The election results aren’t in yet, but there is one set of surveys with an unmistakeable conclusion. Everyone should be forced to admit that the publicists formerly known as the "news" media have worked themselves to the bone this year to elect Barack Obama.
Polls have found it. The Pew Center for the People and the Press documented a landslide: "By a margin of 70 percent to 9 percent, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on November 4."
The Center for Media and Public Affairs found it. Measuring for comments that are either measurably positive or negative – and dropping out the neutral remarks – comments about Obama on the three network evening newscasts have been two-thirds positive (65 percent) since the party conventions. Comments about John McCain have been about one-third positive (36 percent) in the same time frame.
The cultural landscape is no different. CMPA also found that the late-night comics launched seven times as many jokes on the Republican ticket than they did the Democrats, perhaps in the knowledge that comedians are going to face an awful backlash from their liberal peers should they utter a single mocking word about the ticket of Hope and Change. Leftist "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart can’t be any tougher on Obama than to call him a "hope-ronaut."
Even the Project for Excellence in Journalism, run by liberal former reporter Tom Rosenstiel, found it. In the last two election cycles, Team Rosenstiel labored mightily to find a shred of evidence to support the theory of a pro-George Bush bias in the press. They weren’t going to risk mockery for a flat-earth survey suggesting an anti-Obama tide this year.
They found coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable, and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three to one. Nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57 percent), while fewer than two in ten (14 percent) were positive.
Obama’s coverage was more balanced, with 36 percent positive in tone, 35 percent neutral, and 29 percent negative.
But how can that be? How do you find that 29 percent of Obama mentions are negative? That’s why people should put an asterisk on Mr. Rosenstiel’s results. Unlike other surveys, PEJ isn’t just studying the "news" media, the ones mandated to demonstrate balance and objectivity. PEJ included cable TV talk show hosts from O’Reilly to Olbermann and talk-radio hosts from Rush Limbaugh to Randi Rhodes – all commentators, mandated to express an opinion.
PEJ’s surveys also only included partial samples, looking at two out of four listed newspapers every day, sampling just the first half-hour of network morning shows, rotating NPR and PBS programming, and studying the first half-hour of Limbaugh every other day. That’s like painting half a picture instead of a whole one. And still, after all that conservative commentary, it was still a net positive for Obama.
We at the Media Research Center found something else: the media hated McCain’s commercials. Between the end of the primaries and Tuesday, network news broadcast 84 stories criticizing McCain ads while only 32 had a negative tone toward Obama ads. Moreover, McCain was on the receiving end of nearly three times as many stories scolding his supposed negativity (66) as Obama (26).
Any Republican who thought that nominating the more centrist, media-gladhanding McCain would make for an easier road with the press were obviously proven wrong. Even he must acknowledge the fallacy in the belief that the media were "his base," just as Hillary Clinton, whose allegedly invincible carbon footprints still haunt the campaign trail, was forced to conclude. Given the way journalists turned on former favorites McCain and Clinton, is it any surprise that fresh, young, dynamic, and conservative Gov. Sarah Palin was greeted by the media the way a school of piranhas greet lunch?
Polls showed the public saw that trend, too. Rasmussen reported that over half of U.S. voters (51 percent) agreed that reporters were trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and just five percent thought reporters were trying to help her.
It wasn’t enough for the media that Obama rejected public funding and its attending limits, insuring that Obama’s tidal wave of cash sloshed through battleground state TV markets and hammered McCain with a massive advantage in advertising time. The media’s utter failure to make the campaign-finance imbalance an issue – as they certainly would have if the roles were reversed – only underlined the awesome one-sidedness.
Pundits talk about the "steep uphill climb" the Republicans have faced in this election cycle. But that hill was built with a landslide of media mud.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Now there's a landslide I can Believe in
October 28, 2008 - 22:04 ET by dduckw0rthNow there's a landslide I can Believe in.
If it was not for News Busters, I would not have noticed
October 28, 2008 - 22:32 ET by JayTeeSimply because I no longer watch the Alphabet network News stations. I know some that Do, but I no longer Partake . . .except at NB.
