It’s like we’re living in a alternative universe. Now the MSM is admitting that they showed a complete and utter bias towards Obama…..NOW! When it’s too late to do anything about it. Just yesterday Mike posted on the Newsweek writers who hid the character concerns they had about the one. Now the WaPo has jumped into the act:
The [Washington] Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.
My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates’ backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4. Numbers don’t tell you everything, but they give you a sense of The Post’s priorities.
The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts’ views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.
Why would this imbalance exist?
Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors — like most of the national news media — found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.
~~~When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.
Well isn’t that sweet. They admit they made a mistake, on November 8th….
The bigger question, why didn’t they go over Obama with a fine tooth comb? Neglected Biden? Who cares about him. Like McCain he has been around a long time but with Obama being a closed book you woulda thunk the Post would of wanted to dig a bit. But no. They send a militia of reporters to Alaska to dig up anything on the VP candidate rather the candidate for President.
What baloney.
The WaPo can try to get back some of their credibility by admitting a mistake, but it won’t work. This election has proven to everyone that the WaPo and their cohorts cannot be trusted to report the facts.
See author page
Without Bush, McCain, Palin, Congressional Republicans, or two dozen Presidential campaigns to cover….what will the media cover? What will fill their their 24hr shows? What will comics make political jokes about? Will it be rah rah rah for 2yrs, or will a bored media open its eyes to the bounty of stories and investigations that Barack Obama, his Administration, and a do-nothing Congress will provide? If so, then there’s about to be a reckoning for the left’s years of being an oppose for opposition’s sake party.
I get a very uneasy feeling about the lack of investigation of Barack. It seems to me that more was hid, but by who and why? The bail out situation came along at just the best time didn’t it. I just can’t believe that even the MSM could stay away from stories that could have made someones career. There is more here than meets the eye, of course it’s only my opinion and feelings, but I wonder just how close to the truth I am.
Trying to recover its credibility??? Are you kidding me? You assume they had it at the start.
This is just their way of RUBBING IT IN (salt in the wound or a spit in the face).
The crap old media is in for a sled ride down the hopey changey hill.
It isn’t admitting a mistake, because it wasn’t a mistake. It was intentional, and it was blatant. Is it a mea culpa to admit what even the most low-information voters among us could have told you without a teleprompter. This is kind of like someone admitting adultery, after they realize that their spouse has already figured out the truth.
When you see a story credited to the WaPo just assume it was written by Linus (Peanut cartoon) and it’ll fit the mold.
You’ve got it wrong.
If you read the story, there is nothing about bias.
She doesn’t even breakdown the story content (only the Op_Ed content).
All she writes is that there was more of Obama.
More doesn’t mean better.
Nice try though.
I guess Vince Lombardi was correct in that:
Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.
PhillipMARLOWE,
Read again:
“The [Washington] Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a TILT TOWARD Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that THEY ARE RIGHT ON BOTH COUNTS.
Craig,
It says nothing about bias.
As for “tilt”, Ms. Howell is referring, based on the evidence cited in her story, the number of stories. She does not get into content.
That’s a significant difference.
This reminds me of how Reed Irvine would go about telling anyone who would listen, that the news media did not report on the Hue “massacre” by the VietCong back in 1968.
I went and checked the indexes of the newspapers (WPOST & NYT) as well as indexes of nightly newscasts and he was wrong.
“To live outside the law, one must be honest.”
-Bob Dylan
Read again PhillipMarlowe: “They saw as a TILT TOWARD Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that THEY ARE RIGHT ON BOTH COUNTS.”
It says nothing about bias.
As for “tilt”, Ms. Howell is referring, based on the evidence cited in her story, the number of stories. She does not get into content.
That’s a significant difference.
Now, if I was a snarky conservative, I’d quip that you must be a public school graduate because you can’t read what Mrs. Howell wrote.
But I’m not, so I won’t.
PS When you respond, you can snarky, I don’t mind.
But you must be truthful and cut and paste Mrs. Howell’s paragraphs that DOCUMENT the bias of the news coverage..
PPS. I’ll save you. I’m a Roman Catholic school graduate.
You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
-Bob Dylan
Sorry for double post.
PhillipMarlowe:
You expect them to admit to bias? There are two kinds of bias. First that they devoted outrageously more “free campaign press” to Obama because they found him more “newsworthy”.
*That* in itself is bias.
The second form of bias isn’t an analysis they opted to provide. And that was how many positive vs critiques they gave Obama.
With the amount of sheer press coverage, they could only add to the fire by showing how the overwhelming majority of them were positive.
