« Nepal’s First President: Dr. Ram Baran Yadav
Mukasey & Congress: The AG Changes His Tune But The Song Remains The Same »
Some Thoughts On Media Biases
Jul 22nd, 2008 | 29 responses
Although I sometimes see a story that makes me wonder, I have not generally been one to obsess over media biases against Republicans or the political right.
I recognize that the news media today is a business and that the basic rule is to go after any juicy scandal. My basic view has been that perhaps personal biases sometimes cause the reporter to lean to a Republican scandal versus a Democratic one but that if its a juicy story they will go after anyone.
However in the past couple of weeks I have seen some things that make me want to reexamine this position. The news media has taken some steps that seem to really step beyond just some minor slipups to some fairly serious bias against Senator McCain and the Republicans in general.
One of the biggest examples of this has been the reaction to Senator Obama’s trip to Iraq. All three network anchors (NBC/CBS/ABC) are along for the trip along with over 200 other reporters. They are covering every step of the trip as if it were a major Presidential summit.
Now I certainly understand that you need to cover this story, he is likely to be the next President and this is a major foreign policy trip. But do you really need to send all of the anchors ? The only times I’ve seen all of the anchors travel together in the past has been during events like 9/11, Katrina and the like. It doesn’t seem like this quite rises to that level.
In addition, we can look at what the media did when Senator McCain took a trip to Iraq (in fact he has taken several trips recently). The media reaction there was considerably understated. No anchors went with him, the stories didn’t even lead the news that night. In fact there was less coverage on all three networks combined than there has been on one network for Obama.
As I said above, I certainly understand the desire to cover Obama since he is the presumptive Democratic nominee. I even understand that perhaps he is a newer story. But the level of difference between the McCain coverage and the Obama coverage is well beyond what would seem reasonable.
For example, the New York Times recently carried an editorial on Iraq written by Senator Obama. Senator McCain wrote one in response and the Times refused to publish it. They contend it is because they don’t like the content of the article.
Now as far as I know they did not impose similar requirements on Obama and do we really believe that if the situation was reversed that they would reject Obama’s response editorial ?
Outside the election campaign there has also been some interesting content to the reporting on oil prices and the stock market.
Needless to say both issues are very important and I certainly understand that when oil prices surge or stock prices sag that it is very significant to the viewers. Perhaps all of the special reports and breaking news were a bit of overkill but I chalk that up to media hype rather than bias.
But when the trend was in the favor of the public (IE Oil prices dropping or Stock prices surging) then the media did not simply tone things down they reversed them drastically.
Oil price increases were reported by CNN as ‘Oil prices spike drastically’ while equal drops in prices were reported as ‘Slight reductions in price’ or by MSNBC as ‘Drops that are probably temporary’.
The same thing happened when the stock market prices improved. When the stocks slumped we had special reports about the plunging markets and the horrible effects it would have on retirement plans.
When they improved the reports focused on the fact that in the long term the market was ‘bound to’ slump (CNN) or on ABC we were told that the ‘slight gains’ did not erase the losses.
What ABC didn’t tell you is they were comparing one day worth of gains to one month worth of losses (unless you read the fine print at the bottom of the screen).
Now I can accept that some of this is simply the result of the media liking to report bad news because they think it is better for ratings. But when you combine all of the reports on all of the networks it becomes a question mark.
Although I am still not sold on a vast media conspiracy (either left or right), when you look specifically to the Obama/McCain race I think it is pretty hard at this point to deny that Saturday Night Live got it right. The media is ‘in the tank’ for Obama. I would like to see them prove me wrong but I doubt that they will.
29 Responses to “Some Thoughts On Media Biases”
“The news media has taken some steps that seem to really step beyond just some minor slipups to some fairly serious bias against Senator McCain and the Republicans in general.”
The sun rose again today, too. Business as usual.
The media was‘in the tank’ for Obama. Anyone in the White House was better than Hillary as far as they were concerned.
