Johanek: Anchors for ABC, NBC, and CBS fawning like fools over Senator Obama
Some in the media are starting to pay more attention to the rest of the media and the reality that the public perception as well as evidence that suggests there is a bias towards Obama from the media. As Marilou Johanek points out in her column today, Firewall between news, opinion crumbling in media outlets part of which:
Truth is, many news organizations, both electronic and print, increasingly permit a prevailing liberal or conservative opinion to influence news judgment and change the way a story is cast for public consumption. But occasionally such bias is so transparent that the public calls the media out on its group thinking.
In the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq – and for too long afterward – media reports were infused with patriotic fervor instead of objectivity, which might have produced more critical questioning of the administration’s disastrous pre-emptive war policy. In 2008, the ridiculously lopsided press coverage of candidates in the presidential race has not been lost on many Americans.
As been reported recently, Tyndall Report, a service that monitors the three network news broadcasts, ABC, NBC, and CBS have spent a total of 114 of their national airtime minutes covering Obama since June. They’ve spent 48 minutes on McCain. It’s clear that July’s numbers will be much higher given the overseas trip by Barack Obama.
Some of course don’t think this is important and that anyone who complains has to be a GOP shill. That’s another side to this issue, the response by some who are pro-Obama who would be enraged if the opposite exists but since it benefits them they miss the larger picture issue of what this type of selectivity and bias could create beyond Obama. As James Rainey from the LA Times points out in a piece written on this topic it’s happened before, just not on this scale:
Since the general election campaign began in early June, Obama has been on the network newscasts a total of 114 minutes, compared with McCain’s 48 minutes. For the year, Obama has received 389 minutes of network coverage, compared with 203 for McCain, according to Andrew Tyndall of tyndallreport.com.
In 2000, a less dramatic network coverage gap favored Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, who got 338 minutes of airtime, compared with 296 minutes for Vice President Al Gore.
It’s clear the pattern is continuing according to Project for Excellence in Journalism:
The week was also the sixth straight since the general election began in which Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, enjoyed a distinct advantage in the race for exposure over the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain. Last week, Obama was a significant presence in 83% of campaign stories studied, vs. McCain in 52%. (To be a significant presence in a story, 25% of the story must be about that person.)
It’s also been the source of humor:
It’s also been the topic of recent ads by the McCain campaign. What this will mean as far as the general election is not clear. Will this increasing media attention on the media have an impact? Given the distaste some have for the media does this help or does it hurt either candidate when it comes to the actual election? Locally we’ve discussed earned media in the past, is Obama’s campaign just better at it? Does the media have a responsibility to try to provide equal coverage? Does knowing that many reporters are supporting Obama make a difference? What do you think?
Amen to Marilou Johanek, AMEN!
July 25th, 2008 at 12:54 pmthey noticed when SNL pointed it out, just nobody cared
July 25th, 2008 at 1:09 pmGreat Article on Obama and the Media
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece
July 25th, 2008 at 1:16 pmWe need ron paul, that is one I recommend people read, thanks for pointing it out.
True Barga, SNL did lead the way.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:20 pmDid she point out the excessive fawning (JRB) and glowing coverage her paper has given Obama?
July 25th, 2008 at 1:25 pmI often find myself writing the Blade in violent disagreement with Ms. Johanek’s opnions. I am therefore obligated (Catholic guilt can be vicious sometimes) to admit when she is correct. The line between news and editorial, between fact and opinion in every form of media today may have become blurred beyond recognition. Today’s mass media outlets have crossed the line so far that they can’t see it behind them with binoculars.
In a time when network television and newspapers are facing unprecedented competition and advertising revenue loss, you have to wonder at the wisdom of such behavior and at how long these Dodo birds will fare in the “survival of the fittest” world of information and entertainment.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:30 pmTim, that is a good question.
Obviously many MSM media outlets feel that overboard coverage on Obama is the way to help ratings. We shall see, but I am skeptical.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:35 pmSince I’m short on time, I’ll just post my basic response Swampbubles…
http://swampbubbles.com/bubble/now-us-candidates-campaign-western-wall-jerusalem-wth#comment-28839
July 25th, 2008 at 1:54 pmPart of this Obama-mania might indeed be some media bias, but much of it is undoubtedly the highly skilled Obama campaign team and the relatively inept McCain bunch.
