Chicken and egg question: which came first, Obama supporters or pro-Obama media coverage?
Such seems important given a new Rasmussen Reports study that found people who watch CNN, MSNBC, and the broadcast network evening news programs largely support Obama for president, while those watching Fox News are more likely to say they're voting for McCain.
Though certainly not surprising, is this a function of the various channels' biases impacting their viewers, or people opting for news sources that are friendly to the candidate they support?
While you ponder, here are the relevant numbers (h/t NBer Schnikeys, photo courtesy MSNBC.com):
Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Fox News viewers say they are likely to vote for John McCain, while those who watch CNN and MSNBC plan to support Barack Obama in November by more than two to one.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of CNN voters plan to vote for the Democratic candidate versus 26% who intend to go for the Republican. Similarly, MSNBC watchers plan to vote for Obama over McCain 63% to 30%.
Only nine percent of those who watch Fox News say they will vote for Obama. [...]
How voters rate the importance of issues is also reflected in the cable news programming they prefer. For 36% of Fox viewers, national security is the most important issue in the campaign, followed by 32% who say economic issues are number one. By contrast, those who watch CNN rate economic issues over national security 56% to 13%, and MSNBC viewers agree 50% to 12%. [...]
Seventy percent (70%) of those who watch CBS’ Katie Couric every day plan to vote for Obama, as do 71% of the daily viewers of ABC’s Charles Gibson and 67% of those watching NBC’s Brian Williams.
Once again, which came first?
Did all the glowing, sycophantic, journalistically unprofessional coverage of Obama by CNN, MSNBC, and the nets create this support? Or are people just opting for news sources friendly to their candidate?
Of course, the other possibility is these outlets are playing to their base: as each knows the makeup of its viewership, the coverage is geared to make patrons happy.
Which is it? We report, you decide.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"is this a function of the
August 7, 2008 - 11:05 ET by Chris Norman"is this a function of the various channels' biases impacting their viewers, or people opting for news sources that are friendly to the candidate they support?"
I'm going to waffle and say "both".
And a salute to those voters who elected Republican presidents, particularly Ronald Reagan, in the days before Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the Internet - when the MSM reigned supreme and alone. These voters must have had strong wills to withstand the onslaught of liberal bias.
McNotObama '08
Predictable
August 7, 2008 - 11:08 ET by addeigloriamInteresting observation Noel, but very predictable. I think the majority of folks voting for Obama were probably already far left and watching CNN, MSNBC and the nets long before the campaign started.
The numbers I usually hear is that the media can sway about 15% of the voters, so I'm sure some are relying on the MSM to tell them how to vote. The media can condition these watchers (dumb them down) and get them used to being lied to, thus opening the door for Obama.
The only time I would even...
August 7, 2008 - 11:09 ET by HeavyChevywatch CNN is only to catch Glenn Beck. I wish he would go over to FNC.
"9 out of 10 doctors agree that flag burning is the number one killer of liberals."
Exactly. Other than Glenn
August 7, 2008 - 11:55 ET by TheConservativeChemistExactly. Other than Glenn Beck I never put CNN on...when I happen to stumble upon it I watch simply to be amazed at the blatant propaganda being spewed out as "news"
Masochist Me
August 7, 2008 - 11:23 ET by TexndocI never watch CNN. I do find myself sometime watching MSNBC with my mouth open and my jaw on the floor but have decided to quit torturing myself (it used to be "amusing myself" but last night Jonathan Alter was even more constipated than the usual.)
Constituency Television
August 7, 2008 - 11:40 ET by Kirk TurnerConstituency Television is what we have had here for about twelve years. Before that, it was all-democrat TV. Fox News helped to provide a little balance and a lot of tabloid crap.
Let's be honest about it, all news is constituency news; ergo, it is all propaganda.
For example, Bill Clinton announced yesterday that the economy promotes unhealthy eating. David Gergen announced that McCain's "Moses ad" was racist.
Now in a heathy news environment, these "stories" would not be reported because they are, in fact, crazy, but since we have constituency news, they are reported not for their news value, but as a tangential attack on republicans.
The media is as broken as Washington. If you are intelligent, you don't trust a word any of them say.
Unfortunately, I am a
August 7, 2008 - 11:46 ET by Captain RepusUnfortunately, I am a conservative Republican who will grudgingly support John Keating5 McCain and was an avid Fox viewer, but I find myself increasingly watching MSDNC lately.
I have found that I would rather put up with the endless Obama praise and McCain hatred reporting on MSDNC than to watch the recent trend of Fox spending half of their report time teasing the 'next segment' (especially on the morning shows), OReilly becoming more of a self-centered, self-promoting ass, Hannity's repetitive rants, Colmbs endless drone interrupting and talking over conservative guests, and Gretta's obsessive reporting on football players.
At least MSDNC mixes in their Obama praise with some interesting news reporting.
I agree with you about Fox,
August 7, 2008 - 11:54 ET by Chris NormanI agree with you about Fox, but "At least MSDNC mixes in their Obama praise with some interesting news reporting."?
Yeah, but within that news reporting is more Obama praise.