Now the Media has returned to it's default position, Pro Republican (Pro McCain), unfortunately for them, the best thing they can do to help McCain, is not talk about McCain's Policies, or his verbal gaffes (Iraq/Pakistan Border?, confusing Shiites & Sunnis, talking about Czechoslovakia a country that has not existed for at least ten years) and claim that he is a foreign policy expert.
I should think that part of the intense interest of the MSM over Obama's Middle East visit is due to it being his first, and of course wanting to be there to capture any gaffes he may have during that trip first hand. And I'm sorry, but the corporate-owned media giants have been giving Senator McCain a pretty soft ride compared to Obama. They for the most part have been treating McCain like a favorite uncle. As Don_Q points out above, his significant blunders were pretty much obscured from most media outlets, while Obama's every utterance is dissected & examined in the finest detail. And don't get me started on the AP's warm & fuzzy Repub lovefest as of late.
Sorry, I don't buy the idea that the media is in the tank for anyone. They certainly carried more than enough water for George Bush in the beginning of his administration, and while they eventually acheived a little more balance in that area, the “media” is, as you've noted, in it for themselves. They will go where the story is, and right now Obama is the bigger story. Even McCain supporters are more interested in Obama than they are their chosen candidate.
The fact that all three network anchors are going is really understandable. Once one announced going, the others HAD to go for competitive reasons. On the other hand, the cable news outlets and the printed press followed McCain on his numerous mideast trips and reported extensively on them. Perhaps, if the Democratic Primary fight had not gobbled up so much airtime, the network anchors would have gone on McCain's last trip.
Now on to the NY Times and McCain's editorial. A number of Blogs have posted the full text of McCain's editorial and it is nothing more than his standard stump speech – full of criticism of Obama but noticeable lacking in detail. Obama's editorial was not much better but he minimized his criticsm of McCain and contain at least one hard detail – the 16 month withdrawal proposal. The NY Times asked McCain to revise the piece to include some specifics on the “conditions on the ground” which would allow troops to withdraw. McCain refused. Having written 2 op-ed pieces for major newspapers myself, my experience was editing was the norm, not the exception.
For as long as I've been alive, bad news ALWAYS trumps good news in the media. Remember if it bleeds, it leads.
Please. Obama can't talk without stumbling over every word if he doesn't have a prepared speech or teleprompter. Posters like Don Quijote–where in the world do you get your nonsensical ideas? MSM journalists admit they are left-leaning. And the media IS in the tank for Obama and has been from Day One. How else do you explain his success? It certainly isn't experience, or qualifications, or proven leadership. And the number of gaffes this 'young' candidate has made in speaking would make anyone think he has early Altzheimers! Give me a break!
Have you considered the points brought up by Andrew Romano at Newsweek? There's no mention of it in your post. Or are we passing go and going straight to conspiracy?
Granted, McCain was on a Congressional delegation and it would have been a mistake (possibly illegal) to bring the press with him on the public dime. He's had tons of time to go as part of the political campaign and bring the press corps with him since clinching the nomination.
First you concede the so-called big three news anchors are covering important news. Then you complain about the fact they're covering it.
Doesn't that make your complaint ridiculous? Would it really be less newsworthy–or more fair–if Brian Williams stayed home?
I don't really understand the right-wing reflex to whine about the media.
Maybe it was arguable twenty years ago…?
But currently you have Rush Limbaugh providing fifteen hours of pro-Republican bias every week–with reruns on the weekends–to anyone with access to an a.m. radio. Also, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham are out there with absolutely no balance. So are a host of others. Where's your complaints about that kind of bias?
And maybe you've heard of the Fox News Channel, which provides pro-Republican spin twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred sixty-five days a years.
And since you're using the internet to spread this tired complaint, I have to guess you've heard of the Instapundit? Michelle Malkin?
Or you could subscribe to an old fashioned, printed on wood pulp newspaper. You might like the Washington Times. Or the New York Post.
Really, can't you do better?
