Study: coverage of McCain “heavily unfavorable”
The majority – 60 percent – of coverage of John McCain has been negative since the Republican convention. He wins the most negative press coverage over Barack Obama, or any candidates from other parties in this election, according to a report released today by The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, a nonpartisan journalism watchdog organization.
For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.
For McCain, by comparison, nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two in ten (14%) were positive.
The study also found that McCain at least gained more attention in the press after the convention, putting him about even with Obama.
Another interesting detail the study found:
Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden was nearly the invisible man. His had just one large moment, the vice presidential debate, which also offered his only positive or neutral contribution. Aside from that week, the limited coverage he did receive was far more negative than Palin’s, and nearly as negative as McCain’s.
The researchers examined stories from 48 media sources – newspapers, news online, television, and radio – beginning after the Republican convention and ending with the final presidential debate

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top139 Comments to “Study: coverage of McCain “heavily unfavorable””
But rather than just state the obvious (to wit: the media is biased) some scold us for being lazy, and not doing “our own research”.
I’m don’t think it’s worth doing a term paper just to satisfy a pedantic blogger that the media is carrying Obama’s water.
Report comment to moderator
The coverage is negative because the story is negative!
McCain is at sea in economic hard times that overwhelm his ability to know how to lead.
Report comment to moderator
once again well duh there’s a huge suprise
Report comment to moderator
No, they are talking about how the media presents McCain — and that is negative. You never heard about the cost of Hillary’s clothes, etc., etc. Nor has the media pursued Obama’s papers from college. I just read that they are “lost.” (Just like Hillary’s was in a vault in her college.) That’s one example. The media is NOT doing it’s job, and when they don’t do their job, the country suffers. Leftys should not be proud of that.
It should tell our dishonest lefty friends here something — despite all this dishonest reporting, Obama does not have the election locked up. That makes me feel that the American people are catching on that something is amiss with Obama.
One shall continue to pray.
Report comment to moderator
“You never heard about the cost of Hillary’s clothes”
Can you provide evidence they were paid for with campaign donations?
Report comment to moderator
I looked into this “negative media” meme last night. There are many stories running having to do with polling (Obama is winning), electoral maps (Obama is winning), and campaign tactics (McCain has gone negative).
Report comment to moderator
The news media has made almost ZERO mention of Obama’s Birth Certificate – Now I wonder why that is?
Report comment to moderator
This is off topic a little, but since NJL took us there I will briefly note that an FEC complaint has been filed FEC complaint has been filed against Palin and the RNC for violating federal election law in Wardrobegate.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria #7
There is a reason it has not been in the media. Your talking point has been thoroughly debunked and the economy is more newsworthy.
See this FactCheck article with an examination of the birth certificate, as well as the original birth announcement from the Honolulu Advertiser
Report comment to moderator
#7 Funny you should mention that – I just read a related item in Gail Collins’ editorial:
Confessions of a Phone Solicitor
…
“Right now, all the polls predict that in less than two weeks, Barack Obama is going to be elected president. The McCain campaign disputes this. Large numbers of Obama supporters are also in doubt, possibly because they keep getting e-mails from their relatives in Toledo revealing that Obama has gone to Hawaii not to visit his ailing grandmother, but to destroy evidence that he is not actually an American citizen.
But then, we all know Victoria doesn’t live in Toledo …
Report comment to moderator
“Project for Excellence in Journalism?”
Anybody know who the Catholic saint for hopeless causes is so we can pray to him?
Report comment to moderator
#4 Yes, NJL, do pray. And don’t forget that every second you waste posting on WMB is a second you could have been praying!
Report comment to moderator
#2, Spinoza wrote; “The coverage is negative because the story is negative!”
Now there’s a certified kooliad drinker for you!
Report comment to moderator
#11 Jude
Report comment to moderator
What is “kooliad” ?
Report comment to moderator
The media couldn’t put lipstick on John McCain even if it wanted to!
Report comment to moderator
Spin, why don’t you try wearing some, who knows…….
Report comment to moderator
#17 XOXOXOX
Report comment to moderator
#17 p.s. It doesn’t look so good with a goatee …
Report comment to moderator
#7 BTW, why hasn’t the media said anything about John McCain’s birth certificate?! I haven’t heard a thing – they must be biased.
Report comment to moderator
Spin
McCains Birth when his father was on military duty abroad has been proven that he is a ‘natural born citizen of the USA’ -
Spin your top again!
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, McCain was born in Panama. Where is his American birth certificate?
Report comment to moderator
I got an email today that says McCain is a secret Muslim, and that’s why he has Saddam Hussein’s lobbyist running his White House transition team.
On the news media reporting fewer positives on McCain, maybe he could try doing something positive instead of whining about how unfair life is?
Report comment to moderator
Spin spins; “The media couldn’t put lipstick on John McCain even if it wanted to!”
No one wants them or expects them to. But they’ve got Obama covered with lipstick from head to toe.
Report comment to moderator
It doesn’t matter who paid for Palin’s clothes. Presenting her properly is the cost of doing business.
Spinny, you should learn …. oh forget it, that’s impossible.
Report comment to moderator
“It doesn’t matter who paid for Palin’s clothes.”
The FEC may have a different opinion
Report comment to moderator
#20 Actually talk radio today in Boston and an editor for the NY Times is beginning to ask why Obama still hasn’t submitted his official birth certificate yet.
