by Deb Cupples | Rasmussen has some interesting polling data:
"Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of election campaigns. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that four times as many—68%--believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win."
Even more people (76%) think the media has too much power over elections. Amen!
Yes, it was as obvious as a neon sign in a dark sports bar that media coverage of the Democratic race was far from objective -- so obvious, that Saturday Night Live had some fun with the issue.
It's no surprise that many media outlets failed or refused to objectively report on the Democratic race. Not long ago, many media habitually ran positive stories on President Bush before and after the Iraq war started -- instead of challenging the Bush Administration's obviously dubious claims (CNN). Bill Moyers did a great story on this particular media failure.
If media had no qualms about helping sell the public on an unjust war, why would they have qualms about merely hijacking a political race?
Looking ahead, what other national issues will the media misleadingly spin (or outright ignore), simply to promote the pecuniary interests of media executives?
Rasmussen has more.
Q: Whom did survey participants think got the best media treatment?
| 54% | |
| McCain | 22% |
| Clinton | 14% |
Q: Whom did survey participants think got the worst media treatment?
| 43% | |
| McCain | 27% |
| Obama | 15% |
A few days ago, MSNBC's Dan Abrams said that he had noticed for months that the media was visibly "rougher" on Hillary than Obama (video below). He thinks most media simply dislike the Clintons.
That and we could look at a study by The Center for Media and Public Affairs (via ).
Citing a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, Abrams marveled over the notion that most media gave Obama more favorable coverage than Clinton even during the media's frenzy over the Reverend Wright non-issue.
Even if the media hadn't covered the race as they did, Obama still might have won. Then again, he might not have.
Would Obama have enchanted quite so many supporters if TV networks had harped on the fact that Obama's claims of political purity (i.e., his claims of not taking dirty lobbyist-dollars) had been at best misleading? The TV media remained largely silent, though reputable print media covered the story (see e.g., USA Today, LA Times, SourceWatch, Newhouse News Services, Chicago Tribune).
Would Obama have continued to enchant all of his supporters if the media had harped on the Obama campaign's negative or divisive tactics as much as they'd harped on those of Hillary's campaign? If they had scrutinized those Obama supporters who'd hurled absurd accusations of racism against Hillary?
Maybe, maybe not. The point is that most media didn't even bother objectively reporting on such things -- though members of the public should have been given the opportunity to assess such facts for themselves.
Again, many media had no qualms about selling the public on the Iraq war and no qualms about acting as campaign advocates during the Democratic race.
Here's what disturbs me as I look forward. How will the media manipulate (or ignore) facts to promote agendas relating to other issues that will come up in our national debate?
Consider campaign-finance reform. Most media executives have a financial stake in keeping the corrupt system exactly as it is, because that would keep tons of candidate funds flowing to the media in the form of ad buys.
All that said, can we count on media executives in the future to insist on objective reporting about campaign-finance reform efforts?
Consider other issues that might be against the media's corporate interests or executives' personal interests. How will those executives instruct their reporters to cover social security? Tax policy? Health care? Iran? Afghanistan? John McCain?
And what sort of impact on our nation would the media's spinning or overlooking certain issues have?
Memeorandum has commentary.
Related B-N Politics Posts:
* ABC Ignores Obama's Misleading Statement re: Lobbyists' Money
* Media Bias Bigger than Presidential Race: Smack Down is Overdue
* Who will Check the Fact Checkers?
* Studies Suggest Pro-Obama (or Anti-Hillary) Media Bias
* The Media & Obama: Good Intentions Paving a Rough Road
Listen to these media corporate whores talking about how Obama is going to use Bill in the rural area's to bring in the vote. It makes me sick to listen to these talking empty heads. They talk like they are in direct contact with O boy himself and that they employ Bill Clinton. I hope Bill Clinton is way to busy to help the no good Obama in his lost effort.
Posted by: Danny | June 09, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Join PUMA (Party Unity My Ass)
http://blog.pumapac.org/
Posted by: Greenconsciousnessg | June 10, 2008 at 07:47 PM