PS I'd guess the New York Times provided its reasoning for rejecting the McCain editorial. But you skipped right over that. Shouldn't you uphold the standard you think is fair?
“MSM journalists admit they are left-leaning. And the media IS in the tank for Obama and has been from Day One.”
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm — prior to Super Tuesday many were Clintonites.
Since then they're pretty much a solid Obama fan club and campaign staff; if the media were honest they would appear on TV with Obama lapel pins, with Obama campaign posters in the background, or Obama commercials every ten minutes.
“And maybe you've heard of the Fox News Channel”
They're treated like traitors or heretics by the rest of the media and by people like you for not following the liberal party line or mantra.
“the full text of McCain's editorial and it is nothing more than his standard stump speech – full of criticism of Obama but noticeable lacking in detail”
It should have been published. Let McCain's campaign continue to crumble if that's what McCain intended to say in the editorial.
Incidentally, many of us who are rightly critical of Obama and the cult-worship he gets as a darling of many are critics of McCain as well, not by default [no pun intended about the nature of McCain and his campaign) supporters of him.
“bad news ALWAYS trumps good news in the media. Remember if it bleeds, it leads”
And bad news grows at it spreads, particularly if deliberately made larger than it need be.
DLS–
OMG!!
You missed my point completely.
There is an alternate media for conservatives that is under absolutely no constraints as far as bias goes–let alone accuracy!!
The so-called MSM is treated like traitors or heretics by the alternative conservative media and by people like you for not following the conservative party line or mantra.
You ignored every example of the alternative media I cited besides the Fox News Channel!!
And as for the problems of the Fox News Channel, maybe you should have clicked on the link I provided. Here it is again.
George is right, there is certainly no shortage of media voices coming from the right these days, but some folks would still rather whine about a “liberal” media than to confront genuine shortcomings. No doubt the hoped for strategy (which has worked before) depends on repeating a mantra often enough the truth might be made to fade… but reality has a way of coming around and knocking at the door eventually.
Today's MSM are about as “liberal” as the corporations who own them.
When the MSM is concentrated into two of the bluest counites in the United States, when the heads of the MSM make donations almost exclusively to Democratic candidates, when many in the media move from Democratic staff to the media and then back to staffers, it is hard to argue that since they work for a corporation, they must be conservatives.
As I like to point out, the one time conservative voice on PBS worked in the Clinton White House.
Just because the MSM is large corporations does not make them conservative. Please point out anything that Viacom, GE, or Time Warner does that would be considered something that Republicans would support.
As Andrea Mitchell has shown in her refusal to report on one of HRC's lies(that she knew was a lie as she was present at the time) and her current public antagonism of what ever Obama says, we can also see how the entire MSM treats McCain with kid gloves, none of his misstatements ever make the evening news. The al-Maliki interview was extremely important, but did the MSM cover it? No, not until they had the republician rebuttal from the al-Maliki aide-released from CENTCOM 18 hours after the interview became public, then when the pressure became to great not to print it, they nit pick and say that well the Iraqi's want the US to stany until the end of 2010, 8 months longer than what Obama said. Every word said by Obama is nit picked to death by the MSM, yet McCain gets a free pass on every mistaken word of his obivious lies-where tou can see him on tape saying the exact opposite of what he claims. It continues to amaze me that the republicians continue to cry poor little me when the MSM bias towards McCain is so totally obivious to anyone with a brain who is not married to the days talking points. BTW I am an independent who voted for McCain both in the 2000 primary in Mi. and in the Texas primary this year. But my eyes are not closed to what the MSM is doing. So stop the whining, and really look at what the mega corps allow us to see on the evening news. Then you can see just who they want to become the next president. and it is not Obama.
Thanks for all of the comments so far. I guess a lot of people have strong feelings about this issue.
As to some of the comments, I did concede they should cover the Obama visit but I am not sure why they need to make such a major deal about it. In addition they gave virtually no coverage to McCain.