Biased? As Palin would say, “you betcha”.
And speaking of Palin, there’s a good example of the bias #2 I mentioned. She was “new” and “newsworthy”. However their coverage of her was predominately negative, as opposed to Obama’s.
But no “bias”… naw….
Duh. Your word parsing really needs to exceed the (Teflon Bill) Clintonian level of expertise.
As for the subject of this thread…. other than being in complete concurrence with Timothy’s observation that you have have it before regaining it… this doesn’t do the trick. We shall see how they handle coverage of a President Obama’s admin and a (almost, if not will be) supermajority DNC Congress. It is only there they can redeem themselves as little more than an Obama paid tabloid and campaign machine.
Why are we still publishing trolls? Their ObaMessiah is now the President-Elect, of the Office of the President-Elect and the Presidential-Elect Seal of Vero Possums..let them get their own damn blog.
I’m perfectly serious- our point of view was systematically frozen out of the mass media and now we have a pResident without any college transcripts, theses, significant writings (that he can prove are his) or even a birth certificate. At this level of unquestioning sloppy tongue bath, cigar-store Indians become viable candidates. Why should one single electron support such dishonesty?
Just delete the trolls. If you want someone to have the “other side”, link to any major media outlet instead. Let’s get OUR message out and not waste time and effort with halfwits.
We’re practicing for Obama’s “fairness doctrine” coming soon to a blog near you, Dave… LOL
“It’s like we’re living in a alternative universe. Now the MSM is admitting that they showed a complete and utter bias towards Obama…..NOW!”
That is how Curt started this.
And you go and read the article by Mrs. Howell and you see that it is not true.
Now the target changes and by having more of Obama, the Post’s coverage is biased.
Dear Mata,
You don’t even know the content of those Post articles or Post pictures.
But since Obama won and you lost, it must therefore be the fault of the mainstream media, or whatever.
The job lost announced this week was a public statement of what people in this country already knew, not needing a MSM to tell them.
You haven’t been paying close attention to what has been happening financially.
Things started to go real bad in Aug 2005, but they have been getting worse before then.
When Bush was elected in 2000, gas was $1.00 a gallon
While I was in Florida for two weeks in Aug 2005, the price of gas went up 20 cents to $2.20. A month later, it was up another $1.20 as a result of Katrina.
The effect of that upon the economy was not readily evident.
But it began to form like a tsunami.
I watched as the cost of food staples began a small but noticeable increase. You didn’t see that in the MSM or FoxNews, or Rush or here.
And the shores flooded this fall.
That’s why McCain lost.
I see Dave’s debating skills are of a first grade level. Halfwits and trolls, indeed. Can’t come up with anything better.
I would have thought Dave would like the intellectual challenge of a debate, sort like Buckley pretended to do.
But if he can’t handle it, I’ll stop as so to assuage his fractured ego.
BTW. This website was linked to from the Washington Post article.
PS. I do believe the media is biased.
Remember what Noam Chomsky said of Watergate:
The media didn’t mind it when the Dems running the government bugged MLK Jr, broke into the Socialist Party offices, infiltrated the Black Panthers and provoked violence.
Oh, but when Nixon had the Dems HQ broken into, all hell broke loose.
PPS Dave, I don’t think God is going to bar you from heaven if Obama is President.
But if you truly believe that what happened to Jesus and what Hitler did to God’s people is going to happened to you, then I guess you should worry.
PhillipMarlowe says:
Interesting leap there, Phillip.
What I said to you was:
And I owe an apology to WaPo. They *did* provide the content stats.
So allow me to correct that it is *you* who doesn’t know what the content of those Post articles were. I did from a Newsbusters story before reading the WaPo story here.
BTW, Philip Marlowe… don’t lecture me about “not paying attention” to financial events. What I know about how we got from here to there, how much profit the oil companies actually do make and where it comes, leaves you in the dust.
You play with the prices of gas at the pump as some sort of harbinger of Bush’s failings. Care to address what they were under Carter, even without the adjusted inflation index?
Such absolute ignorance is beyond wasting my time.
Snippy, aren’t we.
The content stats are on the Opinion Pieces, not the news articles that appear on the front page.
They would include George Will, whose pieces on McCain were negative toward McCain.
The content of those news articles are not dissected.
So, you don’t know.
Ahem, ahem
(Sorry, I’m chocking from the dust.)
Touchy about gas prices.
Why Carter, why not Clinton?
You act like media bias is new news, Phillip. Not my fault you don’t “pay attention” to the news in other media…. say, for example, the Annenberg’s School of Journalism analysis back in mid-Sept, or the admission by Mike Malone in his ABC column about the blatant bias of the media.
