more detailed draft" (heh!), but instead, he is using this as an opportunity to cozy up to Drudge. Damn liberal media!


Oh yeah, and this is kind of off topic, but this is the latest from Lanny Davis on the Huffington post. It's pretty funny, as always. Ran in the Washington Times, of course.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/confessions-of-an-anti-ir_b_114061.html

exaggerating the littlest of things of Obama to a big controversy...i see the media is at it again with this new meme of "media wanting Obama to win" so they can make it a big controversial deal on obama again....so to me its just another day and another hit at obama and McCain is baby clean

Dan Abrams said tonight that the media ignores McSame's gaffe after gaffe after gaffe and hammer away at Obama.

I was shocked that some are admitting how favorable media coverage for McSame has been.

repeated the meme over and over. Nothing was farther from the truth in reality. 24/7 coverage of Bittergate; 24/7 coverage of Rev. Wright. Most recently, the entire July 4th weekend was about how Obama flip-flopped on Iraq. Two weeks before that, it was how Obama flip-flopped on FISA. And 3 weeks before that, 24/7 coverage of how Obama flip-flopped on public financing. All lies! All repeated. Even people on DU and other liberal blogs believe that shit.

PEW pointed this out after the primary. Most Americans believe that Obama was treated better than Hillary, but PEW finds that their belief was unfounded and based on the media's repeating of that fallacy. While it is true that Obama receives more coverage than Hillary or McCain, it is NOT true that the coverage is always favorable.

<snip>

Combative Clinton Gets Media to Cover Itself
When Reporters Weren't Vetting Obama, They Were Questioning Their Own Treatment of Him
by Mark Jurkowitz, Associate Director, Project for Excellence in Journalism
March 4, 2008



If Hillary Clinton last week wanted to work the refs -- or argue with the press to generate more skeptical coverage of Barack Obama and maybe change the subject from her own problems -- the evidence suggests it worked.

One of the more memorable moments last week occurred during the Feb. 26 debate, when Clinton -- referencing a Saturday Night Live sketch -- suggested the media had gone soft on Obama. ("If anybody saw 'Saturday Night Live,'" the New York senator noted, "maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow.")

With no primary contests to consume press attention, Clinton's charges of a pro-Obama tilt reverberated in the media echo chamber last week. Obama's life and record came under a heightened degree of scrutiny, with everything from his legislative career to his ties to Louis Farrakhan to his African attire getting a public airing. Obama was the top campaign newsmaker and a significant or dominant factor in 69% of the stories from Feb. 25-March 2, a period between the Feb 19 Wisconsin primary and the March 4 tests in Texas and Ohio. That was the highest level of coverage for any candidate in 2008. And part of it was news outlets -- from Good Morning America to The New York Times -- engaged in introspective inquiry aimed at answering this headline atop one Feb. 29 newspaper story: "Are the media giving Obama a free ride?"

Clinton finished second in the derby for media exposure last week, registering as a significant or dominant figure in 58% of the campaign stories, a high water mark for her as well. And after weeks of tough coverage, Clinton may have been relieved last week to find the media narrative focused more on her attacks on Obama than her 11-contest losing streak since Super Tuesday.

Last week's campaign coverage also reflected what has become a one-party nomination fight. With the GOP battle widely considered over, Democrats generated more than four times the coverage of Republicans (68% to 15%).

Presumptive Republican nominee McCain was at 28%, his lowest total in five weeks and a 10-point drop from last week. With McCain's nomination a virtual certainty, his coverage last week took some strange detours. That included his high-profile repudiation of a conservative talk host who launched a vitriolic assault on Obama and the mini-flap over whether McCain's birthplace -- the Panama Canal Zone -- ran afoul of eligibility requirements for a U.S. president.

</snip>

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/752/obama-media-coverage-vetting

Thanks. And of course since winning the nomination, Obama has been scrutinized much more than McSame. With a plethora of facts just waiting to be used, the Dems need to step up and fight back.

instead of our lying eyes.

They're so full of shit..they can't win fairly so they have to cheat and they're still not gonna win.

NOT THIS TIME

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6565086

Study: Coverage of Clinton, Obama ‘Almost Identical’
Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy Examine Campaign Coverage
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 5/29/2008 12:00:00 PM

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) did not get tougher press coverage than Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) when it came to the main themes about their character, history, leadership qualities and overall appeal.

In fact, it was just the opposite starting after Clinton criticized the media for being too soft on Obama.

That's according to a new study from the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy.

In fact, according to the study, for the first two months of the year, starting just before the Iowa caucuses, the tone of coverage for both was "almost identical," with both getting about twice as many positives in those categories as negatives.

The tougher coverage, the study said, came at Obama's expense as "the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself."

The "trajectory" of that coverage "turned against Obama" well before the issues surrounding his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the study found. Instead, it began after Clinton's criticism of the media's allegedly soft Obama coverage during one of the televised debates.

Where the reporting was being done also appeared to affect positives and negatives in some cases. For example, researchers concluded that network morning-news shows offered an "exceptionally positive personal impression" of Clinton, with 84% of the assertions about the candidate positive compared with 61% for Obama, versus 68% and 69% positives for each, respectively, in the media in general.

There were also differences among the cable news networks.

For example, 69% of the assertions about Obama on Fox News Channel were positive, versus 54% for Clinton. And both far outdistanced Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), with only 45%.

On CNN, Clinton was the clear winner, with 70% positives versus 59% for Obama and 49% for McCain.

The most even-handed, at least toward the Democrats, was MSNBC, the researchers concluded, with 72% positives for Clinton and 70% for Obama (McCain got 53%).