Obama’s FightTheSmears web site has a picture of a birth certificate, but it is a copy. Apparently he hasn’t submitted an official certificate yet. And there are some oddities with this one.
• It doesn’t have an embossed seal and registrar’s signature.
• Comparing it to other Hawaii birth certificates, the color shade is different.
• The date stamp bleeding through the back of the document is “June 2007?” (Odd since it was supposedly released in June 2008.)
• There’s no crease from being folded and mailed.
• It’s clearly Photoshopped and a wholesale fraud.
Gee, within days after Joe the Plumber appeared the media figured out everything about him. He wears Fruit of the Looms. But Obama’s eligibility for the presidency? No interest whatsoever.
Report comment to moderator
#23 RPN – Ha! McCain’s too pale for a secret Muslim expose to stick; the masses expect a little color to go with that label. But keep searching; maybe you’ll find he’s got a closet full of $1000 designer gaiters to add a little fuel to ‘wardrobegate’.
Report comment to moderator
This thread contains an excess of “drama queen” whining. I see no reason to read more than three or four comments.
Email me if you posted a comment with something to say that isn’t something already said 500 times already.
Report comment to moderator
Fact is, John McCain was a media “darling” up until he surrendered his “maverick” status in 2004 and started campaigning for Bush and voting with him 90% of the time. Then he further crippled it by pandering to the CCR’s and going to Jerry Falwell and kissing his…ring. Then he delivered it “DOA” by his extremely poor judgment in selecting Sarah Palin and and running a negative campaign.
John McCain has no one to blame but himself.
Report comment to moderator
XION 27-
Your desperation knows no bottom.
I again refer you to the FactCheck article I linked in #9.
The certificate is indeed a certified copy and they have the birth announcement from the Honolulu Advertiser from 1961.
Sure would have to be some vast conspiracy
Report comment to moderator
BTW- I don’t have my original BC anymore either. Who knows where it went. I have certified copies just like Obama that I use to update my passport etc…
Report comment to moderator
The mere fact that McCain has gotten more negative coverage recently does not prove media bias. For instance, Ahmedinejad gets mostly negative press. Does that mean the media is biased against Persians?
For the past several months McCain has been losing ground to Obama. At the same time, the media coverage of his campaign has been negative. Did the latter give rise to the former, or the former give rise to the latter?
It would be interesting to see trends from past elections where both candidates were seeking their first term, were fairly even early in the campaign season, then one candidate (the Republican) began to pull away. We’d want to look at media coverage of the Democratic candidate who eventually lost the election. 2004 doesn’t work since Bush was already extremely unpopular. 2000 might work, except that Bush and Gore were pretty neck-and-neck right up until the end. 1996 and 1992 were won by a Democrat. That leaves…1998, in which Bush Sr. defeated Dukakis.
Given how ridiculed the Dukakis campaign was back then, I’d be willing to bet that his level of “negative coverage” was higher than Bush Sr.’s. Despite Dukakis being a Democrat.
Report comment to moderator
that’s why he always looks all white and dusty — like they just pulled his head out of a bag of flower
Spread the word! McCain is a Muslim! See? McCain and Muslim both start with “M”
Report comment to moderator
Anlir and Buddy-
He also did himself no favors by sequestering Caribou Barbie for weeks at a time, and banning the press from speaking with McCain fans at rallies, and locking the press away from the campaign except for scripted scenes. What is there for them to report on but his negative paranoid and erratic campaign?
Report comment to moderator
#31 I am not into conspiracy theories. I was merely repeating what I thought were legitimate questions from talk radio and a NY Times editor. FactCheck claims to be unbiased but nearly always sides with Obama. Even they acknowledge that there are some unexplained problems, but it would take quite a conspiracy to make it all work.
Nevertheless a Philadelphia attorney and Democrat Philip Berg is suing Obama and the DNC for failing to produce the certificate.
Report comment to moderator
McCain is in the middle of losing a national election. When that gets covered, it’s invariably going to be called “negative coverage”! If he wants more positive coverage, he should improve his standing in the polls.
Report comment to moderator
A frivolous suit by a Hillary supporter is supposed be taken seriously? We have a lot bigger things to worry about than this distraction.
Report comment to moderator
Fundamentally it does not matter what FactCheck says. The issue will be decided in a court of law.
Philip Berg who brought the lawsuit against Obama is a Democrat and was a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Why won’t Obama simply comply?
Report comment to moderator
Below is website giving photos of two Birth Certificates. One is supposedly BO’s – anyone can see the difference – you can click under the copy of each to see a much larger version.
Report comment to moderator
As Kim stated, “Duh . . .”
Report comment to moderator
Wow, Victoria, what we have suspected all along may actually be true.
Although, BHO’s unfitness for the POTUS runs much deeper than the fact he may not be a natural-born citizen.
Report comment to moderator
Ahhhh…this is all so hilarious!
Let the CCR’s and their fellow Republicans keep looking for Barack’s “real” birth certificate. Y’all keep looking for that for the next 12 days.
The American people just might have a little surprise for you on Nov. 4th.
No more drama,
Vote Obama!
Report comment to moderator
40- Maybe an unstamped one “suggests,” but the one with the stamp doesn’t.
XION- Thanks for the name and state.
Berg appears to be a bitter Hillary donor. Look at the donation records for yourself.
