We've all heard them try it once again. Right wingers claiming that Obama is getting unfair coverage and receiving a ton of media bias. But thankfully a neutral media think tank (which has produced many studies which show liberal bias in the 90s) has concluded that since the primaries Obama has received much more negative media coverage/commentary than McCain. Here is the link.
In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias - Los Angeles Times
Here are some choice quotes from the story.
Richard Lichter is the head of the organisation
Thoughts?

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

This is really not that surprising to me. The MSM really hates Obama and I've suspected as much since the primaries.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Assuming the source is legit, I have one question and some possible answers (tho not necessarily The answers). After several months of pro-BO coverage, why would the MSM switch gears and have a month of 'anti-BO' coverage?

1) As the OP sort of hints at, and the above post less subtly implies, it was all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy: Get Hillary out of McCain's way because she might actually beat him, then once she was out of the picture, it's open season on Obama. (Yeah, right.)

2) After fawning over BO for months and essentially electing him nominee, if not Pres, the MSM press has come to its senses with a collective "Oh, sh**! What were we Thinking?!?" (Yeah, right.)

3) It's not shifting gears against BO, so much as ignoring McCain. Rather than fill the BO vs Hillary news-space vaccuum with BO vs JM, how about BO vs BO? (Okay, now we're starting to get plausible...)

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

Interesting.
G. Mason has a reputation for fairness, so I have no problem with this.

I have a comment though, why is it the times had to couch this with in your face boogeyman blurbs?

Ala-

Now the same researchers have found something less palatable to those conspiracy theorists.

Has anyone from the Con.’s accused Mason of cooking the books? Or is this just a knee jerk nya nya nya, because the media has been skewed for so long and the times feels “vindicated” some how?

And those studies BY Mason in the past that DID show dem/lib bias were "conspiracies? Christ, the guy cannot even write a straight column, sorta deflates his own point eh?


Which of course leads me to ask you, corp media sux, why you, who always pooh poohed polls and other like respected sources that have shown dem/lib bias in the past now post this topic?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

This confirms my theories. I've been talking about the pro-McCain bent of the media for a long time. I agree there has been an anti Bush slant in the press for a very long time, but his actions do enough without their help. I think it is startling however, that most Americans, despite these findings, will claim the press wants Obama to win.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

I think the media tends to give better coverage to underdogs mainly to make races seem as close as possible which leads to a more exciting contest and higher ratings and circulations.

The media has also been frequently and unabashingly slamming Obama unfairly(focusing on b.s. like flag pins, whether he's Black enough, or why he "won't hold up his hand while saying th pledge). At the same time McCain is continuously propped up and the MSM ignores all of the gaffes coming out of his campaign. It's obvious who the media wants to win this election cycle but I just hope the people are able to see through the MSM's game to prop up McCain.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

The title of this thread alone is hilarious.

__________________
Want government run healthcare? Join the military.

well theres always the network anchors fawning to make the trip ala his world tour isn't there? Whatever negative press he receives ala couric et al and their sessions as to the surge etc. as you infer, are wholly his own, but does not detract from the central point.

You have been talking about the McCain "media swoon" for a long time?

And of course there is one other tidbit, lets say McCain does something stupid, and they don’t air it, then he has been accorded a service and possible bias by the msm, same for Obama yes?
That’s were your Bush analogy falls apart, he may have done many dumb things, but we hardly heard of some case of that which is commendable now have we?

IF we had a lot of those numbers they crunch would have swayed back toward the plus side, ipso, if there is no report there is no negative or positive to be gleaned. Obama misspoke 3 times at a Sunrise fla. Venue, calling it Sunshine, a friend in fla. told me about it, I googled and came up a few backwater papers and the wash. post with a very forgiving article on it from their on the trail blog. See how easy it is? He has 16k people there, the wash post wasn’t the only major news source there either. How many others have there been? Is it a big deal? No, not really, on its own, he was probably tired etc. but then again, we’ll never know and what we don’t hear about is just as important as what we do.


as far the mason survey goes, I will wait till the election and see where we stand then.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Oh hell yea. As I inferred when a study comes out that says the media is biased against cons, we are told by the lib guard that its "just the truth" you see, as in Corp media sux phraseology and words, bush brought it on himself as if that’s an excuse, like dan rather et al, when the media is writing speaking out against the cons it cannot be bias, if it does speak for a con its bias, if it speaks for a democrat its honest middle of the road news…funny how that works isn’t it?