That is all. Obama attracts viewers and readers. This trip is big, big stuff and they know it. To ignore it would be the ultimate in foolishness.

because their parent corporations want Repiglickins.
GE makes more off the war than they could ever make off of NBC.
They salivate at the idea of McInsane's 100 year war.

They are being given the word that they need to crank up the propaganda several notches.
They are not favoring McLame enough to satisfy their masters!

Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win

Monday, July 21, 2008

The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help John McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

A plurality of Democrats—37%-- say most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the campaign. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe most reporters are trying to help Obama and 21% in Obama’s party think reporters are trying to help McCain.

Among Republicans, 78% believe reporters are trying to help Obama and 10% see most offering unbiased coverage.

As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/belief_growing_that_reporters_are_trying_to_help_obama_win

The new media/Republican talking point for this week: The media wants Obama to win!

According to McCain, who is besides himself that the press didn’t accompany him on his Iraq trip, and your boys and girls over at Faux Noise who are now crying about how the media is so unfair, the media is apparently in the tank for Obama! WRONG!!!

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200807150002?f=h_column

<snip>

Obama and McCain coverage: "Nuts" or a "disgrace"?
by Eric Boehlert

Journalism, by nature, is not difficult. It really isn't. Most of the key attributes for solid reporting and editing come naturally to most people; fairness, hard work, and -- most important -- common sense.

News judgment, for instance, consists mostly of editors and producers using common sense to determine, based on the limited resources at hand, which breaking events and stories should be covered, and which ones can be set aside as less important.

During the slow summer months of a presidential campaign, that judgment and that common sense is usually even easier to put into practice because, traditionally, so little happens on the campaign trail with the candidates that what ought to be covered becomes self-evident.
Yet the Beltway press corps has become so borderline dysfunctional that even the simplest tasks, such as selecting which stories to cover -- such as using common sense -- now escape most of the major players at the mainstream news organizations.

Two events in recent days reaffirmed that sad conclusion, when entire news organizations opted to throw all sorts of time and attention at what was essentially a pointless campaign-related sideshow, while simultaneously displaying blanket indifference to what should have been the campaign story of the week, if not the month or possibly the entire summer.

Last week, after being hyped by Matt Drudge and Fox News, the Beltway press unanimously decided that Rev. Jesse Jackson's whispered comments, picked up on a live television set mic, in which he expressed anger with Sen. Barack Obama and used some crude language to convey his sentiments (i.e. he wanted to cut off Obama's "nuts"), represented a hugely important event. It was the most-covered campaign story of the week.

By contrast, McCain said at a campaign appearance in Denver on July 7 that the Social Security system as structured in America, in which younger people pay taxes to support the benefits of retirees, is an "absolute disgrace" -- but his proclamation was mostly passed over as being irrelevant. The disconnect between the coverage was astounding.

As of Sunday morning, only 17 major metropolitan newspapers in America had reported on McCain's "disgraceful" remark, in a total of 20 articles and columns, according to search of Nexis.
By contrast, more than 50 major U.S. dailies published a total of 126 articles and columns about the Jackson story. Several influential newspapers went back to the story ad nauseam. Combined, the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times and Los Angeles Times published 39 different articles and columns that referenced the Jackson-Obama controversy.

By contrast, the combined number of stories and columns those three newspapers published that made reference to the McCain "disgrace" controversy? One.

On television, the disparity was even more striking. Again, as of Sunday morning there had been nearly 900 mentions of "Jesse Jackson" over the previous five days on the cable and networks news channels, according to a search of TVeyes.com.

On those same news outlets there had been less than 24 references to McCain's "disgrace" comment. And not a single network newscast reported on the Social Security story.
For reporters and pundits, "nuts" reigned over the "disgrace."

Even days after the Jackson story faded, I was still left scratching my head trying to figure out exactly what significance, if any, the episode represented. Yes, it was embarrassing for Jackson. Yes, Jackson is famous. Yes, it's mildly amusing to hear what famous people like Jackson really think when they assume they cannot be overheard.

But that doesn't explain why Jackson grabbed approximately 900 television mentions last week, or why reporters spent an inordinate amount of time "analyzing" the repercussions from the "nuts" swipe.
I could see how it would've been a big deal if the person behind the hot mic had been a prominent Clinton supporter, for instance, and how the same type of crude language might have reflected a larger, possibly still-lingering rift between the two Democratic camps. Thus, the comments coming from that person would have had real political meaning.

But Jackson is a civil rights leader who often speaks for African-Americans -- who, according to the polls, are among Obama's most stalwart, unwavering supporters. I just didn't understand how Jackson's comments could be interpreted as representing a larger, widespread problem for the Obama campaign (i.e., actual news). Jackson, obviously speaking only for himself, said something nasty under his breath about the Democratic candidate whom he supports. That's blockbuster news that has to be mentioned on TV 900 times in the span of just a few days?

</snip>

repeated over and over and not even the Dems on TV question it. The Dems should be playing offense here and asking why McSame is given a free ride, but they can't even play defense against this bogus meme.

of Bush was long enough to strengthen and make more billionaires, if they want their milk to continue to be delivered a Dem prez has to clean up all the bullshit they've made this country stoop to. People all over the world have lost much confidence in the US.

Democratic party should be. The Republicans have been whining about the "liberal media" for more than 30 years, and their whining worked.

Democrats need to call out the US media for its blatant favoritism toward McCain. They probably won't be able to change things, but what's the harm in trying?

Some of us have been asking that for over 20 years now.