Report comment to moderator
43- It is fun to watch them run around all breathless with their last gasps of debunked smears and obvious falsehoods
It’s why I come here!
Report comment to moderator
Anlir
If YOU KNOW WHERE IT IS, why don’t YOU direct everyone to it, until then, keep doing the ‘donkey bray’ – LOL
So where is it?
Report comment to moderator
Well, I heard it’s buried in a clay jar in the Mojave Desert. All you CCR’s load up your cars and drive out there and start digging. You’ve only got 12 days to come up with it. Hurry!
Report comment to moderator
XION-
Another Philip Berg association for you?
You’re just gonna LOVE this one! I’m not kidding, you really are!
911 Truth Commission
Report comment to moderator
Gotta go kids. A group of us Obama supporters at church are getting together to talk to other members about Obama!
Report comment to moderator
In fact, I’d like to nominate Victoria as Team Leader of “The Big Dig 2: The Search for Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate”.
Do I hear a “second” on the nomination?
Report comment to moderator
I see two possibilities:
1. The birth certificate is legit. In that case, Berg, and everybody who believes his lawsuit has merit, are delusional.
2. The birth certificate is fake and easily proven to be so. In that case, not only is Obama a moron for seeking the office of the President when it’s so easily proven that he’s not a natural born citizen, but McCain and his entire campaign are idiots for not taking the time to prove to the country that Obama doesn’t meet the requirements to be president.
I’m going with #1, given this factcheck article on the topic, which includes a copy of a birth announcement that appeared in the Honolulu newspaper in 1961:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Report comment to moderator
Just noticed the factcheck article had already been posted. Ooops.
Report comment to moderator
On the topic of the news typically having a liberal bias- I don’t entirely understand how people can think it doesn’t…
First: there is the poll this topic is based on. Can anybody tell me why this isn’t valid? (Might be a dumb question, I’ve only recently begun to really pay attention to this sort of thing)
Second: what is there not liberal about this headline: “Poll shows McCain ahead 6 points in Ohio, but some think they might change their minds” (to paraphrase a recent headline for my local newspaper, the Dayton Daily News), or the tendency to headline vets with PTS (correct?) whenever casualty rates go down, or the fact that I have yet to see any article about succesfully built Iraqi schools, the generally still pro-American Iraqi citizens, the fact that some very intelligent (and credentialed) people are Creationists, headlines about the one liberal farmer in all of Miami County as if it was a normal thing for the local farmers to vote Democrat… I’d better stop before I start to get really angry.
Third: Okay, that’s pretty much it for me for now.
Report comment to moderator
It’s why I come here!
Then now that the race is down to a 1-2% difference, Lumpy, all you libs (so-called Barr fans) have left to do is talk about Sarah’s wardrobe.
LOLOLOL!
Whoo-hoo!
Report comment to moderator
I heard a brief report on the matter of Palin’s clothes: The RNC is paying for Palin’s clothes, not tax payers. Totally legit and up and up. And when the campaign is over, they will sell the clothes (and they will go for good money) and give the proceeds to charity.
Fussing over Palin’s clothes is just the media’s way to keep the public stupid and mindless — at least the public that pays attention to them.
Report comment to moderator
Vastly amused here — Despite the colossal errors made by the McCain campaign, its the media and their bad press to blame. Yet when pressed, Victoria can dig up some bad press on Obama.
Note the survey was done post-convention; given the problems that arose with Pallin — troopergate and the claim she had foreign policy experience — allowed things to unravel. Compounded with some disastrous interviews and McCain’s poor debate performances, the press was bound to be negative since these were negative stories. Since Obama did well in the debates, he received positive press.
Obama is a positive candidate conducting a successful campaign whereas McCain/Palin are negative canidates conducting a losing campaign, press coverage becomes obvious — don’t shoot the messenger.
Report comment to moderator
Wow! What a sight in Indianapolis today, where 35,000 people turned out to see Obama and wish him well in Hawaii. It was a joyous, happy, raucous crowd. There were no shouts of “traitor!”, “treason!”, “terrorist lover!”, “socialist!”, or “get him!”. It was positive, it was a sense of destiny, and it was a show of determination. It was a reaffirmation that the American people still believe that good things can happen in America.
John McCain – that distant thunder you hear is the sound of the American people walking away from you and the Republican Party.
Listen to your momma,
Vote Obama!
Report comment to moderator
Can anyone answer question one in post 53?
I’ve seen very little in the news about “troopergate” or Palin’s foreign policy.
“Listen to your momma,
Vote Obama!” ???
What’s that about? Why not “Enough drama, vote Obama” or “Free Iraq, vote Barak” or “Look a llama, vote Obama”? “Listen to your momma”???
Just teasing…
Report comment to moderator
“Everyone knows that Barack Obama has created the biggest money-machine of any politician in American history. But it is becoming increasingly evident that Obama’s money-machine is largely fraudulent and therefore criminal. One can imagine a world in which newspaper reporters think it’s a serious matter when a Presidential candidate tries to buy an election with illegal and fraudulent contributions. That, of course, is not the world that we live in. Have you seen Sarah Palin’s shoes?”
http://www.powerlineblog.com
Report comment to moderator
So I went to the Obama website this afternoon and clicked on the “Donate” button.
I used my real MasterCard number (but was not asked for the 3 digit security code).