The reason why Obama defeated Clinton has less to do with any characteristics of the Illinois senator (excepting his oratorical skills) but that he simply ran a superior campaign, while the Clintons never seemed to be able to consistently articulate messages that resonated with voters.
I know that the Republicans reading may not want to hear this, but McCain will get stomped in November with his current tired and worn-out strategies. Obama can be beaten, but the existing “John McCain is a great American, an expert on Iraq, and a political maverick” is going nowhere fast.
Give the media something interesting, and they will cover it.
Now, we might complain that Obama’s people have been working hard overseas to get these crowds for photo opportunities, but John McCain could have done the same thing. Instead, he’s staging the same sorts of predictable and mundane events he’s been known for.
Now, I’m not an Obama fanatic by any stretch, but I have to give his campaign staff credit for getting their candidate an unprecedented amount of global coverage at a time of the election year when presidential candidates normally can’t bribe even their way into much airtime.
John McCain: you are getting PWNED.
(Hmmm.. maybe I’ll turn this into a longer post since I have no blog ideas at the moment…
July 25th, 2008 at 1:58 pmMy wife told me last night that CBS News had made some sort of “editing mistake” where apparently McCain was confused or somehow went off topic in answering a question. CBS News actually edited the footage, supposedly and put footage of what he should have answered in the right place. Apparently, Couric was upset.
Given the history of CBS News adversarial relationship with the Republican party, it seemed very interesting. Apparently, CBS News maintains it was an editing “accident” that actually painted McCain in a more favorable light.
I have been looking for news on it briefly today, and haven’t found anything. Did anyone see or hear about this last night?
July 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pmI think that the presidential election and an Obama victory is so important to the liberal wing of the media that they are willing to cast aside the standards of their industry to assist in the victory. They will pause for a moment to assure us that they are “sensitive” to the perception that they are being bias, and that they will try harder to be fair. Then they will go back to subtle, or not-so-subtle, demonstrations of their affection for their Democratic candidate. They may even defend their past “fairness” by claiming that they presented McCain frequently and favorably in past broadcasts, but I’m certain that they would be referring to their efforts to favor McCain over the other candidates in the Republican primary process who might have been considered too conservative by liberals.
There is a reason that the traditional networks are getting clobbered by Fox News. Fox may seem like the conservative wing of the media, but they are truly the fairest network on TV. They just seem conservative because they are well “right” of left-leaning ABC, NBC & CBS. Those honest enough to step back and look at the bigger picture will recognize that Fox is in the middle, giving the benefit of the doubt to both sides. That never happens on the traditional stations, but we all have to strike this compromise in our real lives, so we relate to Fox’s presentation of the news.
There are millions of people who appreciate this reality, and they don’t care much that the bias of our newspapers and old networks are rendering themselves irrelevant. We now have other sources to draw from.
July 25th, 2008 at 2:05 pmI wonder if the fairness doctrine that liberals say we must have will include print media and the networks giving equal time to conservatives?
July 25th, 2008 at 2:05 pmI don’t know… I’m already so sick of these people, I usually mentally tune out whenever they are on TV. It irritates me that I’m looking forward to November, since summer is my favorite season.
July 25th, 2008 at 2:06 pmI guess I didn’t look that hard. I did find some commentary on the CBS News error. So I guess Obama is getting more coverage, and McCain gets coverage “help”. (that is just a joke)
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/cbs_sidesteps_questions_about.php
http://technorati.com/posts/aGu%2FkU2HOtT2%2BGs%2F37npPOT7IDAKgfTn2%2BYp7mJdCx0%3D?sub=h6ayHJzsK1XER05Lw3wS%2FqHyqkVRYar46eC93hPlaF8%3D
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/mccain-gets-history-of-th_n_114419.html?page=21
July 25th, 2008 at 2:06 pmMcCain – Feel the Excitement
July 25th, 2008 at 2:58 pmhttp://uspolitics.tribe.net/photos/ee63cb5c-3216-4b31-9dea-88542c8dbfdd
Shut up Sensor.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:06 pmBalance this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/mccain-gets-history-of-th_n_114419.html?page=21
with this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/23/katie-couric-to-obama-peo_n_114520.html
Anyhoo… the Reupblicans have Fox. What’s the problem?