So this MUST be the truth NOW because as the author of that horrible piece in the times said, previously it was “conspiracy theorists” who were making hay even though the same source they quote NOW was making a case for liberal bias, but NOW its true, because McCain is the beneficiary of media slant and bias against Obama.

and at the end of course he "startled" that people like 60% of them feel the media wants obama to win....astounding that is, because that tells you he has not ben paying attention till he has found some sturdy that sppts his argument the other way.....great Caesars ghost.

And of course theres the issue of the press setting themselves up as our conscience. This negative and positive thing should be a wash. IF they slant it other than reading the news any which way we would not have to worry about this. If Obama doesn’t wear a flag pin, just saying that is perceived as "negative”…..why? If they just report it, and leave it alone sans pejorative, then whats the big deal? But you see they cannot, because their narcissism extends so far as they feel they know better and have to tell us what to think too.

As far as the larger question goes;

If 10 black folks are working amongst 80 white folks we are told there is probably a pernicious form of racism evident or just under the surface, displayed in all manner of forms, but when we are told that 80% of a news room or media center is lib oh no, not ever, we are tried and true and we never are intolerant, nor do we practice any exclusivity or slant….thats the parable they peddle, you see its never them, its always someone else.


oh and would it have killed the times to the study? I don't see it there.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

This country sucks.

The TV news channels are absolutley hysterical with fear about this. Saturation coverage of the most banal sort. Todays CA quake was nothing.

This is a fear based, military dictatorship. The media is being used as a weapon against the masses to bury real news and control them with a herd mentality of fear.

I cannot believe how much we have lost of media in this bananna republic. The newspapers are faked with shallow wire reports, and investigative journalism is non-existant.

There are so many stories to cover, 4 billion cut from CA education, an economy spiralling toward insolvency, fake wars threatened by crazy Rumsfeld-like despots on the TV, nutcase neocons like Glenn Beck who think sending you off to die is entertainment.

This is not America.

I don't think the media has one particular agenda, other than ratings. The American media, like the people themselves, love an underdog. That's why Obama got good reviews against Hillary, and that's why McCain has been given a pass over and over again over the last month or so.

When you're the frontrunner, you get scrutinized to death, every word gets parsed and taken out of context. Had Obama made the "Iraq/Pakistan" border gaffe while overseas, or had he claimed that Al Qaeda was going into Iran for training just to have a fellow Senator correct him moments later, Obama's trip would have been a waste and McCain would've got the bump in the polls.

But that still didn't happen, and in the "poll of polls" Obama is ahead by about 6 again, after things got close to about even last week.

It is just assumed by the media that McCain knows foreign policy better, so everytime he says something inaccurate, not well thought out, or just stupid about, it doesn't get the scrutiny that Obama would get if he were to say it.

Meanwhile, it's assumed that Obama can be trusted on domestic matters, and so the pressure is on McCain to deliver on that front. I think that's ridiculous, but it's the way it is right now.

and now, for more media "intellect" and NON Lib bias I thought I would add a few blurbs....


Upset at "Caricature" of Michelle "Is this what we do to our women? She’s [Michelle Obama’s] Princeton, she’s Harvard, she’s so smart and so beautiful and, you know, a mom and a wife and a partner and yet people get caricatured."
— NBC’s Andrea Mitchell to USA Today’s Susan Page during the 1pm ET hour of MSNBC News Live, June 30.

gee whiz get a clue andrea...

This Just In: Obama Is Super Cool
Co-host Matt Lauer: "The latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine hits the newsstands today. On the cover, not a musician but a politician, Barack Obama. It’s the second time he’s been featured there, but this time there will be no cover lines, just that photo. The magazine usually does that for the likes only of people like John Lennon. So what is the fascination with the Illinois Senator?"...
Reporter Lee Cowan: "Obama says he no longer takes great satisfaction in being the center of attention. In fact, he tells the magazine that feeding his vanity is not what’s important, but doing good work is. The problem: with one, comes the other."
— NBC’s Today, June 25. Today’s on-screen graphic read: "Barack Star; Obama On the Cover of ‘Rolling Stone.’"