Used the following information and it was accepted…
First name: Fake
Last Name: Donor
Address: 1 Dollar To Prove A Point
City: Fraudulent
State: AL
Zip / Post: 33333
Email Address: allmyinfoismadeup@mediabias.com
Phone Number: 2125551212
Employer: Mainstream Media
Occupation: Being in the Tank
And incredibly, my $5 donation was ACCEPTED!!!
I then went to the McCain site and used the exact same information (and WAS asked for the 3 digit security code for my MasterCard). There, my contribution was rejected with the following message: “Your transaction was not approved for the following reason(s): Invalid data”, and then: “We have found errors in the information that you have submitted. Please review the information below and try again.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com
Report comment to moderator
“As the Powerline reader has noted, if “John Galt” of “Ayn Rand Lane” attempts a contribution at the McCain campaign, it gets rejected. Which is just as well. If the Republican candidate’s website were intentionally set up to facilitate fraudulent donations, it would be on the front page of The New York Times. But, as it’s King Barack the Spreader, we can rest assured the crack investigative units will be too preoccupied with Governor Palin’s shoes over the next two weeks.”
Mark Steyn
Report comment to moderator
Anlir 50
You can’t find it can you? – well, neither can ANYONE ELSE.
The ‘donkey’s’ blithering about everything EXCEPT ‘WHERE is the authentic Birth Certificat’?
Report comment to moderator
A birth announcement IS NOT a Birth Certificate, so lets not confuse the issue – ANYONE can call a newspaper and have an announcment made.
Report comment to moderator
61
Mark Steyn — Canada sends an inordinate amount of comedians south and sometimes they get misdirected or misunderstood and are taken seriously. Like David Frum, Mark Steyn is just a misunderstood Canadian comic.
Report comment to moderator
#57 Wow! What a sight in Indianapolis today, where 35,000 people turned out to see Obama and wish him well in Hawaii.
It was very touching that Obama is visiting his grandmother who he calls “a typical white person”. Spreading the love!
Report comment to moderator
An interesting idea from Mark Steyn:
“The reason the press are going to such shameless lengths to drag Obama across the finish line is because he’s their last best hope at restoring the old media environment, including a new Unfairness Doctrine for radio, and regulation of the Internet.”
Report comment to moderator
I’m disappointed. I was looking forward to seeing what Musing had to say now about this “data,” but he’s strangely silent. How strange.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
I agree. Let’s ignore facts and ridicule the people reporting them.
Report comment to moderator
It was a cheap shot but Steyn is a pro at self promotion, hyperbole and self-pity. Ironically, the press as a liberal bastion is an old myth which continues to be reported by the press.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I didn’t mean to imply that Steyn’s not often rather funny:
“A reader anticipates Senator Obama’s statement on fraudulent donations:
This isn’t the credit card machine I knew when I was in the New Party. Anyway, I was only 4 years old when credit card machines were invented.
Meanwhile, don’t forget, it’s easy and convenient to donate to the Obama campaign with your Visacorn, MessiahCard, God Damn American Express and, for all you investigative reporters out there, your Nothing To Discover card.”
Report comment to moderator
More stories the MSM won’t cover, putting the lie to this notion that Osama Nobama is squeaky clean while McCain is the devil’s cabana boy.
“Why is it some kind of scandal that freely given campaign contributions are going to Sarah Palin’s image and its a nothingburger of a story as far as the mainstream media is concerned that in the midst of economic CRISIS, Democrats fought to insert ACORN slush money into the bailout bill?”
“As Stanley notes below, despite the existence of documentary evidence that Obama was a member of the New Party, it appears that no one in the mainstream press has covered the matter.”
From NRO.
Report comment to moderator
Need some smack,
Vote …
Are you on crack,
Vote …
Plumbers crack,
Vote …
What you lack,
Vote …
$ you lack,
Vote …
Empty sack,
Vote …
I’m tired of them too.
Report comment to moderator
Vicky wrote: A birth announcement IS NOT a Birth Certificate, so lets not confuse the issue – ANYONE can call a newspaper and have an announcment made.
But NO ONE can fake Obama’s Birth Certificate. Can they go back in time and create a birth announcement on microfiche 48 years ago? No. You 9/11 conspiracy folks are way out there. This is crap, and you know it.
Report comment to moderator
re Post 60, I suggest no one else try donating under a false name as it is illegal. What the Corner and other conservative sites have not told you is that the Obama campaign is trying to track down and return to the credit card user such donations.
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 1,
this is such a lovely post.
so lets start examining this:
1) is the Pew Center part of the media?
- you have been grousing that the media has not been doing reasearch. I have been opointing out that you should not be expectig media to do the research. when you finally feel vindicated, voile, it is not the media!
2) if you had wanted to argue that the media has been negative to McCain from perhaps 9/15 – 10/16, then the reference I provided:
http://www.mediatenor.com/
has made this point and we could have been discussing this for about a week or so: September – mid-October negative coverage is old news.
(According to media tenor, McCain coverage went positive about 10/17
).
It would seem that you were not interested in discussing your concern: rather you appear to have been focusing on grousing that the MSM wasn’t providing the data!
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 1,
but the story continues:
Pew argues for predominantly negative coverage of McCain from about 9/8 – 10/16 (note the aggregation of the data by Pew vs. the time plot of data by mediatenor).
Media Tenor seems to be arguing for neagtive coverage from about 9/15 – 10/16.
