The 2008 Presidential Campaign (was Obama Phenomenon 2)

[solicitr]

Vote for your favorite music video!

http://www.johnmccain.com/video/love.htm



Meanwhile, McCain's campaign stop in New Hampshire was covered by *one* reporter- from the local paper.

[yovargas]

Will Obama then claim credit for it, since it coincides with a timetable he proposed in massively different circumstances two years ago??

Oh, probably. What politician wouldn't?

One I liked.


*sigh*

[Primula Baggins]

*sigh*

[halplm]

The figures on the donations suprise even me...

I'm not exactly sure what could or should be done about it, but it would be nice for people to admit the bias.

[sauronsfinger]

Individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations made the following contributions:

I have given money to several organizations over the years.

Does than mean my employer supports the same thing as I did?

And if he does, how does that translate into proven bias?

[halplm]

Once again, not what we're talking about.

These are the people that work the news, not the heads of the company. That's a much more effective tool than if there are directives from above to have a bias.

And don't pretend you don't understand how it tranlates into a "proven bias."

In other news, I'm not sure which is worse, that the Media is available whenever Obama wants, to do pretty much whatever he wants... or that he is staging things without the media...

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/136003.html

honestly, I really don't know what to think about that.

[Primula Baggins]

It's possible to be an honest reporter, Hal. In fact, that's what they're all supposed to do. And most of them do work hard to be objective and honest. It's possible to have political beliefs and still report fairly. Someone who knows nothing and cares nothing about politics is likely to be a lousy reporter, frankly—not because they have no bias but because they don't have the insight or the observation for it.

[sauronsfinger]

from Hal

Once again, not what we're talking about.

It is exactly what we are talking about - the allegation of bias in the media

These are the people that work the news, not the heads of the company.

I failed to see the list of people that gave and what their exact occupations and duties were. Why was that? How is it that you somehow know that these people "work the news" when the list that was posted here was without any such details or information? I would like to know that.

That's a much more effective tool than if there are directives from above to have a bias.

But you have yet to offer any proof of bias regardless of where you think or believe it may come from - the top or the bottom.

And don't pretend you don't understand how it tranlates into a "proven bias."

I do not pretend anything. If someone alleges bias- that is a very serious charge. It should be substantially documented in detail and presented factually to be examined and discussed.

That has not been done.

[halplm]

Oh, I know it's possible. But this goes back to the involuntary thing we've been discussing.

If 90% of the workers at a news station, support one candidate, then their stories, even if they try to be fair, are going to present that candidate more favorably. They may even be actively trying to weed out such bias, but it will still get through... a word here, a chuckle there, things that make people LIKE their guy more.

And that's not terrible in an isolated situation, but when it's rampant accross ALL mainstreem media, it' adds up considerably, makes people more comfortable with their leanings, and less likely to check their bias, as everyone around them agrees!


Here's an interesting article one of the best examples of double-speak I've ever seen:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11941.html

In the same article, the berlin speech is both a campaign speech, and not a campaign speech. They won't be addressing McCain, but will be addressing Bush while we've been constantly bombarded with the idea that they are the same. Besides, they'd much rather campaign against Bush than McCain.

I really can't believe they equated his speech to a presidential one. That is the hight of arrogance... quickly clarified of course, he's just an individual, not a candidate, I mean a senator, not a... what was I saying?

It's not a campaign event... but yeah, we're filming it for a commercial.

[solicitr]

It's possible to be an honest reporter, Hal. In fact, that's what they're all supposed to do. And most of them do work hard to be objective and honest.

Prim, I would cautiously suggest that that last sentence is not universally believed, nor borne out by the evidence.

As mentioned in Nan Elmoth, even the best-intentioned will still, unconsciously, favor beliefs which more closely approximate their ow.

Of course, that rather mild observation falls well short of the rather empirical fact of the Press swooning over Obama like twelve-year-old Beatlemaniacs.

[halplm]

SF, you certainly have mastered the art of internet argument . To take evidence of something and claim it is not valid, because there is no evidence of that something is well done, I applaud you .

It's still absurd, of course.

[solicitr]

Calm down, Hal. I say this as a friend.

[sauronsfinger]

Where is that evidence Hal???
Where is it?
Did I miss it in your post?
Did I miss it when Solicitr posted a list of donations without names, occupations or any details?

You should understand that just because you or anyone else calls a grape an orange it does not magically become a grape.

Please take that list and identify the persons and occupations of each person on it and show a direct relationship with the power they have to control the news that you claim is biased.