Silent Victims of Bush’s Economy
Reporter Chris Jansing: "At Furrytale Farm outside of Seattle, a heartbreaking phenomenon is playing out....Pets given up by owners who have lost their homes to foreclosure....In 30 years of rescuing animals, Suzannah Sloan has never experienced anything like this — not just dogs and cats, but horses, pigs, goats — so many, she has to turn away three out of four animals."...
Ed Boks, Los Angeles Animal Services: "Pets seem to be the silent victims of this whole economic downturn."...
Jansing: "With 261,000 homes in foreclosure in May alone, a dog’s life is suddenly much more tenuous."
— NBC Nightly News, June 25.


please, I am crying here...pass a hankey


we have this on helms-

NBC Sees "Ultra-Rightist" Helms...
"During his 30 years in the office, the North Carolina Senator was often controversial and always outspoken....An ultra-rightist, he was elected in the Republican landslide of 1972....In the ’90s, critics branded Helms a bigot for his racially-tinged ads which blasted affirmative action during a campaign against an African-American opponent."
— NBC’s Martin Savidge in a July 4 Nightly News obituary of former Senator Jesse Helms.

and this on Metzenbaum ...

But Liberal Democrat a "Populist"
"We learned today that former Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum has died. His life was the classic American success story. A self-made millionaire, his public career spanned nearly 20 years. And he always fought for the little guy, taking on the oil and insurance industries, often using filibusters to block bills. After leaving the Senate, Metzenbaum stuck to his populist principles, leading the Consumer Federation of America. Howard Metzenbaum was 90 years old."
— Fill-in anchor Ann Curry on NBC Nightly News, Mar. 13.


We’re Liberal, But Not Biased
"While I would not dispute the longstanding assertions that there are more political liberals in newsrooms than conservatives, our political staff, as best I can tell, represents all kinds of backgrounds and beliefs, and because we all work so closely and in such a fishbowl, we all tend to keep one another on the straight and narrow."
— New York Times political editor Richard Stevenson during an online chat with readers, June 23.

uh yea , like dan rather said, you're all middle of the road....


and last but not least....and this from is a nationall syndicated sunday "journailsm" show...

"Country Club" Tax Cut
"The Tax Policy Institute [actually, Center] has crunched the numbers on John McCain’s tax plan. I want to put some of them up there right now. It shows that if you’re making under $60,000 a year about, the bottom 60 percent will get about $150. The top one percent of people, making about $600,000 a year, get $45,000. The top 0.1 percent — that’s approaching $3 million a year — get almost $270,000. How do you sell that as a plan that targets Sam’s Club more than the country club?"
— ABC’s George Stephanopoulos to Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) on This Week, June 29. Stephanopulos did not identify the Tax Policy Center as a joint project of two liberal think tanks, the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute.


if I have to do the math on this graphic for you, then the point is already lost and when I watch *gasp* fox, they always tell you where the charts they show you come from...

Media Research Center -- Notable Quotables -- 3/24/2008 -- Media Research Center

I wonder if G.Mason can speak to this?

Attached Images

 

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

The incidents you cite are examples of why one should ask the question whether or not McCain has the creds to be the president. He's an old man who cannot think on his feet any more, he's not up to snuff on current events, and has been coasting along for years as a senator. His campaign is always "clarifying" his statements to the press.

He's flip-flopped so many times no one knows what the hell he really does stand for - including the people who evidently run his campaign. First he's against a withdrawal time line, now he says he's not opposed to it. Then he says he's for tax reductions and now new taxes "are on the table." (Which comment he made the same exact day he told a little girl who asked the question, "As president, will you raise taxes?" to which he replied, "No!")

It goes on and on and on ad nauseum. The guys' simply out of touch. Is this what we need running the damn country?

Absolutely.
And if Obama made half of the gaffes and errors McCain has made in the last couple of months, he would have been toast, long ago.
If anyone is getting a pass, from the media and pundits, it would be McCain.
Never before has a presidential candidate been under such a microscope as Barack Obama has. He has to be careful of every word and gesture.

__________________
Conservatives' Bane