We have two sources using two different methodlogies which approximately agree. So it is plausible to argue that this data is valid.
We have done one other step, however: we have cross validated the mediatenor material which should provide additional confidence in the procedures used by mediatenor (an issue raised by ree).
But look at the mediatenor data:
http://www.mediatenor.com/
It shows predominantly favorable for Obama from abuot 9/15 – 10/16, but favorable for McCain from 9/1 – 9/15 and if we look at the expanded data:
http://www.mediatenor.com/charts.php
it looks like McCain has had favorable treatment form about 8/26 – 9/14.
In short, depending on the situation the media appears to be favoring McCain or Obama over time: they are relatively even handed in their biases.
Further, the Pew data suggests that it is not a tilt toward Obama (as has been posed) but a tilt against McCain.
And the question now is opened on whether this is an actual press bias or whether in fact the actual news is against McCain or Obama during these vearious periods.
In short, this does not demonstrate that the press is in the pocket of Obama as some would like to argue.
And we could have had this disucssion at least one week ago!
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 1,
which leads me back to a comment made by momof5. We could have discussed neagtive McCain coverage wioth data one week ago. the data was clearly posted and you were aware of it.
You could have been monitoring the Pew Center for this material, since they are well known for producing this kind of research.
You appear to have waited for WorldMag to dig this up for you. If I consider momof5’s comments and your dmeonstrated behavior, I get the sense that unless someone you trust tells you what data to review and how to interpret it, that your are unwilling to consider it.
But are you not able to find your own data? Can you not reach your own conclusions?
I am finding the apparent behavior a bit odd. But importantly, it is not nimble. If you had wanted a data driven discussion on this point you could have held it at least one week ago. You did not hold this discussion until it appears that WMB vetted it for you.
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 1,
which takes me back the the beginning:
1) you blame the media for not doing your research for you: as we have seen in general the media is not the source of the research
But we also seem to see a different argument:
2) the media should present the story you think they should present. If you wanted this, you should set up your own media operation. The media is not here to simply do your bidding. This misconception was indeed the original problem in your argument.
Report comment to moderator
So the following quotes from the report seem instructive:
“Much of the increased attention for McCain derived from actions by the senator himself, actions that, in the end, generated mostly negative assessments. In many ways, the arc of the media narrative during this phase of the 2008 general election might be best described as a drama in which John McCain has acted and Barack Obama has reacted.”
“For McCain [2], coverage began positively, but turned sharply negative with McCain’s reaction to the crisis in the financial markets. As he took increasingly bolder steps to try and reverse the direction of the polls, the coverage only worsened. Attempts to turn the dialogue away from the economy through attacks on Obama’s character did hurt Obama’s media coverage, but McCain’s was even more negative. ”
This would suggest that indeed the negative McCain coverage is not bias, but rather an assessment of the tenor of McCain’s actions.
And it does not appear anywhere that this report demonstrates a press which is in Obama’s pocket!
Report comment to moderator
The following would seem to debunk the argument that the press savaged Palin’s peronsoal life:
“Coverage of Palin [3], in the end, was more negative than positive. In all, 39% of Palin stories carried a negative tone, while 28% were positive, and 33% were neutral. Contrary to what some suggested, little of the coverage was about Palin’s personal life (5%). “
Report comment to moderator
Excellent reference, I had been waiting for this or its equivalent to come out from Pew for a while.
I suggest that this report pretty well debunks most of the arguments that the conservative side has made that the press is biased against McCain.
WMB should be commended for their evenhandedness in bringing this into the discusison group.
Report comment to moderator
And the folloiwng is a lovely comment:
“Horse race reporting, once again, made up the majority of coverage, but less so than earlier in the contest or than in previous elections.”
I must say, however, that I havenot yet found the supporting data for these sattements.
The data supporting the statements about the negative coverage for McCain and the neutral coverage for Obama is pretty clear.
Report comment to moderator
Xion at #36: FactCheck claims to be unbiased but nearly always sides with Obama.
Maybe that’s because when they investigate the wilder allegations against Obama, they find them to be unfounded?
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 7,
because Obama’s birth certificate is clearly for Hawaii?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 13,
actually the comment that the coverage is negative because the story is negative follows direclty from the report.
Despite the headline, this is not a report which supports the consrvative narrative on the press. It is a report which argues that McCain has a tendency to shoot himself in the foot.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 21,
and you assert that Hawaii was not part of the U.S.?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 25,
and possibly the cost of one Republican senator in congress?
Sure it costs $150K to dress a candidate.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass post 33,
I suggest that the mediatenor material perhaps sheds a bit of light on your question, although it is not definitive.
You ask a good question.
Report comment to moderator
Joe C post 53,
perhaps because when it is examine objectively the libveral bias does not appear to consistently show up?
Certainly the argument about a liberal press bias against McCain does not show up when you examine the mediatenor materials. It isn’t even really supported by the Pew materials (see buddyglass post 133).
If you are going to make this claim, then lets see the data.
The Pew report shows that such data can be derived. I suggest that if a researcher was able to prove this position one way or the other it would be readily received. The fact that there is no apparent data is suggestive that the hypothesis of liberal bias is not supported by the data.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 54,
a number of sources have considered McCain’s chances for winning:
In McCain’s Uphill Battle, Winning Is an Option
I suggest that arguments about polls which have been shown to be seriously defective (are evangelicals 46% of the electorate for example) does not help this disucsison.
