I hate to say it, but I can see why some believe the media is fawning over Obama.

[Drunken Irishman]

I try to look at this objectively, but I was watching MSNBC early this morning because I couldn't sleep and Obama was holding his press conference at No. 10 Downing Street. I don't know who the reporter was, but she was blonde, pretty attractive and was fairly good on Obama. She talked about him looking presidential, loose, happy and most importantly, at ease with world leaders. She had another guy on (I am horrible with names) and he did a good job of not tearing down either Obama or McCain. But from the general feel of it all, I'd say the girl was fairly favorable to Obama and his trip overseas.

And this is something I've seen a lot. I know, I know, the media hates Obama, but sometimes I do not see it. Yes there are certain members who piss on him, but in the end, I think the media has been fairly decent toward him than past Democratic candidates. Maybe that will change, in fact, it probably will, however, right now, he's consistently getting decent enough coverage. Dare I say, as a whole, better coverage than McCain. Of course, I think a lot of this is Obama's doing, because he's created some amazing images over the past few months and you can't downplay his ability to sell himself. But the media could have been really harsh on him for taking this trip. They could have called it an utter failure and joked about his crowds, but most haven't. They've been fairly good, at least most, in saying this trip will probably help Obama.

Just my take, I'm sure you all disagree, but I try to look at this as objectively as possible and that's how I see it. Looking at it as best as I can, I would say Obama probably has it easier than Kerry and Gore did.

[Beregond2]

1. How could they say it's been a failure and joked about his

crowds, when the opposite is true? You hit it on the head when you said that it is Obama's doing. It is the media's job to report the facts. When the facts so overwhelmingly favor one candidate, is that the fault of the press?

[Drunken Irishman]

2. Well if the media was entirely anti-Obama, they would have.

Media can create its own perception. It would have been blatant, but if they wanted to really be anti-Obama, they could at least say the trip did nothing for him, but many say the trip will actually really help Obama.

But in the end, it's Obama and always has been. McCain gives the press fodder with his dumb and embarrassing photo ops, Obama does not.

[DJ13]

3. There is no fawning

For example, how often have you seen the MSM spend on stories questioning whether something McCain has done will impact his chances?

Now repeat the same question for Obama.

Sure the MSM spends a greater amount of time on Obama, but if 80% of that time is negative he actually ends up getting less favorable press than McCain.

[Drunken Irishman]

5. I see it all the time.

Even Joe Scarborough said something earlier this week after McCain was in the cheese aisle of the local grocery store.

I'll say this: the media has been pretty even-handed in its coverage, BUT McCain consistently makes a fool of himself, which makes it harder for them not to report how sorry of a candidate he is.

[Skwmom]

11. You cannot seriously think the media has been evenhanded?

That is just blatantly ridiculous.

[Drunken Irishman]

14. haha, yes I can.

And I will.

Let's start out with the following:

The media didn't travel with McCain on his trip, in fact, they barely even covered it, since they were focusing on...Obama beating Clinton in the Democratic Primary.

Then the media has had relatively glowing reviews of Obama's trip, with many saying it did what Obama wanted it to do. Again, if they were so anti-Obama, they wouldn't be suggesting the trip could HELP him. If anything, they'd tear him down for it, and as a whole, they haven't.

I have seen far more positive coverage the past week toward Obama than McCain.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. I heard the media opted not to travel with McCain because they would

have had to bear the expense. It's my understanding that those who were invited by the Obama campaign, flew with him aboard his charter flight? I could be wrong about that. Let's face it, Obama has to be much more fun to cover. He sells newspapers, magazines, and is a ratings juggernaut. McCain....not so much.

Surely, you haven't forgotten the Rev. Wright & bitter coverage. For good, or for bad, the press is obsessed with Obama as is most of the world, but is that Obama's fault?

[jazzjunkysue]

28. You're right. I heard it, too. Besides, if they're just going to edit it or use old footage,

what's the point?

[AlinPA]

24. Agreed Obama gets more coverage, but it is negative.

[Gabi Hayes]

29. hardly an objective overview

how many reports did you watch?

how many gasbag discussions did you see?

how many times did you see them foaming at the mouth BEFORE the trip, saying how CRUCIAL it was for Obama not to fuck up, with the clear implication they were salivating over the probability

and when some small things happened, even though they got them wrong (ala the failure to visit troops fiasco), they reveled in Obama's inability to cope

I don't discredit your having seen some positive coverage, but I spent at LEAST 20 hours watching the coverage over the last four days, and the nasty insinuations about his "presumptuousness," after predicting that he'd have trouble taking the reins as a serious, presidential-appearing figure, appeared instantaneously as the cameras showed in realtime how well he did.

did you see the interviews? almost all questions were oppositional, with dogged followups, contrasted to the almost complete asskissing of McCain by Kelly ODonnell, Couric, and Wolf, accompanied by effectively zero followup. did you see those?

no offense, but your tag name is most appropriate. step away from the Jameson's, Leo Bloom.