I am not sure how this will play out in the Future . . but If you don't have a Computer. . .you have to watch TV. And you get brainwashed by the media . .Unless . . .you can resist the propaganda.
I hear MORE information on the Daily Commute via Talk Radio than I ever received via the MSM FILTER on TV.
Americans reward Success . . Rush Limbaugh's Salary defines Media Success rewarded by the Public. MSM talking heads are NOT in the same league.
Drudge Rules . . .MSM follows the lead Blogs. NYT debt is JUNK AND I don't see a print media Recovery.
RIP.
i do not think they will
October 28, 2008 - 22:30 ET by hirogen73i do not think they will have a landslide at this time. i think people will veto for john maccain and he will be the new president for us. i want to say good night to everybody at this time. i like to come to this web-site and talk with you because you like repulicans and so do i at this time. and you are nice and you dont make fun of people like sometime at the other web-site and i like to make a new friend at this time. i just wish mike huckebee was the person to veto for. but i didnt get to veto for him. do you know they have veto crimes here? i try to veto for mike huckebee in febuary and i wait in line and they say i can only veto for obama or hillary clinton and i say that is a veto crime because i want to veto for huckebee and one of these days i will call channel six and tell them we have veto crimes here and they try to stop people to veto who they want to. i think that happen at electoin day if obama wins and get re election. so we know if they win because they cheat. good night.
do you mean veto or vote?
October 28, 2008 - 22:35 ET by semolina_filcherdo you mean veto or vote? welcome!
Welcome aboard hirogen,
October 28, 2008 - 22:40 ET by RESTLESS 1(I think).
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
You gotta love St. Barack's
October 28, 2008 - 22:34 ET by semolina_filcherYou gotta love St. Barack's smile. That smile will certainly fade away once the election results are in on November 4. Post election day, St. Lord Most High Messiah Hossana to The One Obama Odinga will become an afterthought.
They aren't feeling enough heat yet.
October 28, 2008 - 22:37 ET by pbthinkerI've felt, for the past 2 years, that the 2006 election was actually lost by the Republicans and won by the media. Many of the votes were close enough and, you could tell that people were well atuned to the Democrat and media mantra about the culture of corruption, etc. The Democrats never said what they were going to do, just rambled on about Republicans and the culture of corruption. Nancy Pelosi actually hid out for a while so she wouldn't say anything to screw up the deal.
The press has refused to vet Barack Obama. Now we have the LA TImes hiding a video tape of Barack Obama at a going away party for a jew hating university professor, complete with his friend Bill Ayres and wife, made in 2003. We all know if this were a McCain tape, it would be out there, since it involves Obama, it will not be released. Media Bias? Of course!
Their treatment of Obama's relationships is another giveaway that their in the tank for this guy. If John McCain was palling around with an abortion clinic bomber, they would hound him endlessly with question after question. The silence of the lambs about Obama's group is very telling.
It appears the press knows where the bodies are buried, so to speak, and is avoiding even getting near them, let along looking for them, finding them, and reporting them.
One question. What if Obama turns out to be as he appears, ill prepared, naive, and a socialist on the first order, who proposes legislation that is beyond what most Americans would consider good and nominates Supreme Court justices who are considered way, way too far to the left? Is there anyway this media can regain the credibility, they sacrificed, to get this guy elected?
I would defy anyone, with or without a journalism degree, to explain to me how this group of cheerleaders has lived up to the responsiblities placed on them by our constitution. This isn't a free press, this is Pravda.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
»→ Million Man March II
October 28, 2008 - 22:43 ET by Cool ArrowChicago is preparing for a party one million strong upon Obama's election.
Imabine, a crowd of 1 million, after losing the election?
Oh, well, at least they're all peace loving Americans.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
What if Obama loses then...
October 28, 2008 - 22:46 ET by semolina_filcherIt might become a meeting of the "violent" kind, if you know what I mean? Dare I say the "r" word? After all, Obama is a product of the Chicago political PR machine. With the unrepentant terrorist by his side, anything can happen.