What is substantive is a consideration of the electoral states and the relative pollings in each state with consideration of the effects which are probalbly not captured by the polls.
And as the NY Times artivcle suggests, this can be a very substantive and interesting discussion.
And, I suggest, anyone who argues that McCain has already lost is ignoring the realities of elections and the volatility of this election in particular.
Report comment to moderator
Sarah Palin and the Pope [Lisa Schiffren] (National Review)
So, Sarah Palin’s advisors decide that it is time for her to meet a bunch of serious world leaders. They head to Europe, where, first up, she has an appointment with the Pope. The Pope and some of his Cardinals invite her for a boat ride on the Tiber. As they are sitting in the gondola talking, a wind starts up and blows the Pope’s hat into the water. Palin looks around and realizes that no one is going to do anything about it, so she calmy rises, takes off her her high heels, and steps off the side of the boat. Instead of diving into the water, however, she walks across it, to the hat, picks it up and walks back across the water to the boat. She climbs in, hands the Pope his hat and continues discussing whatever it was they had been talking about. The Cardinals are open mouthed in astonishment at what they have just seen. The news media, in nearby boats are busy discussing among themselves how to report it. Headlines the next day at the New York Times, The Washington Post and the networks all blare: “New Revelation: Sarah Palin Can’t Swim.”
Report comment to moderator
The $150,000 clothes story has not be told accurately. Do some better research.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 92,
I believe exhibits 2 and 3 of:
Exhibits for FEC complaint
demonstrate that the full $150K was spent.
Whether it was actualy illegal is now apparently in the hands of the FEC.
Report comment to moderator
McCain used to call the media “his base.” No one has gotten more favorable coverage than McCain in the past 20 years. But that McCain isn’t running for president today. Instead we have a campaign that has made obvious, public, and embarassing missteps one after another and that has polarized rather than inspired. The coverage is negative because the campaign is terrible. It’s the media’s job to call it as it is, not to write phony horserace stories that ignore the reality on the ground.
Report comment to moderator
So the following is of interest:
http://kdka.com/
It looks like the Obama attacker story was a hoax. There is an indication that the hoax was perpetrated by a McCain campaign worker.
I do sense that before we run off at the mouth regarding material it is perhaps useful to double check the material and vet the sources.
Report comment to moderator
Who ran off at the mouth about it, Musing?
What difference does it make, anyway? If it had turned out to be true, would have made any difference to you?
Report comment to moderator
Meanwhile, there HAVE been attacks against conservatives that have gone almost entirely unreported. Do those matter at all to you?
I didn’t think so.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast #54:
It’s almost surely not a 1-2% race. Not that the popular vote really counts for anything anyway. It looks like the gap is anywhere from 1% to 12%, but likely somewhere in between.
Report comment to moderator
victoris in post 97 in whirled views 10/23.
also it would appear the Drudge report (but then they have been doing this alot recently.
Also it woudl seem the McCain campaign committee.
Shall I continue?
Report comment to moderator
Davil L post 97,
at tihs point if you insist that there have been attacks, I suggest you need to vet them very well and make sure they are well documented.
This was a classic racist approach: perpetrate an attack and blame it on a black man.
At this point I suggest that without very solid confirmation of the stories such stories should be considered highly suspect.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, Victoria said something about it. Yeah, Drudge had it online yesterday–along with dozens of local and national news sites. And yeah, the McCain campaign said something about it–right before the Obama campaign said something about it. You’re really showing us!
And Musing, the story I linked to is true. The dude responsible has a January court date.
Why are you trying to blame people here for what one disturbed woman did in Pennsylvania? Do you really, really want to start a debate with that standard? Because I’ve got tons of documentary evidence of highly disturbed liberals doing insane things that I’d love to pin on you.
You know, you have the highly evolved moral principles of a toddler.
Report comment to moderator
“At this point I suggest that without very solid confirmation of the stories such stories should be considered highly suspect.”
I suggest that you go do the research and get back to us.
Report comment to moderator
David
“You know, you have the highly evolved moral principles of a toddler.”
That’s one of the funniest lines I’ve heard in days, thanks!
Report comment to moderator
David L post 101,
actually all I am asking for is good vetting of information before posting it.
We have been seing a variety of misinformation being posted in this blog which when checked is found not to be true.
Careless misuse of information merely contaminates the blog with wasted bits.
But deliberate misuse of information, and I suggest as a minimum Drudge and those who uncriticaly accepted this Drudge information are deliberately misusing information, subverts the entire conversation.
I have seen any number of racy rumors in a variety of left wing and right wing blogs. I have worked hard to make sure that I had a reasonably reputable news source and preferably two news sources before I posted them.
And when my information is proved incorrect, I try to apologize.
Now if you have reputable news sources fine.
I suggest we can clearly state that Drudge is not a reputable news source.
Report comment to moderator
Are you kidding me, Musing? You’re the one who brought up the story here today, saying it was “interesting.” Nobody else was talking about it. Victoria made a single comment about it yesterday, and that’s all. You’re desperately trying to change the subject. You brought it up trying to shame us all for being conservatives, but the truth is, nobody was pushing that story. People exercized a remarkable deal of skepticism. (See Michelle Malkin’s web page, for example. You lefties all despise her, but she was very careful not to run with this story because it appeared fishy from the outset.) If only the left were capable of doing the same every once in a while.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Thanks. My comedy routine has a small but loyal following (mainly my wife).
