US Presidental Elections 2008

[SoulBiter]

OK lets throw out the question of whether they pick candidates and say that they have undo influence on elections.

What could or should be done to fix that?

[Cail]

Hell if I know. Seriously, I have no idea.

I do know that current national elections are more about posing and posturing than your typical high school SGA elections. And I know that the media are complicit in reinforcing that.

[Cybrweez]

Imagine if every day you turned on CNN, you heard stories about Bob Barr. Do you think he'd get more votes than he's going to get now?

I don't know a solution either. The Fairness Doctrine?

[Kil Tyme]

Interesting vent by a journo. He is absolutely correct, too.

Media's Presidential Bias and Decline
Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why

abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1

* tiny snip*
The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.

[aliantha]

Imagine if every day you turned on CNN, you heard stories about Bob Barr. Do you think he'd get more votes than he's going to get now?

I don't know a solution either. The Fairness Doctrine?

[Cail]

Except that the F.D. wouldn't do that. That's exactly the problem with it.

[wayfriend]

Interesting vent by a journo. He is absolutely correct, too.

Ironically, the article, purportedly about a lack of fairness in journalism, was entirely biased towards the right, singling out Obama to paint him with negatives, and reinforcing assumptions of media conspiracies against the right. I enjoyed it, too. It's a brilliant strategy to attack the liberals under a giuse of fairness.

[kevinswatch]

I think the media has done a horrible job with this election. Nonstop since 2006. It's sickening. And I would kill to have more coverage for third party candidates.-jay

[Cybrweez]

Cail, I don't think the F.D. would work either, I'm not sure if ali is clapping at my sarcasm or she thinks it would work.

wayfriend, I don't think its a conspiracy about tv and print media bias. I'm pretty sure its well documented. As much as talk radio is the other way. I think that's why Fox gets blasted for its conservative bias, b/c its the only one out there (and outnumbered). Altho I think CNN is getting more balanced, w/Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck on at primetime hours. At least, one of the CNN stations.

[Kinslaughterer]

I'm pretty sure its well documented. As much as talk radio is the other way. I think that's why Fox gets blasted for its conservative bias, b/c its the only one out there (and outnumbered). Altho I think CNN is getting more balanced, w/Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck on at primetime hours. At least, one of the CNN stations.

Actually, it is well documented. There is a conservative media bias. That's what makes McCain's attacks on the media so ironic.

mediamatters.org/items/200602140002 Pdfs of the report including all data are available at the link.

The Sunday-morning talk shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC are where the prevailing opinions are aired and tested, policymakers state their cases, and the left and right in American politics debate the pressing issues of the day on equal ground. Both sides have their say and face probing questions. Or so you would think.

In fact, as this study reveals, conservative voices significantly outnumber progressive voices on the Sunday talk shows. Media Matters for America conducted a content analysis of ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press, classifying each one of the nearly 7,000 guest appearances during President Bill Clinton's second term, President George W. Bush's first term, and the year 2005 as either Democrat, Republican, conservative, progressive, or neutral. The conclusion is clear: Republicans and conservatives have been offered more opportunities to appear on the Sunday shows - in some cases, dramatically so.

Among the study's key findings:

The balance between Democrats/progressives and Republicans/conservatives was roughly equal during Clinton's second term, with a slight edge toward Republicans/conservatives: 52 percent of the ideologically identifiable guests were from the right, and 48 percent were from the left. But in Bush's first term, Republicans/ conservatives held a dramatic advantage, outnumbering Democrats/progressives by 58 percent to 42 percent. In 2005, the figures were an identical 58 percent to 42 percent.

Counting only elected officials and administration representatives, Democrats had a small advantage during Clinton's second term: 53 percent to 45 percent. In Bush's first term, however, the Republican advantage was 61 percent to 39 percent -- nearly three times as large.
In both the Clinton and Bush administrations, conservative journalists were far more likely to appear on the Sunday shows than were progressive journalists. In Clinton's second term, 61 percent of the ideologically identifiable journalists were conservative; in Bush's first term, that figure rose to 69 percent.

In 1997 and 1998, the shows conducted more solo interviews with Democrats/progressives than with Republicans/conservatives. But in every year since, there have been more solo interviews with Republicans/conservatives.

The most frequent Sunday show guest during this nine-year period is Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who has appeared 124 times. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) has been the most frequent guest since 2003.

In every year examined by the study -- 1997 - 2005 -- more panels tilted right (a greater number of Republicans/conservatives than Democrats/progressives) than tilted left. In some years, there were two, three, or even four times as many right-titled panels as left-tilted panels.
Congressional opponents of the Iraq war were largely absent from the Sunday shows, particularly during the period just before the war began.
In short, the Sunday talk shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC are dominated by conservative voices, from newsmakers to commentators. The data from the Clinton years indicate that the disparity cannot be explained simply by the fact that Republicans currently control the government

See also mediamatters.org/sundayshowreport/ for updates.

mediamatters.org/reports/oped/

This project did something that has never been done before: It amassed data on the syndicated columnists published by nearly every daily newspaper in the country. While a few publications, most notably Editor & Publisher, cover the syndicated newspaper industry, no one has attempted to comprehensively assemble this information prior to now. Because the syndicates refuse to reveal to the public exactly where their columnists are published, when Media Matters for America set out to make a systematic assessment of the syndicated columnist landscape, we had no choice but to contact each paper individually and ask which syndicated columnists are published on their op-ed pages.

