Does the media really favor Obama?

[marleyisalegend]

Sure he gets more coverage SOMETIMES *cough* cuz his story is more interesting *cough* Mccain got the same favoritism against Gore *cough* old white men have been dominating the POTUS seat forever *cough* when Crooks-N-Nonymous AKA CNN does plenty of Obama bashing complaining about his favored coverage and doing segments on "terrorist fist bumps" *cough* 'scuse me but anyhow, given how Faux News constantly gives Mccain behind-the-scenes blowjobs, it's interesting to hear that CBS might be cupping the balls. When Mccain made a marginal error in a field in which he's supposed to be an expert, the clip landed on CBS cutting floor.

McCain Gets History Of The Surge Wrong, CBS Doesn't Air Footage

 

[D_Thoraxis_Biggulp]

We should start a band called Terrorist Fist Bumps.

 

[prince_will]

i always hear about NBC News having favortism with liberal news and Obama, but that mainly comes from Fox News, which i consider to be the cesspit of American journalism.

 

[marleyisalegend]

We should start a band called Terrorist Fist Bumps.

LOL, I like it.

From what I've seen, it's pretty much balanced. Both get favored in certain arenas, and both get slammed in others. The "favoritism" concept is just ANOTHER mindless media spin to "alert" people.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

We should start a band called Terrorist Fist Bumps.

Yeah - the first single can be a punk version of the Beatles song Michelle.

i always hear about NBC News having favortism with liberal news and Obama, but that mainly comes from Fox News, which i consider to be the cesspit of American journalism.

20 lashes! You just used the words 'fox news' and 'journalism' in the same sentence!

 

[hot-rod]

I hope so. Just waitin' for something newsworthy about McBush, but can't find a thing. Too old, feeble and tired. lmao

 

[prince_will]

20 lashes! You just used the words 'fox news' and 'journalism' in the same sentence!

lol...i know, right? but it should at least be reduced to 5, because i did mention cesspit.

:biggrin1:

 

[Helboy]

All the news reports we get over here regarding your next Presdient are all very very positive.

The guy certainley gets my vote ( not that its counts

 

[b.c.]

The whole thing goes back to an old wornout (but still used) Republican tactic of labeling the "media" as "liberal". That way they can discredit WHOLESALE anything and everything reported that makes their platform, ideology, and politics look bad.

So if McCain is not getting equal coverage, it's not because he's severly lacking of much substance or discourse, or because he proves to be inept when he does address issues. NO. In their eyes it the "liberal media" not presenting McCain in a fair light.

If one wants to get a real assessmentof just how liberal the media is, one only need look at Rush Limbaugh's new $400 MILLION dollar deal to air his narrow-minded venom for the next eight years. That's how much America (or more accurately, the "liberal media") is willing to shell out for their daily dose of conservative rhetoric.

Or take the Walter and Johnson Radio show (we get it here in New Orleans, but I think their home base is in Houston).

Their gimmick is to present social commentary and "news" (if I may use the term so lightly) on morning radio by using voices emulating exaggerated phonemes of black people, "hillbilly twang", gay affectations, and various other stereotypical dialects.

This morning's show included a discussion of the failing real estate values in California and subsequent forclosures to which one said, "Well that's that fault of all these black guys in the senate." (The premise being that loans were made to unqualified people, presumably "black", who had no business getting them but were given them because lenders feared charges of racism...or some such shit like that...)

This was followed by a brief whine (delivered in their usual skit fashion) about minutes devoted to Obama coverage on the news as opposed to seconds allowed to McCain, after which a caller phoned in and commented that Obama's smile when shown on the news is always pearly white while McCain's is a grungy yellow - obviously a photoshop job, the caller said. (yes...ignorance abounds in the ol' U. S. of A.)

So that's just a small sampling of what American listeners get on a daily basis from our so-called "liberal media".

 

[Dave NoCal]

Thank you, b.c.

 

[Qua]

Well, the NY Times does. They refused to run an op ed by McCain, returning it due to positions on Iraq and other such things, asking him to revise it to read more like Obama's prior piece.

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

Think about it, when the Clintons were in office a lot of stuff was not revealed by the press. Now that they want her opponent, they drag all of it out of the closet. For the most part, I do my own research instead of listen to slanted journalism on the TV. It's sad but the media has gone from telling us the facts to trying to make us think the way they do. Sheesh. My name is Geraldo Big NoseO. Believe me no matter what I tell you. Believe me.