Report comment to moderator
Fox News VP: If McCain Worker ‘Mutilation’ Story Is a Hoax His Campaign Is ‘Over’
Report comment to moderator
David,
I occasionally ask my husband to read some of these posts – when he returns from his appointments, he will see this one. I’m sure your wife loves your routine!
Report comment to moderator
RPN,
As Musing would say, I suggest that his campaign is already over. I suggest that it was over as soon as Osama Nobama beat Hillary in the primary.
Don’t wear your shoes out.
Report comment to moderator
David L post 105,
and I proved a plausiubly neutral source to support it.
the news of course not being that the attack did not occur, but that a number of conservatives jumped at it apparently asserting it did occur without checking the facts.
Drudge has bombed twice in the near past. I suggest that Drudge is losing his credibility.
Report comment to moderator
NOw I will say that victoria has suggested a n ew standard for posting:
- you can post a falsehood so long as you can point to a headline in another web site which is spreading the falsehood
Your post is true because of course all you are saying is that this other web site says it is true.
A clever approach with plenty of potential. I shall think over how best to use this subtrefuge.
I do believe there is plenty of opportunity for fun here!!!
Report comment to moderator
So lets try victoria’s approach:
It is reported by Fox news that McCain is distancing himself from Bush as described in Jed Report:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/10/fair-balanced-not-to-mention-q.html
Report comment to moderator
NOw I can do my impersonation of outkast:
Whoo hee, based on victoria’s post the Republican’s are fighting with each other just 10 days before the election!!!
Report comment to moderator
And of course we can see how th is could proceed.
Of course in this case the material is in fact true (chosen that way deliberatly this time around):
See I can even use a conservative slanted article to demonstrate my point
But I do believe we can see the potnetial here!!!
Report comment to moderator
One would think that disclosures of media bias from within the industry itself would make lefties at least suspicious that there were something to it. But, alas and alack, they are tremendously unimaginative.
http://pajamasmedia.com/edgelings/2008/10/24/editing-their-way-to-oblivion-journalism-sacraficed-for-power-and-pensions/
I mean, we’ve seen so many stories about liberal media bias in the past 6 months it’s unignorable. Has there been one single solitary reputable accusation that the media are biased to the right in this election? Why not, do you think?
Report comment to moderator
David L post 115,
except when I look at the data on:
http://www.mediatenor.com/
I find that the media bias at least in the campaign seems to flow both ways.
The recent Pew data is even more interesting and appears to show that indeed there is no bias in the media as such.
If you persist in arguing for bias in the media, then perhaps you can show me data to demonstrate this?
We have seen two sets of data which do not demonstrate this.
Report comment to moderator
By the way Musing, speaking of peddling misinformation without vetting it… I seem to remember you gloating over Al Qaida’s endorsement of McCain.
Are you ready to apologize yet?
Al Qaeda Supporting McCain? No, Not Really
Report comment to moderator
David L post 115,
now what the Pew survey does appear to suggest is that there is an interesitng feedback cycle:
1) candidate makes a misstep
2) press reports the misstep
3) misstep shows up in the polls
4) press reports the impact on the polls
and one has a nice positive feedback loop here.
Is this bias against a candidate? No: the candidate started with the misstep. Can the press perpetuate the damage? Courtesy of the polls and public reaction to the polls, yes.
Is this bias?
Only in the eyes of the candidate complaining because the press covered thier misstep.
Report comment to moderator
David L post 115,
now what might be interesting to explore is the difference in response to missteps by the two campaigns.
If the response of the two campaigns were different in kind, then arguably the press response, and the public reaction, might be difference in kind.
Is this an interesting topic to explore?
Report comment to moderator
Musing, your Media Tenor site bases its data only on the evening news shows of ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox. That’s too limited a pool from which to draw conclusions about media bias. I’m mainly concerned with the print media because its bias is far more egregious and far more obvious. It also doesn’t cover the cable news shows, which are more biased than the network news.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, did you even bother to read the article I linked to? What’s your response to it?
Report comment to moderator
David L post 118,
but gives results very sinmilar to the Pew results, as I noted earlier.
In short, it has basically been cross verified.
Again if you have no other data, then Pew and the mediatenor material are what there is.
And they do not show a true bias.
So what is your data?
Report comment to moderator
David L post 120,
an editorial with no data.
And your data?
Report comment to moderator
“The recent Pew data is even more interesting and appears to show that indeed there is no bias in the media as such.”
That’s exactly the opposite of what the study said.
Report comment to moderator
Musing post 117-
That is an excellent summary of the McSame problem.
Report comment to moderator
David KL post 124.
actually this is what it says.
Look at the Obama numbers: they are even both for and against. There is no skew towards Obama in the Obama numbers.
The MNcCain numbers are negative AND THE PEW SURVEY DISCUSSES HOW MCCAIN’S OWN ACTION LED TO THE NEGATIVE COVERAGE.
In short the report shows that there is no press bias.
If you argue otherwise, show where the Pew survey shows that the press is favorable to Obama!
Report comment to moderator
David L post 124,
as you have written it it would appear that you are part of the matra (join in now with MIM) that the press should be serving the conservative movement.
This of course is not the case.
