Media's Presidential Bias and Decline
 

Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

Michael S. Malone is one of the nation's best-known technology writers. He has covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury News as the nation's first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times.

Except that TV news has way more impact than the newspaper press and there seems to be plenty of anti-Obama stuff on there.

Hardly! Please cite. He is the media darling.
I just hope he is all they made him out to be.

Fox news.

I hear it has quite a high viewing audience.

Fox news is shit, to be sure, but as a portion of the total volume of crap out there they are only a small part. The rest of the media does seem infatuated with Obama.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
By Meg Sullivan| 12/14/2005 5:36:31 PM
While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...px?RelNum=6664


Although we expected to find that most media lean left, we were astounded by the degree. A norm among journalists is to present “both sides of the issue.” Consequently, while we expected members of Congress to cite primarily think tanks that are on the same side of the ideological spectrum as they are, we expected journalists to practice a much more balanced citation practice, even if the journalist’s own ideology opposed the think tanks that he or she is sometimes citing. This was not always the case. Most of the mainstream media outlets that we examined (ie all those besides Drudge Report and Fox News’ Special Report) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than they were to the median member of the House.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

And at some Palin ralleys people are shouting "terrorist" or "kill him" when Obama's name came up. Obama was accused of going to extremist Islamic school, was constantly railed for his last and middle name, was said to have the same views as Reverend Wright and Ayers, and had his wife's love for America questioned. All of this was done by THE MEDIA.

Attacks come and have came from both sides.

The reason Obama is the "media's darling" is because he will get ratings. Obama-fever has swept America so it is natural for the media to talk him up. He is younger, fresher, more charismatic, better looking, black (or half-black), and very popular. Of course he will get more attention.

The same media was viciously promoting the Iraq War and greatly helped Clinton get impeached. It works both ways.

And she hushed them. As did McCain. As did Obama. Biden, well maybe not. None of the rest of your post changes the fact that the media is, has been, and will most likely always be, left leaning. It is their nature. I think it is also a product of who goes into the business.

I don't agree that the media has always been left leaning although at the moment it seems to be in the US and also in Australia.

eta: Trends come and go. The media is only doing what's going to get it ratings. At the moment, that's to be nice about liberal politicians. At other times in history, that has not been the case.

My theory is that since George was elected, he's given the media so much to play with, not only with is war on terror, but also with all the stupid things he says. Combine the two and you're going to get media taking the piss out of the man and his politics. If he'd been a better President, I think you'd find the media would have been much kinder to the McCain/Palin camp.

Oh, yeah? Name one!

(that's a joke, ali. I am a rather fond, if cringing, collector of Bushisms--only Yogi Berra comes close in sheer quantity of WTF-isms)

I knew it was a joke. ;)

oh, good. Not too sure how the ol' hormones are holding up with you now! I recall being a bit hormonal during my pregnancies and then again last year when it allllllllllll went away!!! :) No worries!

Hormones are pretty good at the moment, although I think I've had a boost of serotonin since dazza got home, so my humour bone might be working better than other times. ;)

My personal favourite Bushism:

The French have no word for entrepeneur.

Either he's genuinely thick as pig shit, or he's a fucking genius.

I'll say...you've been bouncing about the Cellar like a christmas elf on a pogo stick *grins*

Yes well, you could not have used a better analogy than the pogo stick that's for sure. lol

lol I see.

News is reported based on fundamental facts. Obama is running a clean and well organized campaign. McCain's campaign has suffered from schizophrenia ever since it inherited right wing Republican extremists on the staff. McCain's campaign was lead by moderates; voted for by moderate Republicans and independents. The same campaign was changed weeks before the Republican convention as it inherited right wing extremist Republicans. The campaign that earned McCain a Republican nomination would have never considered or selected Sarah Palin. His campaign now suffers from schizophrenia. As a result, McCain had to personally condemn his own supporters for promoting hate and racism. And that is what is properly reported in the news.

You can view that as bias. But the bottom line is that McCain was the adversary of and has condemned the same people who blindly support George Jr. Now McCain must ask for their support when their extremist agenda is difficult for McCain to accept.

On the day that AIG was crashing, McCain's speech writers wrote what they had written for George Jr. "The fundamentals of our economy are sound." Just another example of the schizophrenia since even McCain knew that was not true. Now McCain’s campaign must throw dirt and lies rather than deal with fundamental issues.

How does McCain claim to represent the interests of America without also condemning “Mission Accomplished”, the all but protect bin Laden action, this economic meltdown directly traceable to Republican party welfare to the rich and outright government corruption (K Street), destruction of the Oslo Accords, the foolish and embarrassing Middle East conference in Annapolis, and even how a silly spy plane incident was handled. How does McCain show he would never be that stupid and yet still get votes from wacko extremist George Jr supporters? McCain’s problem is apparent in the news stories – that some call bias.

Unhelpful is George Jr who calls for more corporate welfare. George Jr is now offering GM some of the $700billion TARP only intended to thaw credit markets. It’s no accident that George Jr would protect anti-American GM and its corrupt management - just as George Jr also enriched Haliburton. If McCain was running a McCain campaign, then he would have lead the charge against continuous George Jr corruption. The McCain whose campaign now contains wacko extremists cannot properly criticize George Jr. Just another reason why McCain is losing moderate and indepdent support – the people who nominated McCain to oppose those extremists.

Schizophrenia is a fact that belongs in the news. Schizophrenia because McCain had so often been critical of what Urbane Guerrilla, TheMercenary, classicman, and lookout123 have so often posted.

Hahahah, look at this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ame...08/7692731.stm

Actually that paper is a pretty well known left leaner, and Anchorage is a pretty liberal town. No surprise there. The Daily Miner (Fairbanks) or the Juneau paper, it would have been a bigger deal.

But at least they spell it correctly :P
Oh and he's certainly NOT a fucking genius.

From someone who is extremely well respected and has been in the business for decades. I'll take his word for it. Those of you who, for the most part agree, certainly won't see it that way. I understand that. What will be interesting is how he is treated over the next 4-8 years.

Thing is, this left leaning press had absoluely no impact over the last 8 years. So even if the bias exists - and not reading the American papers or watching the American news I honestly can't say - it does not influence the way people vote.

So what's the problem, apart from making you tut and sigh and roll your eyes? I do that when I read our right wing press (and there are more right than left wing papers in the UK). But at least it challenges my perceptions.

I disagree. I think the press has a great deal of power. In many respects they are virtually the only source of information. Many people still look to the media and take what they offer as impartial - the way it should be. That just isn't the way it is anymore. I'm not sure thats possible either - unfortunately. I see the media one way or the other. They seem to be campaigning for "their" candidate usually in very subtle ways, yet as of late very blatant.

There is also the danger of not believing anything they say, and assuming the opposite is true... like reading a UG post.;)

*shakes head* no, that would require that UG's views exist in some small way along the same spectrum as the rest of us...can't just go with the opposite of what he says, have to jump off those mental rails entirely and find a whole other track.

Touché. :haha:

I look at it like this. Everyone get to be represented in a democracy, right? Now their level of representation all depends on their desire to be heard. He is being heard and thats a good thing.

Ahhhh, yes, but the squeaky wheel getting the grease and a minority special interest group rasing a fuss to get their way are two different things. Not always good.

I agree, but they still need to be able to have their say. Whether they get anything or not is up to the powers that be- not me or you. Stifling their opportunity to be heard would be even worse.
I don't want every special interest group to get whatever it is they want, no. I do however want a country where they can express their opinions. (ie. KKK) In my world they wouldn't exist, I don't think they get shit from the gov't other than the right to express their (totally fucked up) views.

The one serious difference between thee and me, DanaC, is that I have no faith in socialism and never have. The rest is just education.

Socialism? Whats that?

Then I bow to your superior education.

Don't do that Dana. he'll start thinking he's smarter than you. lol ;)

But he is Ali. Clearly.

UG thinks he's smarter than everyone. That doesn't mean he actually is. ;)

(don't tell UG I said that though. Let him keep his illusion for a bit longer)

UG is clearly a high intellect and a political heavyweight.

My education is clearly not sufficient to enable me to compete with him in a debate.

$8billion to airlines. $billions to Halliburton. $25billion to GM. $85billion to AIG. Untold billions to Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, etc so that $6billion in bonuses could be awarded to key employees. $billions to drug companies by protecting their 40% higher drug prices. $700billion to all other favored rich companies. This is not socialism? No, this is the 'new contract with America' democracy version 2 complete with a 2% reduction in the average American's income while the rich have income increases on the order of 100 times. Sounds like the perfect society: free market tyranny. Why would anyone want income redistribution when the above government solution is even better than socialism.

Now if we could only fix Social Security by privatizing it.

That sounds so defeatist. lol I'd much prefer to see you go at it hammer and tongs. :)

Dana is too smart to waste her time on him. ;)

Last week on This Week with George Stephano..stephana...steph...that guy, even George Will said that the "socialism" slant is stupid. He said that redistributing the money is what the government does!

Here's the quote:

"95% of what the government does is redistribute the wealth. It operates on the principal of concentrated benefits & dispersed costs. Case in point, we have sugar subsidies. costs the american people billions of dollars but they don't notice it, it is in such small increments. But the sugar growers get very rich on this. Now we have socialism for the strong, that is the well represented & organized in Washington, like sugar growers, but it is socialism none the less, and it is not new."

So what? Everyone knows that, we just don't want them to take MORE.

How bout instead of them taking more, they just take it from a different place and give it to the little guy instead of big business?

If that was the plan I might agree with it, but his definition of big business is not one I subscribe to. Multi-million dollar corps, go ahead. But then don't be surprised when they pull up root and move to Dubai.

Except there will no longer be tax cuts for companies that send jobs overseas.

Says who? You?

Here is the problem with your line of thinking. The election has not happened yet. And any promise that he makes you is total and utter bull shit. Nothing can be done without Congress. Obama can't do shit without the approval of Congress. Do you think Congress is going to role with that? All those guys have been getting elected by those big corps for years. Give me a break.

Nothing any of those fools promise you can be done without Congress.

Still, it's happened. Explain to me, o wise and wondrous man of knowledge, where did those breaks come from originally? I really don't know, and would like to.

Big corps and demos? Seriously, on which planet do you live?

The D's will have control in all three. There will be no checks nor balances. The R's will be steamrolled repeatedly. Virtually anything the D's want, they will be able to get/pass/enact.
I just hope they make the right decisions.

As far as the taxing big corps... Some is better than none. There must be a balance. We cannot hammer them with huge tax increases. They will move overseas, then paying ZERO taxes, reducing the revenue stream that the tax was intended to increase.
That will also close facilities, creating an increase in unemployment, further reducing the tax revenue stream.... Same thing goes with taxing the "rich". If you are at the lower end of the tax scale, it sounds great, but the money has to come from somewhere and if you drive off those paying...Who is gonna pay the bills? This snowball theory is what I'm concerned about.

Well, there's still the filibuster, which is a brake. But I agree that one party rule is bad.

People complain when power is shared between the parties, because it results in gridlock. The alternative is a monopoly on power, hubris, bad government, and voting the bums out. Rinse repeat.

Personally, as a Dem., my ideal would be for a Dem Pres, a Dem majority in the House, and a Repub. majority in the senate. With a Supreme Court full of libertarian leaning moderates who routinely cross back and forth over traditional party lines as they rule.

The D's are VERY close to gaining the 60 necessary to overcome a filibuster.

McCain campaign accuses L.A. Times of 'suppressing' Obama video

Out of respect I will ignore your totally patronizing comment, but yea the breaks came from the same fucking Congress that sucked up to the corps to get elected. The businesses may change, but don't think for one fucking minute that the rules have changed, they have not. Please tell me who has had the majority for the last two years and have had consistantly LOWER FUCKING APPROVAL Ratings than BUSH? Who? They are in charge, they get the blame for failure to negotiate and do what is right for the country. Wise one... :rolleyes:

I'll drop this here since it is somewhat related.

When is someone in the media going to seriously going to explore Obama's middle class tax cut claims? I keep hearing we need to raise taxes on the rich because the poor are paying too much but I don't see any support for the claim.

The reason I ask today is I spent the day working with a couple of accountants on a project and we landed on the subject. We were looking at actual tax returns and here is what I found.

Family of four with $50,000 Net of deductions paid <$500 in federal income tax.

Family of four with $80,000 Net paid <$1,800 in federal income tax.

Family of four with $100,000 Net paid @$6800 in federal income tax.

No one wants to pay any taxes and I understand that, but even at the $100,000 the tax payer is paying less than 10% of their income. They're middle class - should they pay less? $50,000 is certainly middle class - how could they pay any less?

I really don't get it. I've seen different figures stating between 40-50% of the US population pays zero federal income tax so who is Obama talking about when he says the middle class needs a break at the expense of the rich?

Well, given he has set the limits at $250k per year (no tax rise) and $200k per year (tax cut) I am guessing he's talking about the people whose incomes sit between $50k - $200k per year.

They broke the two tax plans down on the world news last night. At some incomes, there is virtually no difference in tax liability, compared to what we have now.

Yes, when you get above 250,000 you pay more under Obama's plan. Approximately 600 bucks more, on a tax bill that's already about 40 grand.

I argued with my friend who is a grand regurgitator, and she said "what about the children? 600 bucks could mean the difference between getting the children health care."

My reply was that if you can't take care of your children on 250 grand a year, ur doin' it wrong. Sell the RV or the motorboat.

I think, that as most politicians assume, the average voter is not smart enough to figure that out. It is all pandering. Smoke and Mirrors. I stand by the statement, Be careful what you wish for. It will not come without cost.

This is too rich.

PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE
Fri Oct 31 2008 08:39:55 ET

**Exclusive**

The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states -- and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!

The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs -- and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters -- and possibly others -- will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black American president.

MORE

Some told the DRUDGE REPORT that the reporters are being ousted to bring on documentary film-makers to record the final days; others expect to see on board more sympathetic members of the media, including the NY TIMES' Maureen Dowd, who once complained that she was barred from McCain's Straight Talk Express airplane.

After a week of quiet but desperate behind-the-scenes negotiations, the reporters of the three papers heard last night that they were definitely off for the final swing. They are already planning how to cover the final days by flying commercial or driving from event to event.

Developing...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashopp.htm

If I make an additional $20,000 then my taxes increase by $5000??

Good question - One no one seems to be asking, I wonder why?