»→ Heavens no Semolina
October 28, 2008 - 22:55 ET by Cool ArrowPeace loving Democrats would much rather communicate on a higher plane than violence.
Never mind that the same murder rate (426 / 3 million pop.) , if applied to new York, would be (900 / 8 million pop.)
That Obama guy sure knew how to organize gangs, er uh, I mean,communities.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
It will make no difference to them if Obama wins or looses
October 28, 2008 - 23:35 ET by Scout FinchRemember when the Detroit Pistons won the championship back in 89 or 90? They overturned cars, set fires, and looted–because their team WON.
"By a margin of 70 percent
October 28, 2008 - 22:44 ET by TN Mom"By a margin of 70 percent to 9 percent, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on November 4."
The media is absolutely disgusting.
Rasmussen reported that over half of U.S. voters (51 percent) agreed that reporters were trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage
Be on the look-out for a NEW POLL:
ANGRY Americans boycott ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN as well as NewsPrint media. Advertisers BEWARE!
»→ From the mouths of babes
October 28, 2008 - 22:47 ET by Cool ArrowMy grandson, 4, seeing Obama speaking in the rain wearing his Members Only jacket, just said; "He ain't wearing a President suit"
I told my grandson without even thinking about it, "And let's hope he never does".
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
The MSM will never recover
October 28, 2008 - 22:48 ET by d1carterThe MSM will never recover from this election cycle. They will look back at this time, even if BO wins, and say, "What in the hell were we thinking?" As "Plugs" Biden says, "Mark my words".
Eventually the MSM will fade
October 28, 2008 - 22:51 ET by semolina_filcherEventually the MSM will fade away like a bad dream...just like Obama.
If BHO wins, the MSM WILL CLAIM they did it and try for Control.
October 28, 2008 - 23:19 ET by JayTeeThe MSM WILL TRY TO CONTROL BHO if he wins . . The MSM will exercise their "perceived" ownership . . . Woe be it to the Elected Official that does not worship at the feet of the Omnipotent Media Kingmakers.
Death to the non believer Obama will be the next edict from the MSM KINGMAKERS .
Just the opposite, JT
October 28, 2008 - 23:40 ET by Scout FinchObama would banish any news media types who would dare question Dear Leader. The media will learn quickly to continue to fawn over Obama or be shut out of press events. Not that there will be many. Access to Dear Leader will be strictly limited.
The MSM WILL TRY TO CONTROL
October 29, 2008 - 06:20 ET by motherbeltThe MSM WILL TRY TO CONTROL BHO if he wins
No they won't. They will continue to slobber at his feet, because the name of the game is "ACCESS."
No, forget that. It won't even be because of access. They truly believe that he is "The One" and they will protect him at all costs: covering up for him, ignoring anything harmful, etc.
Why would they change? What have they got to lose....their journalistic integrity?
marriage made in hades
October 29, 2008 - 06:25 ET by AgnosticIMHO, this is the mistake that is being made now about the relationship of the media and Obama. They do not share the same views in any close parallel. The media views are paralleled with Pelosi and Reid who will be controlling their respective Congressional Houses. The media will support these two over Obama if and when their goals do not align. Any attempt by Obama to bring in people that may threaten the power of the Congressional leaders will be challenged. Here I see two problems. One is that the media have painted themselves in a corner by pronouncing all Obama attacks racist they will be in danger of finding themselves in the same position. Two and most importantly, Reid and Pelosi are just as or more dangerous than Obama to this nation and its future.
In a land of worthless journalists
October 28, 2008 - 22:49 ET by Lame CherryI thought I would put something here in the cesspool of media which everyone is fully aware of a positive.
Over at the World Tribune which runs out of the Washington Times, there are several real journalists. Wes Prudin most know, but a gentleman over there in Sol Sanders has forgot more than most experts in life will claim to know.
When one sees all the bogus that Mr. Bozell features here, I just concluded a real journalist needed to be praised to prove there actually are people one should read.
Mr. Sanders always will fill your brain with things to challenge it unlike what most keyboard plunkers do now.