The results show that in paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, conservative syndicated columnists get more space than their progressive counterparts. As Editor & Publisher paraphrased one syndicate executive noting, "U.S. dailies run more conservative than liberal columns, but some are willing to consider liberal voices."1

Though papers may be "willing to consider" progressive syndicated columnists, this unprecedented study reveals the true extent of the dominance of conservatives:

Sixty percent of the nation's daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists. Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.

In a given week, nationally syndicated progressive columnists are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of 125 million. Conservative columnists, on the other hand, are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of more than 152 million.2

The top 10 columnists as ranked by the number of papers in which they are carried include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.

The top 10 columnists as ranked by the total circulation of the papers in which they are published also include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.

In 38 states, the conservative voice is greater than the progressive voice -- in other words, conservative columns reach more readers in total than progressive columns. In only 12 states is the progressive voice greater than the conservative voice.

In three out of the four broad regions of the country -- the West, the South, and the Midwest -- conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists. Only in the Northeast do progressives reach more readers, and only by a margin of 2 percent.
In eight of the nine divisions into which the U.S. Census Bureau divides the country, conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists in any given week. Only in the Middle Atlantic division do progressive columnists reach more readers each week.

[[Syl]]

McCain Campaign: Our Health Plan Doesn't Work

...Younger, healthier workers likely wouldn't abandon their company-sponsored plans, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior economic policy adviser.

"Why would they leave?" said Holtz-Eakin. "What they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit."

Let's unpack this a little bit more. According to Holtz-Eakin, John McCain doesn't actually want to dismantle the employer-based health care system. But, McCain's plan would tax any health benefits you'd get through work. So, if Holtz-Eakin is right in saying you'd get better coverage through work than you'd get with the tax credit on the individual market (and he probably is), and if he's right in saying most workers won't drop their employer-based insurance for the individual market because they're getting a better deal at work, then John McCain is simply proposing a tax on your current health care benefits without giving you anything in return. That's the worst kind of tax increase.

[Cybrweez]

Hmm, guess I read different documentation.

newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

www.aim.org/aim-column/msnbc-confirms-l ... edia-bias/

[Cail]

Quoting Media Matters as a source for a conservative media bias is only slightly less credible than quoting Fox News as a source for a liberal media bias.

What's the next revelation Kins, that MoveOn.org supports the Democratic candidates this election?

[Brother Charn]

Well, Kins, that may be true, but it doesn't say anything about the treatment that they get once on the show, does it?

One recent example of the wrong kind of exposure is the Bachmann debacle on Hardball. She didn't do her homework, so walked into the spider's parlor, then did her normal thing of speaking her mind, which got her into quite a bit of trouble.

So, conservatives might have a greater number of appearances on programs, but it doesn't necessarily mean that their conservative agenda is always being furthered or even pandered to - it might be getting lambasted.

Perhaps conservatives are just more masochistic?

dw

[wayfriend]

What's for certain is your not going to get the truth about media bias by asking the media -- they're biased.

What you can bet on is that media bias, whatever it is, is based on real or perceived ratings.

Which makes the issue remarkably similar to the "where are the liberal opinion shows" question. The answer may very well be that unbiasing would be considered a loss of revenue by the media.

And it also means that the source of media bias is us. The media responds to what we wish to hear.

[Brother Charn]

Media bias is most likely the result of targeted marketing, that only occurred once cable channels decided they could run 24hrs a day... gotta fill those time slots to sell ads to make revenue... get some opinionated people to grouse about stuff on screen.... and thus the pundits were born, or hatched or gated in from Hell, depending on your view.

dw

[Cail]

Nahhh, they were already around on shows like Crossfire and The McLaughlin Group.

[Kinslaughterer]

Quoting Media Matters as a source for a conservative media bias is only slightly less credible than quoting Fox News as a source for a liberal media bias.

What's the next revelation Kins, that MoveOn.org supports the Democratic candidates this election?

They provide all the date and audio and are well sourced. If you don't like they're bent that's one thing but its doesn't make them incorrect.

[Zarathustra]

I don't buy the ratings argument at all. Fox News is the highest rated news channel. If everyone was chasing the ratings, they'd be more like Fox.

Also, the John Edwards story would have gotten high ratings if the media had pursued its veracity sooner.

Ditto for an interview with Obama's past drug dealer.

Ditto for an interview with Ayers. Or Wright.

Personally, I think stories about Obama's fake birth certificate would get higher ratings than Sarah Palin's borrowed wardrobe.

Stories analyzing Biden's dozens of factual inaccuracies would get high ratings.

Where are these ratings-grabbers?

No, ratings don't explain it. Liberal editors, that's the answer. They decide what gets printed and what goes on the air. And it's clear they want Obama to win.

[Cail]

Quoting Media Matters as a source for a conservative media bias is only slightly less credible than quoting Fox News as a source for a liberal media bias.

What's the next revelation Kins, that MoveOn.org supports the Democratic candidates this election?

They provide all the date and audio and are well sourced. If you don't like they're bent that's one thing but its doesn't make them incorrect.

No, simple observation makes them incorrect. The love affair the media has had the last year with Obama, and the ultimate removal of Matthews and Olbermann being indicative of the problem.

Then there's BC's point that even though conservatives may be on more often (which would make sense since there's more of them in the federal government at the moment), that doesn't mean that they're treated fairly.