Persistent Media Bias in Favor of Barack Obama And Against Hillary Clinton

[Algorem]

(4 pages,pdf)
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/Important%20memo%20from%20Walter%20Shorenstein%20on%20Press%20and%20the%20Presidential%20Campaign.pdf

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/the_shorenstien_memo.php

Persistent Media Bias in Favor of Barack Obama
And Against Hillary Clinton
Independent media watchdog groups have documented a persistent and pervasive media
bias in favor of Barack Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) took the media to task for writing the
obituary of Hillary Clinton prior to the New Hampshire primary. Tellingly, FAIR’s
report ended with the admonition, “The press corps seems chastened by their misreading
of the New Hampshire electorate, and many are vowing to be more cautious in their
assumptions. Will they follow through on their own advice?” Events since then—
especially in this crucial week leading up to primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and
Vermont—indicate that the answer to that question is, “No.”
Leading up to the New Hampshire primary, the storyline on the Democratic side was the
disastrous state of the Clinton campaign. Her loss was a given; it seemed the only
considerations were the margin of defeat and whether or not she would even continue
running at all. The day of the primary, the Washington Post reported (1/8/08) that a
second loss to Obama "would leave the New York senator's candidacy gasping for
breath," and declared that Clinton's vow to stay in the race
may be more wish than reality. By Wednesday, it may be too late. By then, Obama's
campaign may have inflicted enough damage on the woman-who-was-once-inevitable
that no amount of readjusting, recalibrating and rearranging will give her the wherewithal
to overcome two big losses in the first contests of the 2008 nomination battle.
Clinton, of course, won the primary--surprising the pundits and contradicting the polls
that journalists unwisely use to set the tone of so much of their coverage. In the
aftermath, the media were left asking what went "wrong" with the numbers. As the front
page of USA Today declared (1/10/08), "For pollsters, N.H. 'unprecedented.'" But this
isn't so; the actual USA Today story included a state pollster who noted that pre-election
polls in 2000 vastly underestimated John McCain's victory over George W. Bush. Right
before the primary, the New York Times reported (1/30/00) that "a series of polls showed
the two Republican front-runners in a dead heat." Given that McCain won by 19 points,
journalists and pollsters puzzling over Clinton's showing are ignoring very recent history.
. .
As it stands now, the races for the major party nominations are remarkably close. The
most valuable service journalists could provide now would be to illustrate the differences
between the candidates on the major issues of importance to voters. The press corps
seems chastened by their misreading of the New Hampshire electorate, and many are
vowing to be more cautious in their assumptions. Will they follow through on their own
advice? And will voters ever get campaign reporting that helps them make informed
choices about the direction of their democracy?
(FAIR Media Advisory, “Humbled in New Hampshire,” January 11, 2008)....



Media Expert Decries Campaign Coverage

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hea0Sy5v_UxnEL701ZKeoN8JlIDgD8V53ICO0

By BETH FOUHY – 1 day ago

DALLAS (AP) — The founder of a prestigious institute on media and politics added his voice Saturday to the chorus of complaint over perceived press bias in favor of Democrat Barack Obama.

Walter Shorenstein, a prominent San Francisco-based real estate developer, Democratic fundraiser and longtime supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, penned a memo to Democratic party "superdelegates" and other activists criticizing media coverage of the presidential campaign.

Shorenstein is the founder of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. His memo came days before Tuesday's key primaries in Ohio and Texas, which Clinton must win to save her waning candidacy.

The former first lady and her advisers have lashed out at the press in recent days, suggesting unfair coverage of the campaign has in part led to Obama's victories in the last 11 voting contests. They've encouraged supporters and voters to watch a "Saturday Night Live" skit that aired last weekend, depicting a group of journalists fawning over Obama...

[bowens43]

1. So basically you're saaying that Hillary can't take the heat.

We already knew that. It's obvious that she doesn't have what it takes to be CIC

[jaybeat]

11. FAIR isn't talking about "heat"

Their analysis is always above reproach and non-partisan. I'm sure if they'd done an analysis of the coverage of Edwards and Kucinich, they would have been able to find and objectively document the "obvious."

What is "obvious" to me is that the Obama folks around here won't accept ANY source, no matter how un-biased or scientific, if it is in any way disadvantageous for their "leader."

In my opinion, anyone who inspires that kind of blind, unthinking obedience should NOT be our "CIC."

Nixon's line was "If the President does it, it must be legal."

Is Obama's going to be "If it is bad for Obama, it must not be true"?

[mike_c]

2. oh please-- if you want to talk about media bias...

...let's talk about Dennis Kucinich.

[krkaufman]

7. ... and every other Dem. pres candidate *ASIDE* from Clinton & Obama ...

... and even a few of the Republican candidates were snubbed, though not as completely as Dem candidates.

[Demeter]

3. Truth Is Biased

You can't paint black as white and expect people to believe you for very long.

[Maxdee55]

4. The Media Has Always Been Biased Against The Clinton's

From the earliest days of the '92 campaign until today the media has always been biased against the Clinton's. Bill who has always been charismatic and likable was able to overcome the media's constant belief that every accusation leveled at him was true, Hillary has not been able to weather the storm. Obama who plays the crowd like a preacher, and who has led his supporters to believe that electing him President will end poverty as we know it, has essentially received a free ride from the press, he has not had to answer questions about his pastor who has made anti-white statements in the past, nor has he been asked about taking money from the special interests or lobbyists while a State Senator, and he has been able to mislead America into believing he voted against the Iraq war (he wasn't a Senator yet). Granted Obama has been against this despicable war from the beginning but did not have the pressure of voting in the Senate under the circumstances of 2002, and in reality the vote was to give the President the authority to wage war if Iraq did not comply with U.N. Resolution 1441, Bush misused this power and took us to war under false pretenses. It is readily clear that Hillary does not have the charisma of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, but she is competent to be President and she has not gotten a fair shake in the press. If Obama receives the nomination he will have to learn what gutter politics is all about, for the Republicans will be merciless in their attacks on his religion, his experience, his liberalism, and yes even his color, it will be curious to see which fair haired boy the media will suck up to, McCain or Obama. One thing is certain if by chance Hillary wins the nomination, we know the media will then be going steady with McCain, which is a shame because I believe among the 3 candidates left Hillary Clinton is by far the most competent and will make the best President.

[cyclezealot]

5. Those who have suffered the most by media bias. Gore and Kucinich

To a lesser extent, Edwards. What I fear. The press gives Obama a free ride. Come September , they turn their guns on him the way they did Gore . Is Obama up to it. I think he pretty thin skinned.

[Recursion]

6. Ridiculous

It's only in the past week that the media has actually asked Clinton what "experience" she really has and how it prepares her for the Presidency.

They have gone so easy on her, and taken so much of what she has said at face value without any investigation, that I really think you guys are going to be in for an extremely rude awakening in the fall if she manages to pull this nomination off.

[krkaufman]

8. Excellent point.

The media was all going along with the presumed coronation for most of 2007, and the "experience" argument has been woefully taken as face value.

[GeorgeGist]

9. the woman-who-was-once-inevitable

no bias intended?

[madmom]

10. Once again we're letting them pick our candidate for us!