[anonymous171]

4. This election is about Obama, that's for sure.

McCain is boring and therefore doesn't sell.

[emilyg]

6. I think the media loves Obama

He's young, fresh, elegant.

[AlinPA]

25. Are you includoing Fox "News" in "media"? They trash him continously.

[Overseas]

7. The foreign press are probably relieved to see a non-insane potential president.

Instead of the ex-drunkard GWB gripping the podium and sputtering out a few inappropriate phrases, they're meeting a fellow who can talk in paragraphs!

The foreign press liked Clinton, too, because he could answer questions in depth. He actually did his homework, too.

The U.S. corporate media who've been trying to prop up John Sidney McCain III, their pal, are frustrated seeing a lot of foreign leaders and reporters treat Obama with the respect and admiration he deserves.

[CJCRANE]

8. Sometimes it's subtle.

I watched the whole of Obama's Berlin speech on the net then watched some of the MSM coverage. It's interesting to see which parts of the speech they focus on and which parts they ignore.

In much of the coverage (across various channels) I noticed that they seemd to repeat the words "risky" and "presumptuous" and in the analysis of the passage where he says "I love America" the MSM seemed to focus on that as criticism which seemed overblown to me.

[Drunken Irishman]

10. Well to be fair, it was a risky speech.

Anytime you go on foreign soil when you're not the president and meet with 200,000 people, you're taking a risk. I knew from the start there was a chance this whole trip could backfire. Maybe the troops look disinterested in supporting him, or he says something the media rips apart, or world leader is reluctant to meet with him. And yes, maybe he gives a speech in front of 200,000 that does not go over well. It's all risky, but I think the media did a good enough job discussing the benefits of this trip and providing great imagery back home.

[CJCRANE]

13. The term "risky" was often applied to Obama himself

not the speech. Brian William's sitdown interview with Obama was edited from the full interview and ended with Obama saying that McCain was "less risky" and just ended there without showing what he went on to say.

[Drunken Irishman]

15. I think you can view the entire interview on MSNBC's website.

And let's be honest, Obama is risky. I mean, so is McCain, but McCain is the status quo and every time you're the opposite of the status quo, you're going to have a risk factor with your campaign. Clinton was risky, too.

Just saying.

[CJCRANE]

16. I know

you can view it there, just as the NYT said that people could email them to find out more details about McCain's alleged impropriety with the lobbyist - but let's face it - the majority of the audience won't do that.

And I disagree (even with the Obama campaign) - I think Republicans are more risky. Once Bush was installed we were told don't worry "the adults are in charge" - and look what they proceeded to do! (Hopefully I don't need to write a list for DUers).

After what the Bush-Cheney administration and their Republican enablers have done I don't think they should ever be trusted again.

[Skwmom]

9. MSNBC is almost non-stop cheerlead for McCain, bash Obama.

It is so over the top, I've had people tell me that they turn it off.

Your statement that "the media has been fairly decent toward him......" is ABSURD.

[Drunken Irishman]

12. I'm sure some people feel this way.

But I don't see it.

When I hear "Is this a game changer for Obama?" from an MSNBC talking head, I realize they're not fully carrying McCain's water.

When I hear someone compare this speech to Kennedy or Reagan, I know they're doing what Obama wants.

If the media wanted to tear down Obama, they'd tear him down like they did Kerry. They would have said this whole speech and whole trip was foolish, but they didn't. Outside of a few media members, the press has had some really good things to say about Obama's trip.

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. But don't you see, she was simply speaking the truth. It was just as true

and relevant that he "look(ed)s presidential, loose, happy and most importantly, at ease with world leaders" as your own matter-of-fact statement that "she (the reporter) was blonde, pretty attractive and fairly good on Obama".

He doesn't act like a politician, always mindful to keep the public sweet. Somebody wrote on here that he or she was at an Obama rally when somebody in the audience passed out. However, instead of burbling apologies to the audience while trying desperately to keep their attention on himself and what he had to say, as he watched the paramedics carry the person away, he said nothing, but just watched with rapt and presumably concerned interest, as if the audience were not there.

That is "class". But not a "class act", however. It signifies integrity, an impressive degree of it, particularly rare among people pursuing careers in public life. You could imagine Mandela acting in as dignified a manner, but personally, though I personally like a number of politicians of the left, I can't think of anyone else in public life with a level of integrity that would translate into such a dignified aplomb, in such a situation. As somebody once said, sanctity lies not in our conduct in the big things in life, but how we behave in the seemingly small things.

Obama's charisma is of a kind that some people seem to be born with, but I think that does them an injustice. I just hope that he is allowed to govern well without being obstructed at every juncture by the forces of darkness.