BTW, Colmes reminds me of a pesky little kid, pulling on his parents' pants, to interrupt them while they are trying to have an adult conversation.
McNotObama '08
Chris...Most liberals feel
August 7, 2008 - 12:01 ET by JerChris...Most liberals feel the same way about Colmes whom they consider an embarrassing lightweight.
Jer
Not that Hannity is at the
August 7, 2008 - 12:18 ET by Chris NormanNot that Hannity is at the WFB level... :)
McNotObama '08
Chris, apparently this
August 7, 2008 - 13:18 ET by JerChris, apparently this didn't post earlier...I'll try again.
Nobody was, is, or will ever be at the WFB level.
Hannity is clearly superior to Colmes, but he does have some built-in format advantages not enjoyed by Colmes.
Jer
No host on television can
August 7, 2008 - 13:45 ET by Chris NormanNo host on television can combine the philosophical and political in an entertaining in the way that WFB did. The thing is, I'm not looking for a WFB on television, I'm just looking for someone who has enough intellectual heft to go beyond slogans, litanies, and "so's your old man" arguments. Some of the guests who are cut off or given two minutes of air time would do much better than the hosts.
There, I've vented and feel much better. Thank you.
BTW, Even though I disagree with her politically, I like Susan Estrich a lot. In her fill-in stint for Colmes, she did great. She combines humor and good nature, making the discussions fun to watch.
McNotObama '08
George Will probably comes
August 7, 2008 - 14:12 ET by JerGeorge Will probably comes the closest in my view. Pat Buchanan has his detractors, left and right, but I do enjoy him. [Combining a sense of humor with a fertile mind and a wealth of knowledge of political history and current events.]
Estrich doesn't impress me much. She is another of those Fox 'liberal lites' who wants to be liked by the predominantly conservative audience. Frankly, I would love to see a Paul Begala or Joe Conason be a permanent Hannity co-host. Talk about fireworks--they'd have to hose down the set after every show.
Jer
I'm surprised by you, Jer.
August 7, 2008 - 14:19 ET by Chris NormanI'm surprised by you, Jer. You've been strongly advocating civility and good manners in television journalism (for lack of a better word) and then you suggest Paul Begala as a co-host to cause "fireworks" resulting in the "hose down" of the studio. That's ironic. I'm looking for at least one show where politics are discussed and debated in something short of the scream-fests to which we're subjected now.
McNotObama '08
I think you may be taking
August 7, 2008 - 14:37 ET by JerI think you may be taking my words much too literally, Chris. As it stands now, Hannity mostly squares off with a milquetoast like the former stand-up comic Colmes, or guest hosts like Estrich who seems to walk on eggshells to keep from offending any conservative sensibilities.
It's always been Hannity's show, with his agenda, leading in the typical segment with "you won't believe the latest Democrat outrage". Well, you may not believe this, but I prefer level playing fields. [And "fireworks" was just a figure of speech.]
Jer
Estrich wrote about Edwards and his scandal
August 7, 2008 - 14:48 ET by sarcasmoDays ago, and pre-photo-release. I fail to see any evidence she's that way. To me she seems like a damn good law professor with the usual goofy left wing ideas many law professors (good and bad) feature. She's honest about things actual Democrat politicians seem to avoid (like the Edwards scandal). Do you have any good examples of the eggshells?? Thanks.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
sarc...I've seen her own
August 7, 2008 - 14:56 ET by Jersarc...I've seen her own Fox--not necessarily Hannity--several times, and on most of those occasions she spent more time slamming Dems than criticising Republicans.
I did see a video of a recent segment of Estrich on Hannity, and she was weak, spending most of the time flirting with Sean.
Jer
I guess I'll have to watch her closer...
August 7, 2008 - 15:12 ET by sarcasmoI don't see any flirting from Susan, but I'll take your word for it (I'm "getting a visual" WRT any baby she & Sean might make, though --ugh!) I see most of her critiques of the Democrats as actually helping them, but again, maybe that's just me. And plenty of her fire has gone toward the Republicans, at least in the past, so I think she was a good hire (but I wonder what they paid!?) by Fox News. I don't recall her ever mentioning much about third parties aside from the usual ire at Ralph Nader, so maybe I like her because she doesn't bash Libertarians? I don't know.
Here's what she wrote, "Obama's Big Risk," just as Barak & the MSM anchors all took the great trip. She excuses the mediabias by saying it's "for ratings" (unlikely -- no junket's gonna save MSM TV's crappy ratings at this point, Susan!) but at the end she's disarmingly honest, again, about Dukakis in the helmet/tank. I've heard the full story, and needless to say, Susan wasn't there when that happened. As a fellow guy, it's hard to blame Dukakis for wanting a tank-ride, but she'd have instinctively known the helmet was late night comedy material and said "no." It's interesting, and perhaps telling, that she's still haunted by the incident.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
sarc...Just checked out
August 7, 2008 - 15:02 ET by Jersarc...Just checked out your link, and, to an extent. you're making my point.
