Study: Media coverage has favored Obama campaign

[T2T III]

Just when I thought it was a good time for me to head to bed for the night, this tasty piece of news appeared. I thought I'd share it for all to read and discuss. For me, though, I'm heading to sleep and will read up on the tread in the morning. Nighty night, y'all.

NEW YORK ? John McCain supporters who believe they haven't gotten a fair shake from the media during the Republican's candidacy against Barack Obama have a new study to point to.

Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

ABC's "World News" had more balance than NBC's "Nightly News" or the "CBS Evening News," the group said.

Meanwhile, the first half of Fox News Channel's "Special Report" with Brit Hume showed more balance than any of the network broadcasters, although it was dominated by negative evaluations of both campaigns. The center didn't evaluate programs on CNN or MSNBC.

"For whatever reason, the media are portraying Barack Obama as a better choice for president than John McCain," said Robert Lichter, a George Mason University professor and head of the center. "If you watch the evening news, you'd think you should vote for Obama."

The center analyzed 979 separate news stories shown between Aug. 23 and Oct. 24, and excluded evaluations based on the campaign horse race, including mention of how the candidates were doing in polls. For instance, when a voter was interviewed on CBS Oct. 14 saying he thought Obama brought a freshness to Washington, that was chalked up as a pro-Obama comment.

When NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported Oct. 1 that some conservatives say that Sarah Palin is not ready for prime-time, that's marked in the negative column for McCain.

ABC recorded 57 percent favorable comments toward the Democrats, and 42 percent positive for the Republicans. NBC had 56 percent positive for the Democrats, 16 percent for the Republicans. CBS had 73 percent positive (Obama), versus 31 percent (McCain).

Hume's telecast had 39 percent favorable comments for McCain and 28 percent positive for the Democratic ticket.

It was the second study in two weeks to remark upon negative coverage for the McCain-Palin ticket. The Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded last week that McCain's coverage has been overwhelmingly negative since the conventions ended, while Obama's has been more mixed.

Meanwhile, another survey issued Friday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed that television continues to be Americans' main source for campaign news, particularly the cable news networks.

But there were clear partisan differences in where people turned.

For instance, of the people who said they got most of their campaign news from Fox News Channel, 52 percent identified themselves as Republican, 17 percent as Democrats and 30 percent as independents, the Pew center said.

MSNBC viewers interested in campaign news identified themselves at 11 percent Republican, 50 percent Democratic and 36 percent independent. The breakdown for CNN: 13 percent Republican, 45 percent Democrat, 38 percent independent.

The study was based on a survey of 2,011 people taken Oct. 17-20 and 24-27. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.

Source, posted one hour ago:

Comcast News

 

[Stoneburner]

You see the problem here? John McCain has run the more negative and generally ineffective campaign. EVen republicans bash him. SO it surprises you he gets more negative coverage?

Let's say you have a sibling who is not as dumb as you. YOur parents heap praise on him and heap scorn on you. Is it your parents fault or YOUR fault?

 

[Bowfinger]

Golly! A conservative group does a "study" and concludes the media is biased against them. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. Why, I might even feign a little outrage.

Center for Media and Public Affairs


(By the way, did it ever occur to you that if the media did paint a better picture of Obama, it could just be that he's the better candidate? Blasphemy, I know, but you'll find that in the real world, the opposing sides of a given issue or argument are rarely equal Truth usually favors one side over the other.)

 

[Balt]

Maybe it's because Obama has run a better and cleaner campaign with fewer mistakes.

 

[alien42]

oh cry me a river

McCains campaign has been heavily negative which is reportable. when you run a clean campaign like Obama has there is not a lot of breaking news.

 

[sandorski]

You guys are violating McCains Civil Rights gauranteed by the Constitution!!!

 

[retrospooty]

So... what of it?

Also worth mentioning... Most people favor the Obama campaign. If not for the brain dead religious right nutjob's McCain would have very little support at all.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Balt
Maybe it's because Obama has run a better and cleaner campaign with fewer mistakes.

The political climate was perfect for Obama and he is still stumbling to the finish line as far as Obama making fewer mistakes just look at all his rowdy friends and you see quite a few mistakes.

We have two flawed candidate or as I like to call them dumb and dumber one had to win.

 

[Vic]

The latest McCain campaign talking points are proving my predictions correct that the right would try to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Pathetic.

 

[Stuxnet]

I still don't understand why people think McCain's campaign is so much more negative than Obama's. Here in Ohio we're getting hit over the head with negative Obama ads, which FAR outnumber the McCain ads. Now, you can argue that this is simply because McCain is broke, but to insinuate that McCain is "the one running the dirty campaign" is absolutely laughable.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I still don't understand why people think McCain's campaign is so much more negative than Obama's. Here in Ohio we're getting hit over the head with negative Obama ads, which FAR outnumber the McCain ads. Now, you can argue that this is simply because McCain is broke, but to insinuate that McCain is "the one running the dirty campaign" is absolutely laughable.

Do those Ads accuse McCain of being a secret Fascist, KKK, or other such thing?

There's negative, then there's Negative.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Balt
Maybe it's because Obama has run a better and cleaner campaign with fewer mistakes.

The political climate was perfect for Obama and he is still stumbling to the finish line as far as Obama making fewer mistakes just look at all his rowdy friends and you see quite a few mistakes.

We have two flawed candidate or as I like to call them dumb and dumber one had to win.