 

[3664shaken]

Do the media really favor Obama?

You’ve got to be freaking kidding right?

Come on and let’s stop all the pretenses, it is patently obvious that they do, okay not Fox News, but what would you expect.

Even some of the big left wing media names are beginning to talk about all the fawning attention they give Obama, and many have stated that there will be a backlash.

The trip to the middle east is case in point, all three “network anchors” went????

Huh- McCain went over their but they couldn’t care less, what does this say?

It reeks so highly of bias that any person who has any intellectually honest must admit that the media is in love with this guy.

No offense, it’s okay to be for someone, but keep your integrity and admit the truth at least. If you are an Obama supporter you should be happy that you have all of this help.

PS I don’t like any of the candidates and I didn’t vote for Bush, so don’t try any silly flaming that I am some sort of right wing rube.

 

[marleyisalegend]

You’ve got to be freaking kidding right?

Not exactly. I agree that SOME outlets do, but to me it looks just the way I'd expect it too; more focus on Obama that goes both ways, he gets praise but you've had your head in the sand if you don't think he gets scrutinized. Mccain got the same favoritism against Gore last time so it's not like this is a new phenomenon, it's not like the coverage was even up until 2008.

It reeks so highly of bias that any person who has any intellectually honest must admit that the media is in love with this guy.

Given the Obama/OSama correlations, the implications of ties to Islam and terrorism, the consistent associations with negative black stereotypes, the obssession with his ethnicity and inabilty to please one half without hurting the other, I'd say it's pretty fair cuz some of the attention he gets is less than favorable. He's "too white" he's "too black" etc...

No offense, it’s okay to be for someone, but keep your integrity and admit the truth at least. If you are an Obama supporter you should be happy that you have all of this help.

I like that, the suble approach to challenging my character. I won't respond any further, I'll assume that you've read my other posts where I criticize Obama with equal fervor as anti-Barackians. DO NOT assume that every Obama supporter is a blind faith nutbag that believes in "change" and unicorns and has no intelligence.

 

[earllogjam]

The media are people. People are more interested in reporting a dynamic, new, fresh, charismatic person than an old cranky man with jowls with nothing new to say.

It's just human nature at work. I guess it all boils down to what is more entertaining ie, ratings.

 

[3664shaken]

If one wants to get a real assessmentof just how liberal the media is, one only need look at Rush Limbaugh's new $400 MILLION dollar deal to air his narrow-minded venom for the next eight years. That's how much

America (or more accurately, the "liberal media") is willing to shell out for their daily dose of conservative rhetoric.

Your quote is nonsensical at best, Rush is political pundit, when people discuss media bias they are refereeing to the journalistic sources of the media.

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun.

These all have a liberal bias, some more than others.

The conservative outlets with the same coverage would be

FOX, Washington Time, Wall Street Journal

So you have 9 majors that lean to the left and 3 majors that lean to the right.

Bringing Rush or Air America, or Howard Stern into the journalistic media fray is silly.

I remember 20 years ago when we were proud to mention that he media has a bias that helped the left, now we hide from it.

The question is why?

Is the truth no longer an important concept to the left or do they feel that the right might have gotten some traction with what appears, to those who look at the issue with indifference, a rather solid case?

 

[earllogjam]

Your quote is nonsensical at best, Rush is political pundit, when people discuss media bias they are refereeing to the journalistic sources of the media.

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun.

These all have a liberal bias, some more than others.

The conservative outlets with the same coverage would be

FOX, Washington Time, Wall Street Journal

So you have 9 majors that lean to the left and 3 majors that lean to the right.

Bringing Rush or Air America, or Howard Stern into the journalistic media fray is silly.

I remember 20 years ago when we were proud to mention that he media has a bias that helped the left, now we hide from it.

The question is why?

Is the truth no longer an important concept to the left or do they feel that the right might have gotten some traction with what appears, to those who look at the issue with indifference, a rather solid case?

The conservatives who watch Bill O'Reily take his form of commentary as an impartial "no spin" new source even though he is almost as bad as Rush Limbaugh. To say pundits are distinguishable by the public as separate and distinct from mainstream media is ridiculous when you consider Fox News, the most watch news source in America.

