|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jan 2, 2009 22:29:41 GMT -5
During the presidential campaign there were a number of people complaining that Obama was being handled with kid gloves. I kind of passed it off to people just hating a brother because he had charisma. I also was pretty convinced that McCain was not getting mishandled by the press anyways.
From my perspective it seemed that certainly Clinton and Romney had some legitimate gripes about the treatment they got from the press, but not Teflon John or the Messiah.
Now I am not so sure. Looking at the People magazine spreads on Obama in board shorts and the MS NBC constant focus on Obama and his standing in their year end tributes I am starting to wonder what is going on.
This is probably not as offensive to me as it would be to someone who voted against Obama, but in terms of the role of the media I cannot believe what they are doing is exactly what we want or need. Honeymoon or not, the press should not wait until public opinion has turned before they attempt to show a balance. They were asleep during the roll-up to the Iraq war. I don't want them to again wait until we are up to our necks in the quicksand before they find their voice.
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Jan 2, 2009 22:55:02 GMT -5
Larry,
I only noticed that Bill O'Reilly was very soft in his coverage of Obama before the election (probably b/c Obama agreed to an interview), but started getting very critical after the election. I have no idea why he didn't bring up some of the criticism before the election (the stuff was out there) and was very perplexed when the harder stance started too late to make a difference.
Side note: Last night on a "best of" show, I heard O'Reilly say that Franken was one of the five worst people he had ever encountered in his life.
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Jan 2, 2009 23:02:43 GMT -5
I did not have a horse in the race however I would find myself more right of center that left, but you already know that. If my guy were getting slammed naturally the other guy must be getting a pass. Once I did see the numbers regarding negative ink and air and my recollection was McCain’s negatives were twice that of Obama.
If the media shapes and influence our vote then that is plain and simple manipulation. I find that disturbing and far from what should be the media’s mandate.
One expects the media to present facts; however it is all subjective, no matter how you cut it a slant can be applied.
Seems customary not to kick an outgoing president and gently welcome the incoming. My guess is the media will jump ship and stab their own candidate in the back for ratings. If Obama picks his nose expect it to be on the front page somewhere.
Our ability to meet on a message board expressing views is still in its infancy the government and media will be looking over their collective shoulder.
I’m trying to watch the Sugar Bowl and type, better put my priorities in order and root for the Utes.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jan 2, 2009 23:57:09 GMT -5
McCain at one point used to refer to the media as his base. This of course was not something bestowed upon him as he actively cultivated the media and they considered him to be a straight shooter. I think as the tone of his campaign changed so too did their treatment of him.
You could make an argument that Obama kind of charmed the media with both his personal style and his charismatic message and delivery. By comparison it seemed Hillary never had a chance. Jack has a point in that much of the negative press Obama got (Rev. Wright and Ayers) didn't seem to even begin until the blogosphere or Youtube kind of forced them to it.
I certainly hope they do not intend to give Obama a blank check on the recovery. We need more than one way of thinking on this one. There is plenty of room between a blanket bail out ( I mean is it a bailout if everyone winds up getting some) and a complete bootstrap let the market fix it approach. I voted for the guy, but just to take office. We were already the victim of a resolution that seemed to have no limits or boundaries.
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Jan 3, 2009 0:16:54 GMT -5
Study: Coverage of McCain Much More Negative Than That of Obama Oct 22, 2008 Media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama, a new study says. Fifty-seven percent of the print and broadcast stories about the Republican nominee were decidedly negative, the Project for Excellence in Journalism says in a report out today, while 14 percent were positive. The McCain campaign has repeatedly complained that the mainstream media are biased toward the senator from Illinois. voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/22/study_coverage_of_mccain_much.html
|
|
|
Post by dj on Jan 3, 2009 1:29:29 GMT -5
I think everyone gives "the media" far too much credit/blame, in terms of their alleged influence.
Funny how each of us have satisfied ourselves that we alone are above the fray and unaffected by the blatant partisanship images and soundbites that together make up the message of the media.
But think... if I recognize it, and you recognize it, and everyone else recognizes it, then who's left to be "influenced" by it?
Each of us is willing to analyse the media and discuss how much it influences everybody else. It's as if each of us is sitting in perfect union with reality. I find this funny on the one hand but a little disturbing on the other.
Apparently the electorate was made up of 131 Million media analysts and about 10 gullible voters. :-).
Am I the only one who gives the general population the benefit of the doubt?
Seriously, who cares about "the media"? Really.
|
|
|
Post by dj on Jan 3, 2009 1:38:33 GMT -5
Study: Coverage of McCain Much More Negative Than That of Obama Oct 22, 2008 Media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama, a new study says. Cause and effect. Note that after the conventions John McCain's campaign went negative. It stands to reason that when you add in Palin's sidekick super-negativism, and when the response to the Republicans' campaigns in the polls is undeniably unfavorable, a majority of stories covering McCain are going to be unfavorable. This is not bias. It is reportage. Obama's campaign resounded with a majority of people. He was surging ahead in the polls. He was exciting the electorate and of course, making history. How could the reporting have been any different?? As I implied in my first message, I think people analyse the media as if it somehow shapes the opinion, when I think in reality it is almost exclusively the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by ♥Fem Dem♥ on Jan 3, 2009 17:41:45 GMT -5
McCain at one point used to refer to the media as his base. This of course was not something bestowed upon him as he actively cultivated the media and they considered him to be a straight shooter. I think as the tone of his campaign changed so too did their treatment of him. The media gave McCain a free pass, he should have been crucified for cheating on his wife. McCain is a decrepit old man unfit to be a dog catcher.