Reason I put him here is he covers Eurasia and that is where the things which need to be understood will happen. Mr. Sanders knows this from the people up.
His archives for this year.
http://www.worldtrib...
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Dangling Chads, Chads, Chads.....
October 28, 2008 - 23:30 ET by TexndocI'm pretty sure November 5th "70 percent of the media" is going to refuse to accept "President McCain and Vice-President Sarah Palin" should they even get over 300 electoral votes. I assure you, they have nothing to lose by taking that road, in fact - it's a given.
Evening Tex
October 28, 2008 - 23:44 ET by cocodrieThe democrats probably have a truckload of gynecologists ready to inspect the pregnant chads, Marshal Jed Cooper for the hanging chads and a ----load of lawyers to sort the ones that are pregnant from the ones that are hanging.
I am a racist
October 29, 2008 - 00:29 ET by Captain RepusI believe Obama is a Marxist/socialist - that makes me a racist
I believe Obama has a close association with, and shares beliefs with a domestic terrorist - that makes me a racist
I believe Obama was fully aware of and shares the beliefs of an America hating racist priest - that makes me a racist
I believe Michelle Obama despises America - that makes me a racist
I believe Obama was involved in illegal and/or unethical practices with a convicted real estate slumlord - that makes me a racist
And finally, I believe a majority of Americans, racists and non-racists alike, will come to their senses and overcome the 96% of non-racist blacks who will vote for the black candidate, 98% of journalists who advocate for Obama only because he is black, and elect John McCain on November 4th.
I heard Fred Barnes say
October 29, 2008 - 05:39 ET by Gat New YorkI heard Fred Barnes say last night that there has laways been liberal media bias and I would agree with that.
But this is not just some bias. The media have dropped all pretense of journalistic integrity to become a pure propaganda machine for Obama.
If something transpires that is negative toward Obama there is a very good chance I will not read about it in my daily newspaper the next day (Newsday) unless the Obama campaign came out with something to counter that incident. Using the same newspaper, I have yet to read anything about Obama's "spreading the wealth" statements.
Then to have the Obama campaign outright ban stattions that ask them relevant questions rather than suppress the truth.
This is so much like 1984 and you have to wonder just how far Obama will go if he is elected.
Vote Early
October 29, 2008 - 06:39 ET by billbEarly voting is being promoted to limit the effect of an October Surprise.
IF WE EVER NEEDED DIVIDED GOVERNMENT, IT'S NOW!
News Landslide
October 29, 2008 - 07:25 ET by GeneralAlAs I was reading Mr. Bozell's report, initially I felt the usual internal depression I usually feel when reading thses statistics. However, I started to think back to 1980 when the "Gipper" was trailing "The Peanut Farmer" and the final result. I believe that "It ain't over 'til its over!" If we defeat the Obamessiah in this election, what will be the after election pundits response? It can't be the best election money can buy. It can't be voter fraud against the Republicans with ACORN all over the map! They can't claim negative bias in the press. Obviously, they will claim racism and ignorance. Whatever they attribute his loss to, I'm feeling a surge in confidence that is going to rock the networks. I don't believe they are going to gain big majorities and I believe they're going to loose the White House! Conservatives are full of suprises and Commiecrats, here comes your October surprise in November!
Fairness Doctrine
October 29, 2008 - 09:09 ET by AndyRWhen McCain wins on Tuesday, his first order of business should be to implement the fairness doctrine. This means that all network and cable stations must air a second newscast right after the first one giving the Republican side of the news.
In addition, it should be stated that unless you label yourself as "Commentary" all news stations and reporters must report the news accurately, according to journalistic integrity standards. In other words, a story cannot be more then who, when, what, why , where and how. News stories should not offer opinion.
Finally, any stations with Commentary have a one year moratorium on the opposite view. This means if the station makes no money off the show, they have the right to terminate it and given a two year reprieve on putting another show on the air.
Andy, If it's fascism
October 29, 2008 - 10:13 ET by JoeBobAndy,
If it's fascism when the left does it, it doesn't make it any less fascist if the right does it.
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious