Belief is growing that the media is trying to help Obama win.

Article

This seems rather obvious, but its just more evidence that the public at large believes that the media is biased in favor of Obama and Dems in general far more than McCain and the Republican side. 49% of the public believes that the media is actually trying to help Obama win this election against only 14% holding that same view relating to McCain. Additionally, I also found the following to be very interesting:

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.

Roughly four times as many independents see media bias in favor of Obama than McCain. That's a number that would concern me, if I were an Obama supporter, particularly on the heels of another Rasmussen poll:

50% believe media negatively skews economic news

Again, that's 50% who believe the media is talking down the economy, compared to just 18% who believe the media is painting an overly optimistic picture. And again, 55% of unaffiliated voters agreed that the media is slanting economic news to the negative. This thought is even creeping into the public's opinion of the media's coverage in Iraq, as the article indicates.

In the end, I guess I have to give the American people some credit. Many of them apparently are smart enough to see through the unending load of liberal garbage that the media is trying to spoon feed them and how they've been trying to influence this (and past) elections.

Nice post!

Unfortunately those numbers are not much higher. For all the flack FOX news takes, it's amazing the same kind of scrutiny isn't given to the other MSN networks.

Apparently it's only wrong to have a bias if your bias is Conservative.

Its pretty obvious that they are. There are litterly dozens of examples from day to day.

One thing I notice a lot is when CNN,ABC,CBS,nbc or MSNBC is interviewing "strategists" from both sides. When questioning the democrat, you see lots of nods and smiles. Than you get to the republican and suddenly he/she is under a microscope. Everything they say is questioned and usually the interview and democrat pundit will simply talk over the Republican.

There are other bigger examples, like ignoring Obama's gaffes and simply making up controversies for him. Hell, every time I turn on the news I feel like I 'm watching an Obama commercial. They always explain his policies and answer objections. Where as if they are taking about McCain, its all about confirming scandals and objections to the policy.

As to the economy, I've been making a prediction for a few months now. The MSM will continue talking down the economy until Obama is president, than suddenly it will all get better. Everyone will love us, the wars will be going good and the economy will be good to go.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Dronetek]

Of course it will!

I assure you the day Obama is sworn in the economy will have a "miraculous" turnaround and everything will be looking up! The war has been won they will say, and we can finally leave with our heads held high! God bless the Democrats we will be told, they have already saved this country!

Of course a few of us out there will know better, but the majority won't.

Originally posted by nyk537
Of course it will!

I assure you the day Obama is sworn in the economy will have a "miraculous" turnaround and everything will be looking up! The war has been won they will say, and we can finally leave with our heads held high! God bless the Democrats we will be told, they have already saved this country!

Of course a few of us out there will know better, but the majority won't.

We saw the same thing in 1981 when Reagan replaced Carter. The power brokers, including the press, gushed over him throughout the election season and for some time after he took office. The Iran hostage crisis was suddenly resolved. A new national pride swept the country.

So we see it occurring once again. After Bush's incredibly disastrous presidency I suspect it will be somewhat more pronounced this time around.

reply to post by Dronetek


I've never seen the media so far in the tank for a candidate as they are this year for Obama. MSNBC, in particular, is like a 24/7 Obama campaign ad. So much for the Equal Time rule, although to them, it apparently means that for every one minute spent singing the praises of their Almighty Chosen One, they get to spend another minute bashing McCain. That's one network that should probably have its broadcasting license revoked.

go to Google new's right now..

7 to 1 ratio

obama has more story's posted than mcain.

same with every dang tv station allso...even is they cry fox new's is trying to slander obama.
still coverage..talk about him more it's in people's mind's scenario.

then again if they didn't have more story's for obama his support's would be screaming Google new's is racist ..

What I think is really happening in the MSM, is that their coverage bias leans toward public opinion as in polls or whatever. If most people are against the war, they tend to report all the bad stuff. When things turn around like they have and people feel better about the war, now you see more favorable reports. I really don't think they are trying to help one candidate over the other, they are trying to deliver what they think people want to see. MSM is now an entertainment industry, but still a good source to see any breaking news. When I hear something has happened on CNN, I then get on the internet and search around for additional sources.

reply to post by vor78


I agree that that the MSM is biased toward Obama. And I think it's because they, too, are sick to death of this war and Bush policies. The media know a good thing when they see it. They are attracted to something new and shiny. I know the "ideal" is to be neutral, but since when have we seen neutral news reporting? It's been forever!