Can you imagine Sean Hannity writing a similar article about a Republican? If he has, I'd like to see it, so I can compare the two.
Jer
I'll have to defer
August 7, 2008 - 15:15 ET by sarcasmoTo the Hannity readers at this point. I don't read Sean's column because life's too short. Hell, I can't even read all the Walter Williams columns I should be reading and I actually like him, but unless/until a Hannity-fan can find you an example, I'll just concede the point.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Too literally? A "figure
August 7, 2008 - 15:50 ET by Chris NormanToo literally? A "figure of speech" does mean something. One doesn't use "fireworks" to describe a quiet conversation or "hose down" to describe the aftermath. I figured you did enjoy these take no prisoner shows.
If you appreciate balance and a "level playing field", you must really dislike the political shows on the MSM where it's usually three liberals vs. a moderate and marginal Republican.
McNotObama '08
Chris...I don't object to
August 7, 2008 - 20:12 ET by JerChris...I don't object to passionate--very passionate--debate as long as it doesn't degenerate into name-calling and personal attacks. And, gosh, I'm sorry for even using the terms "fireworks" and "hose down". I was just trying to inject a little light-hearted perspective on the issue.
Regarding your closing speculation, you are absolutely correct...and I've stated such on several occasions.
Jer
OMG Begala or
August 7, 2008 - 14:24 ET by bigtimerOMG Begala or Conason...
You would have to take a shower after watching...especially Joe Conason, he is one sleazy ba$ta*rd.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
bt, Maybe that's why Jer
August 7, 2008 - 14:28 ET by Chris Normanbt,
Maybe that's why Jer said that the set would need a "hose down" after each show. I was assuming he was referring to the heat from the fireworks...but maybe it would be a de-sliming thing. :)
McNotObama '08
Believe me, there are many
August 7, 2008 - 21:27 ET by JerBelieve me, there are many on the left who think Hannity is one sleazy bastard. Me...I don't think either are. But, both Conason and Hannity are passionate advocates for their political beliefs. I think it would be entertaining and informative.
Jer
edit: I think my high school English teacher would point out that it should read "...I don't think either is."
Not to nitpick, but wouldn't
August 7, 2008 - 11:51 ET by ThatDudeNot to nitpick, but wouldn't this show more that Fox news is having a larger influence in support of McCain? This poll would be good to look at side by side with the number of positive and negative stories given to each candidate on the networks. I seem to remember that Fox still has the most balanced coverage despite the overwhelming lean in the poll. Odd...
Not necessarily - you may
August 7, 2008 - 13:06 ET by DarkCurrentNot necessarily - you may have reversed the causal relationship.
Perhaps one population is attracted to BS, the other repulsed. The resulting effect being that those more strongly attracted to BS tending toward Obama and CNN, etc., while those repulsed by BS tending to move in the direction of Fox and McCain. This is just an alternative hypothesis.
There all pundits
August 7, 2008 - 12:49 ET by Pha PhaYou all seem to be talking about pundits with opinions.
FOX news is Brit Hume. He is the face of that network.
No bias either way.
And I agree, Glenn Beck is real good. has great guests.
He subbed for Larry King a couple of weeks ago. I thought he was going to pull his own hair out.
"A donut with no hole is a danish"
Media
August 7, 2008 - 12:51 ET by serfer62The left slant would cull the right to alternate media leaving the dregs.
Media is too arrogant to pander
news bias
August 7, 2008 - 13:47 ET by charlietexasif the news media is actually reporting bias and people are watching what they agree to...wouldn't they be destroying themselves eventually? Why don't they just spout the news and save the opining for the editorial staff?
that bastion of right wing academia
August 7, 2008 - 15:12 ET by theduck6UCLA has done surveys that prove Fox news, while somewhat biased to the right, is far more fair and balanced than the usual suspects. They also said CNN was fairly centrist when I think they are as bad as the 3 majors and PBS, NPR et al. So I don't know what criteria they used.
Bottom line: keep your flipping opinion off the front page and clearly label it on the TV. Unfortunately far too many are too lazy to notice the difference. A fact the MSM is all too aware of. Before I had to cancel the Washington ComPost as the neighbors were being put off by my yelling at it, I would open a story expecting someone I respected or my party to be implicated in wrong-doing. The banner sure insinuated it. Low and behold half way through I have to see if I went to the correct continuation as the accusation was never supported in the story.
Journalist ethics is a contradiction in terms at the Post.
Goebbelsesque Fox News uses
August 7, 2008 - 20:14 ET by Biff McCainGoebbelsesque Fox News uses eight year old video to make McCain look younger.
http://www.youtube.c...
Fair and Balanced
Hmmm Biffy.... Did you
August 7, 2008 - 20:26 ET by bigtimerHmmm Biffy....
Did you catch the pictures they were showing of Ms. Dictatorship herself yesterday on msnbc?
...At least, to put it nicely, around 20 years old.
the msm does that which you are complaining about to repubs all the time, for decades now, they always find the oldest, worst picture they can show when talking about repub person....dems always get a picture perfect pass.
...so suck it up and quit yer belly-aching...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh