US Presidential Elections 3

[Aristes]

There hasn't been any great idealogical shift yet, perhaps there will be one if Obama does extremely well or if this turns into a great depression.

no ideological shift at all. mccain did manage 46% of the vote, in spite of media slant that was clearly against him.

This is my sour grapes moment, because I really do think there was a palpable reek of bias among most of the media. I think this has more to do with the fact that we had, for the first time in our history, the feasibility of a black candidate. ...And he was the more articulate and charismatic of the two candidates by far. Hell, I am a conservative but McCain is entirely too unpredictable. We don't know how it would have panned out with one of the other candidates, so it's all a guessing game. I think McCain is a true hero. He deserves our respect for his many years of service to our country. I think he was quite gracious in his concession speech. ...But I can't be too terribly upset that he didn't win. At least we know that Obama is a liberal. Most of the time, we can't be sure of what McCain is.

[taks]

huge bias. heck, we have "journalists" from the nytimes now saying that "objective" reporting isn't an ethic that needs to be adhered to anymore because there's "too much at stake." this is exactly when we need even more objectivity to prevent bias from improperly skewing the issues. a sad time indeed.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

huge bias. heck, we have "journalists" from the nytimes now saying that "objective" reporting isn't an ethic that needs to be adhered to anymore because there's "too much at stake." this is exactly when we need even more objectivity to prevent bias from improperly skewing the issues. a sad time indeed.

 

taks

 

But, but how can anyone be objective when the election is about Optimus Prime vs. Skeletor?

[taks]

ahem, thus proving my point.

 

unfortunately, i can't disagree about the skeletor characterization. i actually always thought "chester the molester" back when he was running against bush in the primaries oh so many years ago. i think "wolf in sheep's clothing" is a better characterization for the other one.

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

Every newsite has their biases. Some are easy to spot, such as Fox News, while others are not, like the BBC. When it comes to American politics I usually go to BBC News. When I go for news around the world, particularly those of British interests I go to CNN. The worse two places to go for unbiased news is Fox News and MSNBC, one being conservative bias with the other being liberal.

[Volourn]

L0LZ BBC bias is easy to spot. R00fles!

[Humodour]

LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!!

 

INTELECTUAL ELITES TRYING TO STEAL MAH TAXPAYER DOLLARS!

 

Guns!

[Calax]

I did laugh at Colbert reporting on O'Rielly asking why the gay community wasn't protesting outside the "church of black"

[taks]

Some are easy to spot, such as Fox News,

interestingly, the only bias anyone can ever point to over at FN is from the analysts, who are, by definition, supposed to be biased.

 

taks

Edited November 12, 2008 by taks

[taks]

hint: that means pointing to o'reilly over at fox, or matthews over at msnbc doesn't count as "bias."

 

taks

[Aristes]

I cannot see how anyone can honestly say that they've watched an hour of O'Reilly and an hour of Olbermann and not decided that O'Reilly at least pretends to be less biased. I watch all the major networks, listen to Pacifica news, read the LA and NY times. The media was disgusting. If I were going to get riled up about politics, it would be about the media, not the politicians. It is the politicians' job to get elected. I don't hold that against them. The media should be better. I agree that Fox News has a more conservative bent, but I think they did a much better job of covering both candidates. They were equally critical of both. Some reporters and commentators better than others, to be sure, but overall much better. I haven't always thought that, but this election really did show them to be the best at giving equal coverage to both. However, print media and msnbc were simply the worst. How the folks at the New York times can sleep with themselves after printing a front page unsubstantiated story citing an unnamed source regarding McCain's alleged affair with a lobyist while refusing to cover the Edward's scandle until it completely blew up is beyond me. To be fair, the New York times own editorial staff ripped the newspaper a new on on that count, but it's just a sign of how the paper took an active role in shaping the news rather than reporting it. ...And, hell, the cat's out of the bag in regards to McCain's sleeping around anyhow. Whether he's done it recently is beside the point. We know he's done it.

 

Like I said, I don't generally get riled over politics, but I think the coverage was pretty uneven. I don't think it was a conspiracy, and I'm sure that the folks in the media would deny it, but I believe there was a discernable difference that was peculiar to this election. On the other hand, I'm not going to let it cost me any sleep. What's done is done and I'm pretty forward looking about stuff like this.

[Killian Kalthorne]

hint: that means pointing to o'reilly over at fox, or matthews over at msnbc doesn't count as "bias."

 

taks

Oh come off it. I remember when their anchors constantly "goofed" by calling Obama Osama.

[taks]

^sand: immaterial. curiously, have you ever actually watched the fox news reports? or do you simply cherry pick quotes/gaffes from your favorite liberal website?

 

I cannot see how anyone can honestly say that they've watched an hour of O'Reilly and an hour of Olbermann and not decided that O'Reilly at least pretends to be less biased.

he claims he gives equal opportunity to both sides, not that he personally is "less biased." his show is based on opinion, period. that is, by definition, bias. he does give both sides equal ability to speak their views (and likewise has as many liberals as conservatives on his show), and he treats both equally bad, though the people he has obvious animosity towards are typically liberal (and likewise refuse to appear). he's clearly right of center, no doubt.

 

I agree that Fox News has a more conservative bent, but I think they did a much better job of covering both candidates. They were equally critical of both. Some reporters and commentators better than others, to be sure, but overall much better.

overall, their news is a "more conservative bent" really only because every other news source is so far to the left, with a few exceptions.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

My personal opinion is that journalists tend to be partisan because of their lifestyles. They often, now, go into journalism with little serious life experience. Thus lacking any executive experience they focus almost entirely on the emotional, and ignore the practical.* Any predominantly emotional reaction tends to lead to a left-wing or right-wing knee jerk perspective.

 

My solution, therefore, is that journalists should be obliged to undergo a rite of passage, involving six months doing each of the following:

 

- frontline infantry in Brazil

- social work in London

- running a market stall in Hong Kong

- auditing corporate finances in Moscow

 

 

*This is particularly apparent in war and crime reporting.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Can we not speed this up a bit?

[Walsingham]

Can we not speed this up a bit?

 

Five minutes with me, a length of nylon string, the Oxford English Dictionary, and a sharpened pencil?

[Enoch]

a buddy of mine and i have had this discussion a million times. he comes from galveston down in dixiecrat territory (his dad is a dixiecrat judge). republicans don't need to drop moderates, they need to drop the social harping, i.e., religious based arguments. stick to small government rather than spend like they did with a republican controlled house/senate/presidency and they'll do better. the younger republicans seem to know this. i think the ones that needed to get purged, got purged, quite frankly.

 

taks

 

Of all other forums and blogs that are out there, this is the most sane one from a republican point of view. I sense a Ron Paul-lite message on the incoming election.

The Republicans wouldn't get 30% of the vote with that kind of platform. Pull the pro-"traditional values" planks out of the GOP platform, and all of those religious voters who currently turn out to vote "R" because of abortion, gays, school prayer, etc., are going to be in play. Poll these kind of voters on questions on taxes, social security, healthcare, education, etc., and they're actually more in-line with the Democratic platform than with the GOP.

 

My personal opinion is that journalists tend to be partisan because of their lifestyles. They often, now, go into journalism with little serious life experience. Thus lacking any executive experience they focus almost entirely on the emotional, and ignore the practical.

IMO, 90% of perceived media bias is actually marketing. The press favors the emotional angle because the emotional sells a heck of a lot more papers than the practical. (Emotional stories are also much easier and cheaper to write.) News organizations decide on their target demographics, and craft their publications to confirm the biases of that audience. But, the only effect that this kind of bias has on elections is in confirming people's pre-existing opinions. (Liberals read the NYT and listen to NPR, become more liberal, and vote for liberal candidates; Conservatives do the same with the WSJ and Fox News.)

 

Other than that, I think that the ethos that motivates people to pursue a career in journalism jives more closely with a leftish values system. (Whereas a more conservative values system would lead them to get a "real job" in the business world.) So most journalists do tend to favor liberal opinions. Of course, opinion is not bias, and the better reporters can prevent it from becoming so. Sure, some does leak through, but certainly not enough to meaningfully affect an election that was won by an overall 6% margin.

[taks]

Sure, some does leak through, but certainly not enough to meaningfully affect an election that was won by an overall 6% margin.

the fact that the margin is only 6% actually suggests the opposite conclusion.

 

the bias that i complain about is not individual journalist bias (which clearly exists, but it is easy for intelligent people to spot and ignore), it is general news outlet bias. only running stories that tend to favor a certain opinion, or in the context of an election, ignoring a story that is potentially damaging to the candidate the paper is on the record as endorsing. that's where bias comes into play, and it has a much larger impact than you might be willing to believe, but it doesn't need to be much. given a 6% margin, it doesn't take much of an impact to sway an election or turn public opinion against some pet project of the media's "emotional" desires (oh, i can think of a few).

 

taks

[Enoch]

Where you see institutional bias, I see mostly marketing and cost-consciousness. If a story is very complicated, it gets under-reported because news editors/producers know that long, involved segments lose audience interest, and these stories are expensive to research and produce. If a story has a strong emotional impact, it gets over-reported because those stories tend to be simple and tend to hold the audience's interest (and the first african-american major party candidate for the presidency does have a huge emotional impact for a lot of people). If a story has a runaway truck on fire, they would interrupt the moon landing to broadcast it. Among major news organizations I only see the kind of institutional bias you're talking about in a few organizations. There are a few places where the bias comes down from the top and is pretty pervasive in stuff you mention like story selection (NYT, NPR, Murdoch's media empire, etc.). But they're the exception rather than the rule, and the predelictions of those organizations are well known enough that their effect on actually swinging public opinion is pretty minimal.

 

Particular to this campaign, the chronology of events made a difference in coverage. The Democratic primaries were far more prolonged and interesting than the GOP primaries, which led to more coverage. Also, the skill with which the candidates' campaigns manage the media matters, too. And Obama's people ran circles around McCain's in this area-- Obama got better media coverage because his people pitched the media a better story to tell. (The opposite was true in 2004; Bush's media management strategy easily outclassed the Kerry campaign.)

 

IMO, "media bias" in this case is a red herring thrown out by people who don't want to face the fact that McCain lost because he was a not-particularly-effective candidate tied to the policies of a very unpopular incumbent from his own party. (The same can be said of many other GOP candidates for lesser offices.) This depressed turnout among those more apt to support his party's platform, at the same time that Obamamania and Bush-fatigue was increasing turnout for the other side.

[Kelverin]

The Democratic primaries were far more prolonged and interesting than the GOP primaries

To who? Is this a fact?

[taks]

Where you see institutional bias, I see mostly marketing and cost-consciousness.

that goes to motive, which is immaterial. bias is bias regardless of what causes it.

 

If a story has a strong emotional impact, it gets over-reported because those stories tend to be simple and tend to hold the audience's interest

which tends to fall into liberal territory, almost by definition.

 

IMO, "media bias" in this case is a red herring thrown out by people who don't want to face the fact that McCain lost because he was a not-particularly-effective candidate tied to the policies of a very unpopular incumbent from his own party.

again, immaterial. certainly mccain did not help his own prospects, and i've pointed out previously that the 6% margin was in spite of his lack of quality. in other words, it is surprising he did as well as he did given his obvious (to me) deficiencies and the almost certain tilt in nearly every media outlet in the country towards obama. obama's deficiencies were simply ignored by the media, all of them.

 

media bias has been an issue since long before the race for president either way.

 

taks

[Enoch]

The Democratic primaries were far more prolonged and interesting than the GOP primaries

To who? Is this a fact?

Well, I think that "prolonged" is pretty indisputable. Sure, the states were voting on the same schedule, but it was pretty clear where the Republican primaries were going by Feburary/March, while the Democratic primaries were up in the air until the summertime. "Interesting" is probably in the eye of the beholder, but I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that public interest in general was higher in the Hillary-Barack race than it was in seeing McCain slowly add to his delegate total after everybody else but Huckabee had conceded.

[Enoch]

If a story has a strong emotional impact, it gets over-reported because those stories tend to be simple and tend to hold the audience's interest

which tends to fall into liberal territory, almost by definition.

The 2004 Bush campaign's emphasis on supporting the troops and being tough on terrorists was a perfect example of a conservative candidate effectively using emotional impact in its pitch to the public.

 

IMO, "media bias" in this case is a red herring thrown out by people who don't want to face the fact that McCain lost because he was a not-particularly-effective candidate tied to the policies of a very unpopular incumbent from his own party.

again, immaterial. certainly mccain did not help his own prospects, and i've pointed out previously that the 6% margin was in spite of his lack of quality. in other words, it is surprising he did as well as he did given his obvious (to me) deficiencies and the almost certain tilt in nearly every media outlet in the country towards obama. obama's deficiencies were simply ignored by the media, all of them.

I think we're reading the margin of victory very differently. You seem to think it's insignificantly small. In a nation that has proven over and over again over the past couple decades to be a pretty close 50/50 split between the parties as currently constituted, 6% is a rather huge gap. The vast majority of the people who actually showed up to vote knew which party the would be voting for years ago. A 6% difference in the totals displays either enormous shifts in turnout among each side's base, or a substantial majority of the "convincable" voters going to one side.

[taks]

The 2004 Bush campaign's emphasis on supporting the troops and being tough on terrorists was a perfect example of a conservative candidate effectively using emotional impact in its pitch to the public.

that's one of the few because of the very real perceived threat of terrorism.

 

I think we're reading the margin of victory very differently. You seem to think it's insignificantly small. In a nation that has proven over and over again over the past couple decades to be a pretty close 50/50 split between the parties as currently constituted, 6% is a rather huge gap. The vast majority of the people who actually showed up to vote knew which party the would be voting for years ago. A 6% difference in the totals displays either enormous shifts in turnout among each side's base, or a substantial majority of the "convincable" voters going to one side.

nonsense. you're completely missing what i said. i'm simply saying that i'm surprised it was as small as it was, not that it was small. given the media slant, and the lack of popularity of the "old guard" resulting from the GOP's inability to control itself the first 6 years of bush, i would have expected a much larger gap.

 

oh, and 6% is really a misnomer in a 2-party system. it's really 3%, i.e., take just over 3% away from obama and give them to mccain and the vote goes the other way. just over 3 million votes.

 

taks

[Calax]

I think we're reading the margin of victory very differently. You seem to think it's insignificantly small. In a nation that has proven over and over again over the past couple decades to be a pretty close 50/50 split between the parties as currently constituted, 6% is a rather huge gap. The vast majority of the people who actually showed up to vote knew which party the would be voting for years ago. A 6% difference in the totals displays either enormous shifts in turnout among each side's base, or a substantial majority of the "convincable" voters going to one side.

nonsense. you're completely missing what i said. i'm simply saying that i'm surprised it was as small as it was, not that it was small. given the media slant, and the lack of popularity of the "old guard" resulting from the GOP's inability to control itself the first 6 years of bush, i would have expected a much larger gap.

 

oh, and 6% is really a misnomer in a 2-party system. it's really 3%, i.e., take just over 3% away from obama and give them to mccain and the vote goes the other way. just over 3 million votes.

 

taks

where the media seems to have picked up on the "OMG it's a HUGE win for obama!" when the actual percentage #'s were much closer to each other is in the electoral vote. I was honestly surprised when the talking heads on CNN and FOX and BBC (MSNBC seemed more interested in devouring itself than actual reporting) was that they were breaking it down by demographics and saying that X group and Y group were what really made Obama win when the popular vote seemed to have a much smaller margin of victory (of course now that I look at it it was relatively large in comparison to the last two races)

 

I think fox actually did a better job covering the election on election night than they had before. They didn't show bias that I could see (except for Karl Rove making it seem like McCain still had a chance at one point when CNN had just done the math and basically said that there was no way for McCain to win without a miracle in one of the west coast states) and they made a point of pointing out that the race was too one sided that it couldn't be challenged in court.

 

My guess is that their less bias reporting is for two reasons. 1) early on in the campaign season FOX made some bad remarks about Obama and his campaign and the campaign promptly shut off FOX's Access to the candidate and 2) I think FOX has suffered significant backlash after their calling the 2000 Election in favor of Bush (which put bush ahead) when the data actually didn't go that way. I would guess that some of their viewer base was alienated by that.

 

As to reporting Bias? Fox is the easiest to point out because they only have (as guests) People who are to visible to be turned down, "Good" Democrats whos ideology tends to lean a little right of center, or People who don't have a political leg to stand on in the face of the Organization. I mean look at hannity and Colmes, You've got Sean Hannity, the republican who looks really well put together and his teeth practically twinkle when he smiles and he makes his bias known (because he's on a point counterpoint show) where as his liberal counterpart is a less than stellar looking democrat who tends more towards the center than the left.

 

MSNBC is probably the most Liberal of the 24 hr networks. Olberman is the poster boy for their ideology. Admittedly I haven't seen much of MSNBC but from what I've read about his views and such he's the "Anti-O'Rielly" if you will. Of course MSNBC's anchors seem to hate each other if some of their national Convention coverage is to be taken as unscripted. CNN is probably the least bias but again I don't watch them enough to say that for sure. Their two Headmen (Blitzer and Cooper) attempt to maintain a neutral tone (whereas Fox's main Anchor, Dobbs, is the rightest person on Fox News Sunday) it's just that CNN's pool of analysts and talking heads seems to draw more from a lefty crowd.

 

...

 

Just some thoughts.