Besides, Obama is young, healthy, good-looking, interesting, intelligent, has a memory and wants to change how things have been going. McCain has none of that going for him. Networks go for the ratings. They play what people want to see and hear. And people want to see and hear Obama.

FOX showed everyone how it was done and other networks have followed in its footsteps. Biased reporting in the thing. When Bush was at his height and FOX was the most-watched "news" source, their audience didn't complain. But now that other channels are taking after FOX, the cries can be heard far and wide.

The mistake is in thinking that ANY of the networks mentioned are going to give unbiased coverage. That hasn't happened for years. For that, you have to go International.

Link TV

Not only will you get unbiased coverage, you'll get news ABOUT the US that is NOT reported in the US. AND you'll actually hear what's happening in the Middle East. Yeah, it's not sensational like FOX, but it's got the stuff.

And I completely agree, MSNBC is like an Obam-vision Infomercial. And I love it! But I watch it for entertainment and information about him - and I don't live under the illusion that it's unbiased. I don't want information about McCain. I know all I need to know about him.

When I want the news, I go to LINK.

I agree that that the MSM is biased toward Obama. And I think it's because they, too, are sick to death of this war and Bush policies. The media know a good thing when they see it. They are attracted to something new and shiny. I know the "ideal" is to be neutral, but since when have we seen neutral news reporting? It's been forever!

Ah there it is. The classic, "its ok when democrats do it!".

The media is in the tank for Obama because their all democrats. A majority of the public is against sanctuary cities and illegal immigration, but the media still largely supports it. With the exception of Fox News and Lou Dobbs. The same can be said for drilling. The majority of Public agrees, yet the media still treats it like like their defending Obama against it.

reply to post by Dronetek


Hey, I didn't say it was ok. I gave you the reasons I thought it was happening. I didn't mention Democrats, either. You made that completely up yourself.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


That's fine if you're OK with blatant bias, but let me ask you a question. Shouldn't you be concerned that you're only hearing one side about Obama, the good side, if the media, by your own admission, is in the tank for him? Have you ever stopped to think about what they might NOT be telling you?


[edit on 21-7-2008 by vor78]

Oh, trust me! I have heard the "bad" about Obama! I watch several news sources, including FOX and LINK, so I get both sides and the middle. I didn't say I watch MSNBC exclusively. I watch it for fun.

And I read ATS. So I hear PLENTY bad about Obama.

Usually, no matter what I hear, good or bad, I go in search of multiple sources to verify what the truth is. I just made a call in fact to verify some bad information about Obama I read here. It wasn't true. And frankly, many more times than not, it's not true.

I challenge anyone to find a McCain interview where they AREN'T defending Obama. It never fails, that every question is meant to put Mccain on the defensive.

For example:

MEREDITH VIEIRA: You know you said, "In a time of war a commander-in-chief's job doesn't get a learning curve," but we are facing a crisis here, domestically, that a lot of people consider more significant in their lives right now, than the war, and that is the economic crisis. You have admitted that your economic policy is a weakness for you, so do you deserve a learning curve, to get up to speed?

I dare you to find a similar question posed to Obama about McCain. Here is another.

VIEIRA: But Senator, if I can bring up Phil Gramm again. That was your key economic adviser and the framer of your policy until what he called what's happening here, "a mental recession," and that we are "a nation of whiners." He has since stepped down, removed himself from your campaign. But do voters have a right to question your judgment because you said he was the, "strongest person you knew on economic issues." Should they be worried about your ability to lead us out of recession.

You'll NEVER see anything like this in an Obama interview. An Obama interview is meant to convince the viewer that this guy knows what hes doing. They wont ever take Obama to task on anything he says or hasn't done.

More of the same on other networks:

SAWYER: You have criticized Senator Obama in the past for not going to Iraq and getting a fresh assessment. He is in Iraq as we speak this morning. Does this take care of it?

Notice how close it is to the first quote I posted.

SAWYER: You know, his camp has said that in fact he was out ahead of you on Afghanistan [McCain snorts], where the real problem is today. The level of violence has increased with more U.S. And NATO troops killed in June in Afghanistan than were in Iraq. The Taliban resurging and also Senator Obama says that he was warning of this all along and I'm going to play a bite from yesterday.

Here, the "reporter" actually uses an Obama talking point as fact! You gotta love how they spin casualties, in order to push Obama's narrative.

Iraq has been quiet, so it looks like there are more deaths in Afghanistan. They are spinning the data to hep Obama.

reply to post by Dronetek

I have seen reporters question McCain because of what Gramm said and it is no different then when Rev. Wright's comments were making far more headlines.

I have also seen many reports on Obama's change in policy for withdrawing troops from Iraq and was calling it flip-flopping, while praising McCain because he supported the surge and saying that was the reason that the violence was down in Iraq. I don't know where you got those quotes from for the interviews, but would like to see your source.

Iraq has been quiet, so it looks like there are more deaths in Afghanistan. They are spinning the data to hep Obama.

The reason why Obama is getting positive reporting for Afghanistan, is because he called for more troops to go there before McCain said anything, and now everyone is calling for more troops. It was also reported that al Maliki liked Obama's 16 month plan to withdraw troops from Iraq and was accidentally leaked by the WH. He is on top right now because of that, but not long ago it looked like everything was against him. It goes in cycles.

reply to post by Hal9000

I have also seen many reports on Obama's change in policy for withdrawing troops from Iraq and was calling it flip-flopping, while praising McCain because he supported the surge and saying that was the reason that the violence was down in Iraq. I don't know where you got those quotes from for the interviews, but would like to see your source.

Oh come on! With the exception of Fox, all the other networks spent all their time convincing their watchers that Obama made no changes. If he did make changes, they were simply "nuanced".

I got the quotes from the transcripts.

The reason why Obama is getting positive reporting for Afghanistan, is because he called for more troops to go there before McCain said anything

So let me get this straight. McCain called for the surge and its the main reason things turned around in Iraq, but the media never says Obama was wrong. Yet, we're all supposed to praise Obama, who had never been to Afghanistan, for saying we need more troops there? If anything its more proof of bias.

If ANYONE in our media was interested in getting to the truth, they would ask him what good it will do without going in to Pakistan.

and now everyone is calling for more troops.

Hes not the first and more troops have been getting sent to Afghanistan for well over the last year. You see, this is what happens when a bias media reports the news.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Bush Decides to Send 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan

By Al Pessin
Washington
15 January 2008

Not only that, but Bush has got NATO to provide more troops. You know since the US already carries the largest burden in Afghanistan.

It was also reported that al Maliki liked Obama's 16 month plan to withdraw troops from Iraq and was accidentally leaked by the WH.

It was also reported that Maliki was mistranslated or misunderstood. Which makes sense, because if we leave in 16 months, that whole place is going to turn in to a tinderbox.

There were Iraqis on the news this morning asking why Obama wasn't talking to Iraqs. They said most Iraqis want us out of there but not until they can defend themselves. Which is still a few years away.

reply to post by Dronetek

Well seeing that your opinion isn't anything close to being unbiased like what you expect to see in the media. I doubt we can have a reasonable discussion about it. The only way I think you would be happy is if they tarred and feathered Obama, and showed it live.

Originally posted by Hal9000
reply to post by Dronetek

 

Well seeing that your opinion isn't anything close to being unbiased like what you expect to see in the media. I doubt we can have a reasonable discussion about it. The only way I think you would be happy is if they tarred and feathered Obama, and showed it live.

Please, point out the opinions.

-Maliki doesn't agree with 16 month troop pullout: FACT
-Unless we go in to Pakistan, more troops in Afghanistan does nothing: FACT
-Bush has been sending and securing more troops in Afghanistan for over a year now: FACT
-Surge a success: FACT

The far right has been ranting about the "liberal media" for years, but frankly it has more to do with the psychology of people attracted to the far right than anything else. Not that media bias doesn't exist, but the media's primary bias, outweighing everything else, is a bias towards making money, and reaching the biggest audience possible.

The real problem is that the subculture of right wingers that coalesced during the Clinton years, around talk radio and sites like Free Republic, are only comfortable with an echo chamber, not a discussion.

They're, for lack of a better word, "dittoheads" - they want to hear only views that reflect their own, anything else is "anti-American" and has to be tuned out. Anything that disagrees with their views is propaganda cooked up by those secretly siding with "the enemy"... which apparently means more than half the country at this point.

So naturally, when the mainstream media (who simply aim at the widest audience possible, with the exception of Fox, which knows it's target market very well) present any information or stories that don't don't toe the hard right line precisely - well they must all be 'dirty pinko traitor liberals', of course

It seems very important for the far right to feel that they represent a silent majority of Americans (even when they whine about the media being against them and try to grab the "persecuted minority" card) and that all "true" Americans would really be on their side, if only they weren't in the thrall of the "liberal media"...

I'm sorry to say this, but...

Dronetek is completely right. His examples are spot on, and all I get when I look at the news is a giant Obama commercial. Is the media that biased? I hope not, but it really looks it.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Johnmike]