All of that was covered back during the primaries when Hillary brought it up. For better or worse we're living in the age of the 24 hour cable news cycle. Deviate and you suffer in the ratings.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I still don't understand why people think McCain's campaign is so much more negative than Obama's. Here in Ohio we're getting hit over the head with negative Obama ads, which FAR outnumber the McCain ads. Now, you can argue that this is simply because McCain is broke, but to insinuate that McCain is "the one running the dirty campaign" is absolutely laughable.

Do those Obama ads claim that McCain pals around with terrorists, that he doesn't see America like "we" do, that he's a fascist, or did he hire some "Joe's" who make claims that McCain wants the death of Israel, or that McCain has the favor of some vast media conspiracy to get him elected?

Some negativity and mudslinging is expected from any campaign, but I think McCain crossed a line here.

 

[Moonbeam]

A special characteristic of the press is that they are trained in the art of objectivity. This makes them look biased to ordinary fools who grow up unsophisticatedly accepting all the garbage they've been taught, and it's a shit load if you grew up in, say, the rural South.

And since bigots were made to feel shame to turn them into bigots, they aren't going to be happy seeing how shameful they really are. They are going to go to their graves believing the real bias is in other people.

This is why we have this argument over and over again.

You can easily tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much and if he's giving 10% to the church every month, you can bet his brain has been carefully cast in cement.

 

[PELarson]

GADS.... you are correct. Look at the continous flow of stories about John McCain sitting on the board of an organization that had ties to South American death squads, his ties to the terrorist G. Gordon Liddy, his involvement in the last major Savings and Loan scandal, his sons resignation from the board of a savings and loan a few short months before it failed. It does get tiring listening to those talking heads go on and on about these and other "scandals" McCain has been involved in.:roll:

McCain has been treated with kid gloves by the media.

 

[First]

A 2:1 split is about right, as Obama's actual substance and campaign are about twice as good as McCain's based on merit. What would be alarming is if McCain's campaign was receiving the same balance of positive and negative coverage, as that doesn't really align with the reality.

 

[miketheidiot]

Surprise! john mccain runs away almost every sane person from his campaign, then blames be media for covering it? lulz

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Balt
Maybe it's because Obama has run a better and cleaner campaign with fewer mistakes.

The political climate was perfect for Obama and he is still stumbling to the finish line

and he is going to win in a rout. *clearly* stumbling

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I still don't understand why people think McCain's campaign is so much more negative than Obama's. Here in Ohio we're getting hit over the head with negative Obama ads, which FAR outnumber the McCain ads. Now, you can argue that this is simply because McCain is broke, but to insinuate that McCain is "the one running the dirty campaign" is absolutely laughable.

Do those Obama ads claim that McCain pals around with terrorists, that he doesn't see America like "we" do, that he's a fascist, or did he hire some "Joe's" who make claims that McCain wants the death of Israel, or that McCain has the favor of some vast media conspiracy to get him elected?

Some negativity and mudslinging is expected from any campaign, but I think McCain crossed a line here.

my favoroite one is the one where they accuse obama of wanting to abort his own grandchildren.

 

[miketheidiot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCaOCWYpPk4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71iNvPQXuk0&eurl

fucking liberal media

equal time !!!!!111

 

[cubby1223]

The reason Obama has been able to run a "clean" campaign is because he has had the overwhelming majority of media outlets in his back pocket doing all the dirty work for him. It's the "media" that's negative towards McCain - not the Obama campaign... :roll:


I'd have to search for a link, and I know that no one here will believe me even if I did find it, so I won't waste my time - there was an independent study done of the news networks as a whole as to the percentage of negative vs. positive stories on each candidate. It broke down about like this:
NBC News %55 negative for McCain, 35% negative for Obama
MSNBC 75% negative for McCain, 15% negative for Obama
Fox News 40% negative for McCain, 40% negative for Obama

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
The reason Obama has been able to run a "clean" campaign is because he has had the overwhelming majority of media outlets in his back pocket doing all the dirty work for him. It's the "media" that's negative towards McCain - not the Obama campaign... :roll:


I'd have to search for a link, and I know that no one here will believe me even if I did find it, so I won't waste my time - there was an independent study done of the news networks as a whole as to the percentage of negative vs. positive stories on each candidate. It broke down about like this:
NBC News %55 negative for McCain, 35% negative for Obama
MSNBC 75% negative for McCain, 15% negative for Obama
Fox News 40% negative for McCain, 40% negative for Obama

So are you arguing for a return of the Fairness Doctrine then? :roll:

Obama has run been able to run a clean campaign because he has more public support, has raised more funds, and (most importantly) has presented a more positive and optimistic message in his campaign.

 

[StageLeft]

This is bad when Fox appears less biased than the others. Partly, McCain deserves negative ads becasue he is a douche, but the numbers for MSNBC in particular are just outrageous. What a terrible example of journalism. I don't care where you are on the spectrum, if you can apologize away the absurd bias that some of the media has given to Obama, you're part of the problem.

 

[MBrown]

Originally posted by: Balt
Maybe it's because Obama has run a better and cleaner campaign with fewer mistakes.

:thumbsup:

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: MBrown

Originally posted by: Balt
Maybe it's because Obama has run a better and cleaner campaign with fewer mistakes.

:thumbsup:

I can only relate that to the Simpson's movie. Homer and the rest of the community kept throwing crap into their lake until one day, it was a toxic dump. As far as clean goes, the Obama campaign has been clean as far as keeping the dust hidden under the rug. Eventually, that dust is going to come right back out ... just like Homer's pig sh!t.