 

[mista geechee]

Obama mat get more coverage but he also gets more scrutiny. While McCain is free to fuck up all he wants and keep repeating that trite ass "win a war and losr a campaign" line. Only for his fuck ups to end up on a page 6 reprint until recently.

Obama nearly got crucified for a lapell pin and his reverand. While McCain's people can call teh nation whiners and no one even thinks twice.

Obama is painted as an elitist even though nothing is elitist about him, yet McCain's life is like a game of monopoly. McCain speaks of nothing but war, war, war, war, war and admitted he doesn't understand the economy and had the balls to say gas prices are Obama's fault. But Obama is the one who lacks substance.

And let's not forget how many dumb asses are swayed by the opinions of a media outlet and don't extrapolate for themselves.

 

[b.c.]

Is the truth no longer an important concept to the left or do they feel that the right might have gotten some traction with what appears, to those who look at the issue with indifference, a rather solid case?

Nope...nothing "solid" about it. Just more right-winged spin. It's probably more accurate to say there are a number of sources who try to present unbiased news, a number to the far right, and a number to the far left.

But there is NO way to prove a preponderance of so-called "liberal" media. Even the terminology is deceptive because conservatives employ it as a derogatory term as if "liberal" implies information slanted or biased so as to promote an agenda.

My personal interpretation of the term (and admittedly I'm probably biased in that interpretation) is media sources that aren't afraid to tell it like it is, no matter how distasteful to some. Liberal media to me quite literally translates to media unbiased and unfettered.

And given that interpretation it is easy to see why some would consider even the unbiased news sources as "liberal".

In the case of Obama, like another here has observed, the coverage is undoubtedly because of the higher interests in Obama's visits abroad, interest sparked (through no fault of his own) by innuendo and slanderous implied associations (unrelentingly made by people with agendas) between Obama and the Near East.

The interest was created when the media reported all of the hype, rumors, slander, and negative spin on Obama prior to his visits. (But curiously no one was complaining about it being "liberal" then, were they?? Nor would they be complaining if the results of his visits were disastrous.)

Since so many issues were raised about his alleged lack of diplomatic skills (among other such nonsense), perhaps people are curious to see for themselves.

 

[3664shaken]

Not exactly. I agree that SOME outlets do, but to me it looks just the way I'd expect it too; more focus on Obama that goes both ways, he gets praise but you've had your head in the sand if you don't think he gets scrutinized. Mccain got the same favoritism against Gore last time so it's not like this is a new phenomenon, it's not like the coverage was even up until 2008.

I have seen very little scrutiny over Obama, many of the ‘issues’ that were brought up were done so in a passing way. There have been quite a few campaign /career ending issues that would have stopped most any other politician in their tracks.

The scrutiny he receives is usually along the lines of

“well some people say blah blah blah, but this is a non-issue and Obama has dealt with it, besides he says we shouldn’t worry or talk about it so we won’t.”

That’s not reporting that’s covering-up, both candidates should be scrutinized but I think you are kidding yourself if you believe that Obama has been.

Given the Obama/OSama correlations, the implications of ties to Islam and terrorism,

Actually the media has done a stupendous job in correcting these and then some, could you imagine them doing the same to a republican. Bush Sr.’s ties to Nazi Germany. Bush Jr. making money for HIS oil companies, etc.

Besides the people that believe that are the fringe right-wingers, they will believe anything bad about Obama just as the fringe left-wingers will believe anything bad about a republican. They are partisian to the core.

the consistent associations with negative black stereotypes, the obssession with his ethnicity and inabilty to please one half without hurting the other, I'd say it's pretty fair cuz some of the attention he gets is less than favorable. He's "too white" he's "too black" etc...

WOW – can you show some concrete examples of NBC, ABC, CBS casting Obama in a negative black sterotype??????

What about this supposed obsession with his ethnicity????

I will grant you they fawn over the fact that they believe THEY are the ones going to make history by getting the first black president elected, but this is a good thing for him, is it not?

I am not sure where you are getting these points from, but about the only comments I hear on the major media outlets about is race, is whethere it will hurt him or help him. I don’t think this is wrong since that is an important question to analyze.