|
|
|
Post by IrishMike on Jan 3, 2009 18:11:27 GMT -5
Make sure you hang John Edwards on the opposite side of that cross for having an illegitimate child.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jan 3, 2009 22:20:00 GMT -5
What about the extreme bias of Fox News?And not to mention the overwhelming majority of talk radio hosts as being totally biased against Obama.Much of the negativeness regarding McCain was the result of his off-balance statements and sometimes bizarre behavior.Remember his "suspended" campaign?
|
|
|
Post by ♥Fem Dem♥ on Jan 3, 2009 22:39:45 GMT -5
What about the extreme bias of Fox News?And not to mention the overwhelming majority of talk radio hosts as being totally biased against Obama.Much of the negativeness regarding McCain was the result of his off-balance statements and sometimes bizarre behavior.Remember his "suspended" campaign? “off-balance statements and sometimes bizarre” duh the old goat has Alzheimer’s and needs to be committed. Fox and their hateful followers are the ruin of talk radio. Spud let me send you a lobster gram DRINK THIS olo
|
|
|
Post by peter on Jan 4, 2009 10:31:39 GMT -5
Hey everyone. I tried to go on the new kfmb message board after a few weeks away and the new interface is awful. I was mainly curious to see if a certain someone was still posting about the birth certificate. As for the question: I think that there are multiple reasons for the media's treatment. These are what I see as reasons, in no particular order: 1. The celebrity factor. He's a young, good looking guy, who is very charismatic and excites people. All the magazines like People (which you referred to), US Weekly, etc. would likely gravitate towards him regardless of his political affiliation. 2. The Bush factor. I don't think I really need to go into detail on this one. 3. The negativity factor. DJ talked about this earlier. If the media was largely more negative towards McCain than towards Obama there are two general explanations. - One is that the media is biased towards Obama and dislikes McCain. - Two is that the McCain campaign was run more poorly than the Obama campaign. I think that the answer is more based on the second explanation.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jan 4, 2009 12:20:52 GMT -5
DJ, I guess my concerns are more about the role of the media in a free society than the role of the media in the prior election. I think once you factor in all voting concerns, media concerns, fund raising concerns than the election was a collections of activities that taken as a whole produce a victor and that is as fair as we get. I do not think the media was the key either.
The media did not show much balance in our ramp up to the Iraq war. The questions they should have been asking were out there they just never asked them. I am concerned that the bailout and Afghanistan may represent the same opportunities and we again may get nothing.
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Jan 5, 2009 9:11:37 GMT -5
... The media did not show much balance in our ramp up to the Iraq war. The questions they should have been asking were out there they just never asked them.... Larry, I think the media showed balance during the ramp up in a rare attempt at being unbiased during a period of time when it could have been far harsher towards Bush. The pro-invasion factions had their time before the cameras and were written about with a matter-of-fact detachment. The same is true about those that were against invasion. I think that some of those that were against invasion marginalized themselves in the media because of their antics. Sean Penn was one of those loons. That took public attention away from more legitimate anti-invasion people because of their lunacy. There were those that asked questions about the degree of threat posed by Saddam. Before the war, there was little doubt expressed in the media about WMD. Why? Because of how hard the former president tried to eliminate them. We should remember Clinton's words in an interview during the 2004 campaign season when he was quote clear about his belief that Saddam had WMD's and that he was never sure the US bombing raids destroyed them. In Clinton's interview, then months into the war, he said that he couldn't account for tons of chemical and biological munitions. I can't recall Hans Blix being crucified, but, he was well covered. He was charged with discovering Saddam's arsenals on direction from the UN for the purpose of disposing of them, couldn't find them, complained about Iraqi tomfoolery at certain installations, was blocked from access, delayed (suspiciously always for just long enough), was interviewed, questioned and examined by media from the entire world. The media covered all of this without much slant, just as they did before the war. What was covered before the war is still available in videos, archived articles and quotes. I have brought them into conversations numerous times. And I think I was able to demonstrate that their coverage was consistent before the end of the Clinton administration and right on into the Bush term. First term, only. As was expected, the public opinion of the war was swayed. Not by the media. I have come to believe that all the media did was cover the shift in opinion. At one time, opinion was generally unified: Terrorism bad; Saddam supported Terrorism; Saddam Bad. WMD's bad, Saddam had WMD's, and hence, Saddam was bad. The media reported all this years starting well before "Slam Dunk".
|
|
|
Post by jackoliver on Jan 5, 2009 11:43:36 GMT -5
It never ceases to AMAZE ME how republicans BLAME SOME ONE ELSE FOR THEIR FAILURES.
The media gave BUSH a pass about the phoney WMD's and since then have done NOTHING TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE.
Can anyone here say over 4000 dead US soldeirs over a lie or at best a mistake? Republicans DONT CARE because they are silent...how cowardess. I would respect any republican that holds Bush accountable, like the rest of SANE America.
McCain's campaign went negative , and Palin was and still is trailer trash, IMO, no offense to the trailer, so of course the media covered it.
FOX NEWS IS PURE REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA AND RIGHT WING SMEAR TALKING POINTS, and no republican admitts it,,
SO IMO, any republican talking about the so called liberal media if full of sht and is just BLAMING SOME ONE ELSE FOR THE MEDIA EXPOSING THEIR WEAKNESSES.
OH, Talk Radio, the right wing propaganda hate machine? Get real people...you are only kidding yourselves, and thank GOD the majority of America is not fooled like most republicans about the so called Liberal Media crap...
and by the way, huge corporations own the media...last time I checked, huge corporations lean mostly republican, lower corporate taxes remember?
|
|