July 25th, 2008 at 3:19 pmWhen is the mainstream media going to realize that the National Enquirer actually has the goods on John Edwards now. The mistress and the love child story are true, the security guards at the hotel are coming forward, Edwards is not denying it anymore. This guy is supposedly the frontrunner for attorney general in an Obama administration, this needs to be covered!
July 25th, 2008 at 4:18 pmWhile his wife has cancer.
John Edwards is a scumbag.
July 25th, 2008 at 4:59 pmi am of the opinion that there is no such thing as objective media anymore. Fox LOVES the GOP and hates Obama — and makes no attempt to cloak that. The “big 3″ networks fawn over Obama like lovesick fools. and even though I’m an Obama supporter, i prefer my news anchors to be OBJECTIVE.
the 2008 election is WAY different than any election in history. the candidates have MySpace pages, Facebook pages, Twitters, etc. i mean hell, Obama has been in US Weekly at least twice so far.
there should be a balance in the news coverage. but on the flip side of that, if one candidate is getting crowds of 200,000 and the other is sitting in cafes in columbus saying things like “i’d like to go to germany when i’m president”…well, what makes better news? yeah, 200K people gathering to hear a speech IN A COUNTRY THAT CAN’T EVEN VOTE FOR THE PREZ. sorry to say, but that’s the story.
i’m not defending the media…i think as a whole, it needs to step back, take a deep breath, hide their Obama 2008 buttons and get back to objective reporting.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:22 pmI actually find the objectivity of Fox being questioned as an interesting one when you look at it just from a News standpoint as opposed to their “talking heads” I don’t disagree from an opinion standpoint that those that Fox hires are more conservative than MSNBC or CNN.
What I find very interesting is the basic actual news aspect of most of the television and print media comes from AP news and other wire services. Less reporters are actually out there “reporting” than before. It’s very noticeable here in Toledo if you look at some of the stories being reported in the Blade, look at today’s front page, one of the main stories was taken word for word from the Washington Post.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:36 pm#18 Dave…
Seriously, the National Enquirer? Bush never denied any of these either:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/25/9551/87873/937/556389
Why? Because tabloids make shit up and you don’t have to deny shit from liars.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:41 pmLisa Renee – I wouldn’t mined so much if Fox News was conservative, but it’s not that it is conservative News, it’s GOP News. Big difference…
July 25th, 2008 at 11:44 pmwait, why are we talking about Edwards, that man SHOULD have been president
July 26th, 2008 at 10:05 amI’ll be visiting Germany next month. Let’s see if they allow me…you know…”just another citizen”…make a speech in the tiergarten before the masses.
The media has been tripping over it’s self to kiss Obama’s ass and influence the vote via bandwagon propaganda.
When the whores of the media are beginning to feel embarrassed by their actions, it’s gone overboard.
July 26th, 2008 at 3:34 pmThe media loves Obama much more than the German people do. The reports I heard were that they were not as impressed with his speech as he would like us to believe.
July 26th, 2008 at 4:14 pmEdwards should have been president? Surely you jest! And why isn’t his situation front page news? This is a guy who litigated big tobacco for tens of millions and now lives like a king. And oh yea, he feels the pain of all hurting Americans! What a hypocritical pretty boy butt hole. But on the other hand, what IF Edwards would have done the good things he campaigned to do? Do we look past the indiscretions and vote for him? Now a days, just about all candidates have done something.
Everyone has an obligation to look beyond the media BS, do some homework, and vote as they see fit.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:03 pmMedia is keeping the Edwards scandal a secrete. Shhh! Ecept for Fox News. They tell the truth!!
July 26th, 2008 at 9:42 pmNo, look at the guy, just because he can not identify with his goals does not mean he will not strive for them.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:15 pmPretty much all Obama did was give the Germans a teleprompter fed history lesson…yawn.
I have also heard that the reason Obama drew such a large crowd was because…there was a free pop concert by 2 big name German acts before he came on stage!
Of course the media would leave that part of the story out.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:44 amI also find it odd that the American media is touting a crowd of 200,000 while the German media claims 20,000!
Quite a lot of bullshit involved in covering a political rally…that “wasn’t a political rally”!
…just a foreigner who happened to drop by a free concert, saw an unused mic and spoke freely in a country that restricts free speech…happens all the time!
July 27th, 2008 at 7:54 amIt is nice to see that not all Hollywood types are ultra liberals. Jon Voight on Hussein Obama.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/28/voight/
July 30th, 2008 at 2:48 pm