Again, I ask those who say there is no bias how they would feel if the situation were reversed. If the media had covered McCains trip but ignored Obamas, or if a major paper had let Obama publish his Op Ed but had refused Obamas….
McClown is just as much a MSM darling. One example was the false narrative about McClown flying coach and carrying his own bags.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804280006
Maybe the “trophy bride's” corporate jet wasn't available to fly to NH. Huckabee was the “coach candidate” and carried his own bags, yet $100 million dollar man(McClown) gets this phony coverage.
“There is an alternate media for conservatives that is under absolutely no constraints as far as bias goes–let alone accuracy!!”
Yes to both, bias and accuracy. Though the left-wing radio I listen to when I'm on the road here in Detroit is the worst of all. (Logic is usually absent and even one of the more calm show hosts blames everything on Reagan — which is said with contempt if not hatred — almost as often as Shaun Mullen blames all the world's woes on Bush.)
“some folks would still rather whine about a “liberal” media than to confront genuine shortcomings”
Some of us don't conform to your mischaracterization and false dichotomy.
It's an uneven playing field, Obama the Democrat and liberal is obviously favored and promoted by the media, and as with his more adoring lay fans, he is their frequent object of worship as well as adoration this year. He did the right thing by making the trip abroad, but the openly uneven playing field the media create will never lead to any positive response for anything McCain may do.
“entire MSM treats McCain with kid gloves”
They certainly reward his defiance of GOP leadership and when he acts like a liberal rather than a conservative. But don't be surprised when things change (no pun intended) after the two conventions.
The kind of coverage Obama gets is exemplfied by NPR.and on cable news.
1)There is a short clip or statement about what Obama said or did.
2) Three commenters follow (often one is McCain) to criticize what Obama said or did.
You can say Obama draws more attention, but he gets a LOT more criticism in the process.
In the meantime, there is no rebutttal to MCain's criticism.
He is treated like a Pope, whose character or integrity can't be questioned, but yes he doesn't draw the same amount of initial attention.
Which would you rather be: the unquestioned attacker, or the object of attention with constant attacks?
i don't even understand how you measure 'fair'.
Ever since the SNL skit, the MSM has been picking up every single Republican talking point about Obama and airing it on national TV. It's like they scour right-leaning blogs and radio and raise 2/3rds of what they hear as “what the people care about”. The abysmal Clinton / Obama debate conducted by ABC is a key example.
That said, I didn't agree with the NY Times McCain editorial decision, but I'd have to know more about their general policies to have a more informed opinion.
If McCain gave an address to the predicted tens of thousands of people in Berlin, it would be on the news as well.
Patrick asks
If any of those products of the Republican imagination were real you would have the right to ask those questions. But the facts do not support you. Those who say that McCain's “editorial” was rejected completely ignore that the NYT said come back with one that's not a simple point by point attack of Obama. I notice that there is not one mention of that fact in your posts. Might I suggest you read janine's post on what the McCain campaign did versus what Obama's campaign did? Blame McCain and his staff, not the evil liberal media.
The only way a thinking person cannot admit that, as a whole, the US media is left-leaning (being populated in excess of 90% by self-identified leftists) is if they believe that until a publication calls itself 'Pravda' or 'Izvestia', it is too right wing.
Austin Roth–
Please define the term “self-identified leftists”.
Communists? Naderites? Registered Democrats? Preferred Clinton to Dole?
Feel free to support your work with evidence.
George, apparently in AR's world only Dittoheads and Fox News watchers are thinking people. What a shock.
Oh my sincere apology for bring an inconvenient truth to this blog. I will admit that doing the research to find the data behind my claim, I did indeed exaggerate slightly. The latest polls I could find only have 78% of the journalists saying they are left-leaning. That covers the range from Clinton Democrats to Communists, but that doesn't change the point that the media is dominated by those on the left. And to try and claim that an industry that is populated by 78% of ANY affiliation would not be tilted in that direction is just plain intellectually dishonest.