Penn. Governor Notices Media Bias Toward Obama (or Against Clinton)

by  D. Cupples |  At The Fix, Chris Cillizza notes:

"Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) said Monday that the media's pro-Obama (or anti-Clinton) bias explains in part why Barack Obama is portrayed as running away with the Democratic presidential nomination (instead of being locked in a close fight with Hillary Rodham Clinton)...."

"Voters, unlike political insiders, tend to have little interest in these sorts of process arguments. But there does seem to be an emerging sense that the media's perceived laudatory coverage of Obama has seeped into the general consciousness of the country .... (The Fix)

I first noticed a hint of bias right after the Iowa Caucus, when MSNBC hyped the notion that Barack Obama was "the change candidate"-- despite the fact that all Democratic candidates were pushing for major change: Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel....  TPM also noticed it.

The pimp comment aimed at Chelsea Clinton (made by MSNBC's David Shuster) created a stronger appearance of bias. And I'm not sure what to make of Chris Matthews' statement that watching an Obama speech  made a "thrill" go up Matthews' leg.

In early February, ABC's Jake Tapper outright twisted a statement by Bill Clinton and leapt to defend Obama against an unmade "attack."

Then there's yesterday's flare up.  Matt Drudge claimed to have received from a Clinton campaign operative a photo of Obama in Somali attire.  Remember the source: Mr. Drudge makes a sport of attacking Democrats.  He's also not known for being the most honest gossip columnist.  to my knowledge, Mr. Drudge hasn't actually produced the email.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder was one of the few to question Drudge's story.

Many pundits simply accepted that the Clinton campaign was guilty and attacked Clinton for it.  Their reasoning: her campaign didn't outright deny that one of her hundreds of volunteers had sent the photo to Drudge; thus, the campaign must have approved it.

I think Cillizza is right: many voters don't pay attention to the "process," yet there seems to be an "emerging sense" that some major media outlets favor Obama.

Below are few examples of people's perception of media bias, from NBC's message board re: Tina Fey's endorsement of Hillary on Saturday Night Live.  [Reactions were mixed. As the first quote suggests, some commenters were outraged by Fey's pro-Clinton bias and did not seem to perceive any pro-Obama bias.  That's not my point, so I didn't quote any of the outraged Obama supporters.]

"I think it's comical that the obama freaks have enjoyed non-stop support from the media, and now they are pissed because one person finally checked the obvious media bias. Had tina shown her support for obama, you would be silent. Give me a break. you've enjoyed the media bias thus far..."

" Thank You, Thank You, Tina...It's about time someone said it."

" Good for you Tina, Loved you on every minute tonight. Glad you are there speaking out for us."

"It's about time the media tilted a "tiny" bit the other way, it was getting nauseating...."

"Thank you, Tina for having the "guts" to stand up for the American people and agaisnt the main stream media."

It's not solid proof, but those few comments do suggest that people are starting to smell some bias fumes. 

Between September 11, 2001 and Hurricane Katrina (September 2005), our mainstream media did major disservice to our nation by failing to question national leaders and failing to accurately report on the Bush Adminsitration. 

To now act as campaigners -- instead of focusing on more objective reporting and analysis -- is not the way for those media outlets to redeem themselves.

Memeorandum has other commentary. Thanks to Dyre Portents for linking to this post.

Other BN-Politics Posts:

* Suicide Bomb Kills Pakistani General and...

* CBS Video on Questionable Siegelman Prosecution

* Mukasey & McConnell Backtrack re: FISA

* Maybe Jonathan Alter Should (fill in the blank)

* Hillary Ahead in Ohio, Tied in Texas

.

Comments

[LB]

The intense bias in favor of Obama is actually harming the country.

Democrats are locked almost 50-50 in this race. One half of the voters -- the ones who support Clinton (like me) -- are actually being nudged by this relentless bias to OPPOSE a strong Democratic candidate who might end up being our nominee.

My fear is that in Sept/Oct/Nov., the Dem's will be so split, one-half of us so angry at the unfair manner in which this primary season was handled, that McCain will benefit.

My other fear is that if Obama does get the nomination, he will go up against another media darling, and the love will end (or at least FINALLY he will get some balanced press). By then, our star-struck Democratic voters will start evaluating him too late -- again benefitting McCain.

We're setting ourselves up here.

[Charles]

I don't think it's a close race. Wisconsin marked a tidal shift.

I think that Teddy Kennedy's endorsement closed the sale. Voters like relaxed, positive, warm, fuzzy messages. Hillary tried too hard to prove her fitness rather than to connect to the voters. She lost the race that was hers to lose.

I should add that I don't like either candidate. Al Gore should be running this race. If not him, then George Mitchell, probably the only senior American leader regarded as an honest broker in the Middle East. Both Hillary and Barack are guaranteed cases of buyer's remorse.

But either one will do.

[D. Cupples]

Charles,

I think you're right about buyer's remorse.

LB,

A lot of people agree with you. My co-blogger, Damozel, has been pointing out for weeks that Obama's campaign may end up depending upon Hillary supporters' votes yet is doing very little to endear Hillary's supporters.

[Sarah Calreis]

Role Model for Children - Obama

One month ago on national televsion Obama gave the 'finger' to Hillary and smugly laughed about it with his audience. Is this type of malicious immaturity our children should learn: lack of tolerance, vengeance and the bully mentality? After that one event, besides the mindless and uneducated, how could anyone seriously consider this Obama for any office?

Also, Obama's state-senate candidacy was launched at Weather Underground bombers Ayers house in 1995. Ayer who advocates the violent destruction of America may have much more to do with promoting Obama than we know. The organization MoveOn has aggressively intimidated delegates to vote for Obama and to shun Hillary and is likely closely connected with Ayers. Ayers finally got his bomb - Obama.

Obama also rigged his election to become senator by unfairly disqualifying his opponents. He did this by meticulously finding fault with each of the other candidates signed petitions until each of the contenders had to drop out, Obama was the last one standing, there was no election. This was another finger gesture towards the American public by Obama.

If this isn't enough, look at Obama's affiliations:
Wright
Meeks
Ayers
Abongo "Roy" Obama
Rashid Khalidi
Robert Malley
Hamas
McPeaks
Rezko
Auchi
And the list goes on...

This may be the time of the Anti-Christ, but do you want to be on the list of people who voted for him?

[D. Cupples]

HI Sarah,

I too question the wisdom of selecting Obama as the Democratic nominee -- let alone the U.S. President.

[J Allen]

The media's playing of Hillary's comment about lot's of primaries continuing through June is an excellent example of overt media bias.

Fanatical people created a controversy that involved assasination out of thin air, and the media pounced. At this point the mainstream media is no more credible than "The Enquirer".

In reality, Hillary gave an excellent example of a candidate who everyone would remember whose race continued into June. It showed that she is very in tune with people and knows how to get her message across to all of us.

[D. Cupples]

J,

I agree with you. I covered that in a piece that I uploaded last night. I am horrified by what Keith Olbermann did with the RFK remark.

Absolutely horrified.

[NooneUKnow]

The bias in the media is complete. All of the networks promote Obama rather than objectively analyzing and reporting the candidates positions. Even Fox News who for the past, I don't know, 15 years has proven time and again that they are "fair and balanced" in favor of a conservative agenda has been seen throwing McCain under the proverbial bus. I've seen it. Three of their regular conservative pundits stated and agreed "McCain looked old" "His speech was lack luster". I'm paraphrasing the last comment but not the first. It's suspicious that they would choose NOW to give a positive nudge to anyone but a conservative candidate. Then there was ED Hill's "terrorist fist" comment towards Obama that resulted in her removal from the airwaves(temporarily or permanently?). Fox never took such actions against their own anchors in previous examples of outlandish and obviously inflammatory remarks. What is going on? Are we being sold a president? It doesn't feel like we're being given the information to decide. That is for sure. It borders on conspiracy. No, it is conspiracy. Unfortunately, for the past 20+ years we've been taught that conspiracy theories are for nut cases, that there are no such things. But, how else does one describe what is now happening in the media?

[Deb]

Yes, the media has certainly been doing very non-journalistic stuff this year.