Then of course, you could have done the simple… but apparently unthinkable. Click on the dang WaPo article and actually read it yourself instead of living on soundbytes…
Since 66% of the stories featured Obama, and only 53% featured McCain… and taking in the dying hope that it was actually “news” instead of op-ed passing itself off as news (highly unlikely)… one can only hope that some journalistic integrity was preserved, and the stories were neutral.
Now you’d like for them to admit to you that the content of their “news” stories have an op-ed slant? Don’t hold your breath… this is about as much a mea culpa as we’re going to get.
However the very fact they devoted more of their news and photos (except black and white photos) to Obama in a general campaign because he was “more newsworthy” in their opinion, is news bias in itself.
Why Carter instead of Clinton? Gas prices doubled by his government interference… meddling the DNC and Obama have been sniffing around at duplicating for quite some time.
“Then of course, you could have done the simple… but apparently unthinkable. Click on the dang WaPo article and actually read it yourself instead of living on soundbytes…”
-I did read it as I noted in my previous posts. As for “soundbytes”, I didn’t hear what you said.
“You act like media bias is new news, Phillip”
– That must explain the Chomsky remark on Watergate (circa 1973 about 35 years ago)
Again, we get back to the data Mrs. Howell presents:
Nov 11, 2007-Nov 4, 2008 946 stories on Obama
Nov 11, 2007-Nov 4, 2008 786 stories on McCain
NB This includes the 3 months (Mar, Apr May) when Obama was still competing against Hillary. McCain had the nomination sewed up on March 4th.
She doesn’t break down the content of the stories.
June 4-Nov 4th, 2008 626 Obama, 584 McCain, 41 together or
Obama 51.7% (626/1210) and
McCain 48.3% (584/121)
Photos (overall)
Obama 311 (52.4%)
McCain 282 (47.6%)
3 column + wide photos
Obama 133 (52.4%)
McCain 121 (47.6%)
Small Photos
Obama 178 (52.5%)
McCain 161 (47.5%)
Colour Photos
Obama 164 (55.2%)
McCain 133 (47.8%)
Black and White (and shades of gray)
Obama 147 (49.7%)
McCain 149 (50.3%)
She did not provide a breakdown in photos, ie, did Obama look like this:
http://image.blingee.com/images15/content/output/000/000/000/47d/317344039_1468918.gif?4
Did McCain look like this:
http://wonkette.com/assets/resources/2007/04/walnutz.jpg
“Since 66% of the stories featured Obama, and only 53% featured McCain…”
– Those percentages are from the Project for Excellence in Journalism. They are not percentages from Mrs. Howell or about the Washington Post. (The Pew Center does not indicate which media it has detailed)
The other two reports you cite consists of undocumented ancedotes, with no empirical data.
So, what does this all mean?
Mrs. Howell does not provide any evidence of bias.
In fact, her evidence doesn’t even support her contention of a “tilt”, except when it comes to colour photos.
In Clinton County, Iowa, the voting went 60.7% to Obama and 38% to McCain.
The Washington Post is that well read in Clinton County?
So, I suggest Mata that you go back and read the “dang” article, ya hear. 😉
As I noted with the comment on Watergate, I have no illusion that the press is unbiased.
As two Irish journalists put it:
….facts and rumours were of equal significance, and warned against what he called ‘the factual heresy’ – the claim, dear to journalists with a saint-like idea of their own mission, that lumps of truth lie about like gold nuggets waiting to be picked up. He did not think journalism was either saintly or fact-bound. ‘All stories are written backwards,’ he once observed. ‘They are supposed to begin with the facts and develop from there, but in reality they begin with a journalist’s point of view from which the facts are subsequently organised.’
Reporters, he finds, ‘are ill-equipped to extract information which others do not want to impart’.
I’m sure someone can come up with the evidence of bias coverage.
But based on Mrs. Howell’s performance, if she was to be my surgeon, I’d run out of the hospital.
“dream on, dream on, dream until your dreams come true”
-Aerosmith
PhillipMarlowe, you still miss reality. They can not admit to a “tilt” in what they classify as “news”.
But I’ll tell you what. You and I can both start a competitive business. Our local newspaper is going to run more stories on mine than yours. Why? I’m a woman… I’m more “newsworthy”.
And I’ll be happy to tell you there’s no bias, and you’ll just be gullible enough to buy it. Your business will fail, mine will succeed.
But of course, all that free press didn’t hurt me… but it sure did you.
BTW, you object to third party analysis of their coverage? Doesn’t surprise me.
Peace… enjoy your tax refund credit.
PhillipMarlowe, you still miss reality
Dear Mata,
Or may I call you Lucy for the quickness with which you move the football.
I presented Mrs. Howell’s data in an easily to understand format, as you had accused me of having not read Mrs. Howell’s opinion piece, to show that your contention of bias is based upon the Post stories “tilting” towards Obama at 52 stories to McCain’s 48.
I also corrected an error on your part (“Since 66% of the stories featured Obama, and only 53% featured McCain…”).
From you, no discussion of facts.
I point out the lack of data in the two articles you reference and you have nothing to do but give me “scorn and defiance, slight regard, comtempt.”
Yeah, you’re right.
I miss reality.
A reality where black is white and 2+2=5.
A reality where there is no fidelity to the the commandment You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
God bless you.
Phil
And now I know you’re dissatisfied
With your position and your place
Don’t you understand
It’s not my problem
-Bob Dylan
You really do have a hard time keeping my main two points, started in #13 that there are the two kinds of bias
You confirm that Obama had more exposure than McCain in the first category of news (content supposedly with no “tilt” as “news” is supposed to be… right) Then you discount the Annenberg School of Journalism as if unrelated.
Fact is, not only is it related, but provides additional quotes INRE WaPo’s coverage of Obama that you apparently prefer to ignore.
Now we have established… yet one more time… that the physical exposure of Obama in the media was to his favor, and is recognized post election as biased…. except to you, of course, who is still bitterly clinging your inept parsing of data.
The “facts”… laid out in the same post #13 was that there were 32 positive op-eds on Obama, and 32 not favorable. Not to mention they threw him their endorsment… gee, what a surprise. And I did my mea culpa for assuming WaPo’s Howell hadn’t disclosed that since I read it in Newsbusters first.
For McCain there were 13 positive op-eds, and 58 not favorable.
That is an obvious “tilt”, and unmistakenly in the favor of Obama.
But no bias… aw, hang no.
Thanks for posting the Howell specifics from the article to prove you read it, or perhaps to demonstrate your cut/paste prowess. Who knew you still wouldn’t read it completely, or you wouldn’t have tried to attempt to “correct” what was not an error… i.e. the 66% vs 53%.
From Howell’s WaPo article Mike links in his post.
Yep… you miss reality all right. Or perhaps you prefer to skew it to suit your particular Jimi Hendrix version of fact.
Perhaps it’s the only way you justify your sell out to the media’s high volume parroting of Obama promises to take care of you from cradle to grave – since they believe you are incapable of doing it yourself. And ya know, they just may be on to something.
___________________
I know, I know
you’ll probably scream n’ cry
That your little world won’t let go
But who in your measly little world are trying to prove that
You’re made out of gold and -a can’t be sold
Jimi Hendrix
I tell you 2+2=4.
You don’t believe.
I prove 2+2=4, and you go off typing about science.
I point this out and you get snippy.
You urge me to read Mrs. Howell’s article.
I take the information from Mrs. Howell, draw out the percentages and you respond with
“or perhaps to demonstrate your cut/paste prowess. ”
And again, you misread her article to claim that the 66% and 53% are based on stories from the Post.
They are not.
And again, you confuse the Op-Ed pages with the the front page.
God bless.
PhillipMarlowe
Here he comes, he’s all dressed in black
PR shoes and a big straw hat
He’s never early, he’s always late
First thing you learn is you always gotta wait
I’m waiting for my man
-Lou Reed
PS. Gas was $1.00 when Bush was elected. It rose to a high of near $4.00.
It is now back to $2.30
PPS:
“since they believe you are incapable of doing it yourself. And ya know, they just may be on to something.”
As witnessed by this exchange, I beat you. Is that projection on your part?
Phillip Marlowe, are you on LSD or what? Your posts do not make any sense. Take a break. Come back after the effect is gone. No use right now. It is a waist of time to read your stupidities.
Howell said she considered it “comparable” to the media studies finding bias in the media. But as you want to take her remarks from her one linked article, and not her comments from the Annenberg quotes from her, and her previous August column on the same subject saying Obama had a 3 to 1 advantage over McCain… well… what can I say but parrot Dylan’s words back to you…. “It’s not my problem”.
No… your comprehension is confused. The op-ed pages have “tilt”. News stories are not supposed to. However the volume, plus placement, of the supposed “news” stories involve a “tilt” all on their own.
And the fact that the WaPo gave 3 to 1 front page placement to Obama over McCain is yet another sign of Howell’s admitted bias… which was not only the subject of this post, but a fact you agree to. In fact, you say the admittance of media bias is johnny-come-lately.
This is all you get from WaPo… and all you do is defend it as *not* admitting bias… bias that is clearly present in:
1: supposed “non-tilted” news priority 3 to 1 favoring McCain in placement, plus majority of stories covering Obama
combined with
2: a deplorable and overly overt bias in the op-ed pages.
I confuse nothing, but to consider you worthy of responding to. But, ya know… I’m a quick study, if not a patient tolerant type. The former revelation was evident to me a couple of responses back. And the latter? You’ve run out of credit there.
PPPS:
What about Clinton County, Iowa?
60.7 % of The people there are too dumb to know they weren’t getting the “whole story” from the media?
A rather elitist thought.
It would be nice for you to expand upon that line of thinking in Clinton, Iowa.
I saw her today at the reception
In her glass was a bleeding man
She was practiced at the art of deception
Well I could tell by her blood-stained hands
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need
– Mick Jagger and Keith Richard
or
Well, I think Ill go turn myself off,
And go on down
All the way down
Really aint no use in me hanging around
In your kinda scene
-Jimi Hwendrix
Naw, Craig. Philip is just Sam/SamIsHereToSquashYourLies Ron Paul-bot here under a new name. I try to give him the benefit of the doubt under his new moniker… but he hasn’t improved any.
Hope his music is better than his analysis…
Phillip Marlowe, are you on LSD or what? Your posts do not make any sense. Take a break. Come back after the effect is gone. No use right now. It is a waist of time to read your stupidities.
Still engaging in first grade taunts, Craig?
Very witty.
It’s the Starbucks energy drink.
And, Mata, thanks for indirectly agreeing with me.
Dreams unwind
Loves a state of mind
Dreams unwind
Loves a state of mind
-Stevie Nicks
And considerably more than I care about, Sam. Here’s hoping your local gig attendees are more interested.
While America lost her mind, New Zealand got hers back… lol
VOTERS END LABOUR’S RULE IN NEW ZEALAND
After a week in which the world’s focus was on political change in America, New Zealanders have voted for their first conservative government in almost a decade, ending the tenure of one of the world’s longest-serving elected female leaders.
… In their hundreds and thousands across the country they have voted for change, Key told supporters in Auckland. ‘Today New Zealanders have voted for action, for a safer, more prosperous and more ambitious New Zealand.’ Record numbers of people voted in the election, which polls had predicted would spell the end of Labour’s nine-year rule.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/09/new-zealand-labour-helen-clark
It’s not just the WP:
Sanjay,
I never read something as stupid as the article you have linked in your last comment. What a waist of time reading this stupidity. I will remember your name and never again will I read one of your idiot’s links.
Sorry to hear that Craig. I was simply relating the fact that there were many conservative papers that were bias against McCain— other conservative writers are even gushing about Obama:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122600597583706149.html
It’s just a fact that we need to consider. Perhaps they should be on the Lepers list:
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/erick/2008/nov/05/operation-leper/
Craig, the Red State link was pretty interesting, just don’t know what the point was for sanjay’s posting it. It’s about the betrayal of Sarah Palin by………lepers.
Having mainstream news papers, magazines etc. admitting bias in a crucial election is an admission of betrayal to the country, and citizens that support and depend on them.
Those gullible enough to have taken them seriously through this election have just been publicly made the fool and should be busy lashing out over at their playgrounds, I believe WaPo has a comment section. Shall we call it an outlet for the misled? Something obviously, hasn’t sunk in to these poor little suckers yet. sigh.
Mata, why bother? Phillip is under the influence of something. He keeps quoting those ‘great poets’ of Sex, Drugs, and Rock n Roll.
When Clinton was in office oil was around $10.00 a barrel, and when he left office it was over $30.00 a barrel. Does not seem like much now but that was big deal at the time.
For more than seven years under Bush, the man who “stole” the election and is openly despised by the left, we had “the greatest story never told”* by our great left wing media. Unemployment was the lowest in the history of the Republic, but many Americans were not participating. Why? Our great left wing monolithic education system was not educating our students for the technological revolution we were in.
Of course the left cannot say that because our monolithic education system is controlled by the UNION. The union, whose job it is to protect and serve teachers and not the students, set the Marxist agenda.
If conservatives, whether Republican or Democrat, want to take back the country first you must take back the education system.
* “the greatest story never told” a line often used by Larry Kudlow, one of America’s great economists, and TV business show hosts.
Correct, Red73.. I have ceased to “bother”…. LOL