Please give proper evidence of obvious bias that you claim exists.

I eagerly await to see it.

[sauronsfinger]

Here is the entire post from Solicitr in which he alleges media bias.

More on media bias- follow the money.

Individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations made the following contributions:

NBC, NBC Universal: $104,184 to Democrats / $3,150 to Republicans

CBS: $45,508 to Dems / $966 to Republicans

ABC: $17,320 / $4,717

Turner Broadcasting, TBS: $30,161 / $3,950

Fox: $40,573 / $0 (!!)

Fox News/Fox News Channel: $1,280 / $0 (!!!!!!)

MSNBC: $210 / $282

CNN: $2,286 / $1,250

Associated Press: $2,550 / $545

Reuters: $10,745 / $3,450

Washington Post, Newsweek: $4,268 / $0

New York Times, NYT Co: $8,143 / $0

Time, Inc: $40,988 / $4,850

Time Magazine: $1,250 / $0

USA Today: $6,067 / $0

Totals for the above:

$315,533 to Democrats ; $22,656 to Republicans -- most of that to Ron Paul. When we exclude donations to GOP presidential candidates other than McCain, we get

$315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (4 individuals who donated to McCain.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Where are the people, the individuals who comprise this list?

Where is the identification of those same people and which divisions they work inside these "major media organizations"?

Are these people who write the news? Do they work in the corporate parking garage? The cafeteria? Child care center? We have no idea at all from this scanty information.

And in this post, Solicitr never gives us one example of actual news bias which this post alleges. Not one. Not a single one.

This post is nothing more than Americans donating to a political campaign. To make it more than that you have to do a great deal more research and study.

You may have a plot of land, but there is not a skyscraper on it. Not unless you carefully build it.

[Ellienor]

C'mon guys, look at this data like a scientist would. Or at least, how I think a scientist would (not that I can claim to be one, anymore).

It shows raw totals of donations made by people who self identified to be part of these media organizations. To really feel solid about this data, I would want to know who collected it, how likely it is that the self identification was accurate, and then to which job category from which each of the the donations arose from. This is missing much of this information.

However, that does not discount this data entirely. It just weakens somewhat one's confidence in the conclusions one can draw from it. Assuming that all types of occupations inside a media organization contribute in proportion to their numbers (i.e., if we have 50% news reporters, then we'll assume 50% of the money was from news reporters), and not knowing much else, we can saw that this is data that tends to moderately support that most news reporters favor Democrats.

I think one can find all sorts of scientific studies on bias. It does exist. It is often unconscious.

SF, I don't think you can completely blow this off.

edit for garbled English.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I agree. And even I see the media frenzy over Obama's overseas trip as an example of media bias.

[sauronsfinger]

Ellienor - making a charge of media bias is very serious. I take that seriously. I view the news media as playing a very important role in keeping this nation free and in giving citizens information on which many important decisions are based.

If anyone, from the right or left or center, wants to allege media bias, please step up and present chapter and verse of specific cases and examples, when they happened and what the proof of bias is.

This so called list from Solicitr proves no such thing.

And we cannot assume anything about the people on it. And even if they are news people, that does not show any bias in and of itself.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

One could take the contrary view just as well and ask who actually owns the media. I doubt if you would get the same pattern of political support and donation.
In the case of bias one would have to analyse most of the output of the media that is widely consumed - one can always find extreme partisanship at the fringes - before making any complaint. It sounds like a Herculean task to me. Anything else is just cherry-picking.

[Ellienor]

Well, it's not all the U.S. media's fault, is it? Europe is fascinated by Obama so their press is giving him the "rock star" treatment. It's not just about Democratic bias in the U.S. press.

SF, my brother is a newspaper journalist from waaaay back (early 80s). Anyways, he says that all papers are really either Republican or Democrat, and the stories that are run and their orientation will be somewhat affected by the papers' owners/managing editors' political leanings.

So I do think that there is bias. You just have to be aware of it when you read. When you read something from the Wall Street Journal....when you read something from the New York Times. Sources matter.

edit: it doesn't mean that what they report is automatically partisan crap. But there will be a certain worldview and some assumptions that go with pieces in WSJ or NYT, to pick fairly clear examples.

[sauronsfinger]

from Voronwë

And even I see the media frenzy over Obama's overseas trip as an example of media bias.

Your belief about news coverage of the Obama trip has absolutely nothing to do with the incompleteness of the list posted by Solicitr and the unfair charges that he claimed were supported by it. They are two separate things. One does not validate the spurious claims made by the other.