The press covers what is in the news. McCain made an error in calling the American economy fundamentals sound and in suspending his campaign to not lead the fix for the economic crisis. He paid a price for this in the press.
If the press had not covered these errors of McCain’s then they would indeed have been egregiously biased.
Report comment to moderator
The liberal media at work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGwwWT_EqXA
Report comment to moderator
Indeed, HRW. If you think that’s bad, you should see the way they interviewed Palin. Yeesh.
Report comment to moderator
David L post 105,
and of course I carefully checked that the Ashley Todd’s story was a hoax before posting.
I do believe I vetted my story reference reasonably well.
Can you say the same of victoria?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria’s mistake was not in failing to “vet” the story but in jumping the gun. The story appeared on a local news station’s web page, so she referenced it. She didn’t make anything up. The story smelled funny to most people, but Victoria should have waited to see how it played out, as just about everyone in the entire nation did.
However, the second it was shown to be a hoax, you come here and say, “Well, looky here,” as if we had all been trumpeting about it all weeekend.
Get a life, man. (Who’s Ashley Todd?)
Report comment to moderator
David L post 131,
actualy victoria referenced Drudge as her source. A source which has recently put out a fair amount of misleading data.
Now of course if victoria had admitted it was a hoax, I would have backed off.
victoria however still appears to insist here post was valid as written.
Good try though David L.
See:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/506
Ashley Todd was the McCain supporter who perpetrated the hoax.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
I made it clear on the thread where I had posted the “Breaking News” days ago – after it became KNOWN that no one but the girl HERSELF had marked her own face – either you don’t read well, or you have little else to do but continue this absurd posting –
There is breaking news on almost all networks, some turn out to be exactly what they think it is, and other stories turn out to be something else – It’s normaly only a few lines as it was with the girl, who, as it turned out admitted she did it herself.
Take a break Musing!
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 133,
The following is taken from Whirled Views 10/23.
Given that it was already in WMB, victoria’s denial in post 133, is perhaps a bit incredible!
victoria’s post 127 is perhaps most interesting.
“97 BY Victoria 10.23.08 AT 3:53 PM
Just now on the front page of DRUDGE:
SHOCK: MCCAIN CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEER ATTACKED AND MUTILATED IN PITTSBURGH
http://www.drudgereport.com/
125 BY musing 10.24.08 AT 2:28 PM
victoria post 97,
well it looks like this attack was a hoax:
http://kdka.com/
It appears that the hoax was perpetrated by a McCain campaign worker.
I do sense that before we run off at the mouth regarding material it is perhaps useful to double check the material and vet the sources.
In any event victoria, I am sure you will be apologizing for spreading this false information.
126 BY musing 10.24.08 AT 2:31 PM
What appears to be interesting from this apparent hoax is the apparent blatant attempt to stir up racial issues and link them to the Obama campaign.
Now while I do not believe that McCain or Palin has been directly involved, I do think that the admonitions by victoria and Joe B probably should be rethought in the context of this apparent attempt at misrepresenting the on the ground campaign situation.
127 BY Victoria 10.24.08 AT 2:42 PM
Musing
There was no false info spread. As you can read, #97 it was Front page on DRUDGE – I only related what had been printed, there are many reports which are not confirmed until later – so, there’s nothing to be sorry for.
Give yourself a coffee break
128 BY musing 10.24.08 AT 2:48 PM
The following is a more detaile daccount of the incident:
http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html
129 BY musing 10.24.08 AT 2:53 PM
victoria post 126,
to quote:
“Just now on the front page of DRUDGE:
SHOCK: MCCAIN CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEER ATTACKED AND MUTILATED IN PITTSBURGH
http://www.drudgereport.com/”
So were you arguing that a McCain campaign worker had been mugged or were you arguing that Drudge was spreading false information ?
You tend to spread stories such as these with inadequate supporting information and then hide behind “well I was only quoting”.
To make your point sound I suggest you need to dmeonstrate that you did not believe the story as you were posting it.
And you were apparently spreading false information!
Good try though!
130 BY Victoria 10.24.08 AT 3:01 PM
Musing
NONE of the above. It was headlined, the story was “developing” -
This is just another glaring example of YOU purposely trying to fain your inability to understand the headline, and the fact that it was proven untrue, the woman finally admitted she lied.
Get over it Musing, your whirly/twirly act is childish.”
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 133,
oh, and perhaps I missed it, but I did not see a retraction in this thread.
I did see an insistence that your initial post was true however!
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
NOPE, and you won’t see me posting about this on every other thread either —
Actually you’re lucky I read this post, MOST of the time I don’t read your posts – what a surprise!
Report comment to moderator
victorias post 135,
oh so now you turn on your own post:
“I made it clear on the thread where I had posted the “Breaking News” days ago – after it became KNOWN that no one but the girl HERSELF had marked her own face”
and then say you didn’t retract your post?
If you knew she had marked herself, why didn’t you correct the record?
Report comment to moderator
Now I assume the conservatvies will argue that covering Steven’s guilty verdict is undoubtedly a case of press bias.
Report comment to moderator
David L post 131,
now I assume that victoria’s responses in posts 133 and 136 along with the documentsation in my post 134 should convince you by now that victoria:
1) has no qualms about making misstatements
2) makes no apologies when she makes such misstatements
Shall we return to what I suggest is your mischaracterization of the Pew survey on media coverage of the 2008 election and press bias as a whole?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!