[dsomuah]

19. The media is right to fawn over Obama

Everybody knows the old media adage "Man bites dog is a bigger story than dog bites man"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_(journalism)

Obama represents a constant running "Man bites dog" story, whereas McCain is a case of "Dog bites man" his candidacy is so unique in so many ways. Obama is not your normal candidate, and his campaign hasn't been normal. He has broken all the esablished "rules" of campaigning. He built a campaign that relies primarily on small donors and small donations for his funding, and yet outraised all his opponents. The media thought the race was over in November of 2007 because no one has ever polled over 50% of likely voter support and not gone on to win the nomination. Obama changed that and suprised the media. Every one thought Hillary would deliver the knockout blow on Super Tuesday, but it didn't happen. Shocker. Everyone expected Obama's relative lack of experience to count against him, it hasn't. Based on his primary results, the media expected that he would have a hard time winning over the latino community, but he is outpolling McCain 2 to 1 with them. Everyone expected him to have a hard time winning the election because he wasn't expected to do well in the traditional battleground states. But he has created new battleground states, and new battleground demographics. Hell the man has even managed to turn Arizona into a close race. Obama consistently defies expectations. He is a good news story, so the media follows him around. It's that simple. Obama is a case of man bites dog, new, different, doesn't happen every day. McCain is everyday occurences: Dog bites man. Man bites dog is always a bigger story than dog bites man.

[Joe Chi Minh]

20. A very succinct explanation, if I may say so.

[LostInAnomie]

21. Here is what I see on MSNBC when they discuss Obama.

1. They start with some event that Obama has taken part in.
2. Then, the newsreader says something like "But, some say..."
3. Next, the newsreader will invite a Republican "strategist" or McCain campaign spokesperson on to discuss the "Some say..." opinion.
4. Newsreader will ineffectually (because they are very uninformed) ask the spokesperson a follow-up which is really a set up for the next talking point.
5. Newsreader will thank the spokesperson for their time.

It may be true that the Obama campaign is getting more coverage, but the majority of the time it is through the lens of the "Some say...", and then framed by Republicans.

[AlinPA]

26. Bingo. nt

[retread]

22. An unbiased, objective appraisal of the two candidates WOULD appear to some as fawning. n/t

[bulloney]

31. Amen. With the oversaturation of RW talk radio over the last 15 years, any amount of objectivity

will look "biased" toward the the Democrat.

I think that's the basis of a lot of peoples' argument that the media are bias. They spend the day listening to the Becks, Limbaughs, Hannitys, et al with their spin on the current events and that becomes their template or baseline for news objectivity.

[mwb970]

34. THAT is exactly right!

Picture two guys, a visionary and a jerk. The visionary speaks and everyone cheers. The jerk speaks and everyone cringes in embarrassment and shame. Objective news reports point out that one guy is a visionary and the other is a jerk. They are then charged with unfairly "fawning" over the visionary and unfairly "attacking" the jerk.

They're just doing their jobs, folks.

[rufus dog]

23. It is not one off instances it is the general theme.

And after Scottie's admission regarding Fox getting talking points daily I believe it is a much wider distribution based upon the 'same' talking points being spewed by the media.

The media took a study that said Obama was mentioned more times than McCain, thus Obama gets more positive media coverage. That is a deeply flawed premise. I would bet if you looked at the press (U.S. and Worldwide) over the past fifty years and counted up how many times Hitler was mentioned as compared to Roosevelt and Churchill, Hitler would total more than the other two combined. Does that mean Hitler got more positive media coverage? Someone posted a good one yesterday regarding Tiger and Mickelson coverage. Tiger gets more because he is better. (although I think a better analogy would be Tiger and Happy Gilmore, one is great and one is a fucking joke)

Obama is making news, he finally moved the bar on Afghanistan and Iraq for the better. I think it would be extremely difficult for anyone in close proximity not being awestruck with Obama's ability to influence others.

[bulloney]

32. Here are two examples of where Obama has gotten more coverage than McCain:

Rev. Wright's remarks vs. McCain's endorsements from Hagee and Parsley. Wright's controversial remarks were played and Obama was linked to Wright ad nauseum for weeks. McCain SOUGHT the endorsements from Parsley and Hagee and coverage was negligible even though Parsley and Hagee spewed more hate-mongering than Wright.

Example 2: Michelle Obama's "Whitey" non-event. Even though there was no recording to confirm the accusation, this non-story received nonstop coverage for days. Cindy McCain was a drug addict who acquired her fix illegally in some cases. Coverage was minimal.

Yeah, Obama got more coverage in these and other cases. Was it positive?

I always laughed when I hear Limpballs and his dildoheads bitching about the liberal media. Do they realize how ironically foolish they sound? Dumb question. Needs no answer.

[jazzjunkysue]

27. Pundit: "If McCain can produce 200,000 for a speech, we'll cover it."

The press is trying, but, what, exactly are they supposed to cover?

[JaneQPublic]

33. Exactly. If one candidate does a fantastic job campaigning and the other does a crappy job...

...then it's not the role of the news media to present both so they appear equally favorable.

Good journalism dictates that the news story is accurate, not that it "evens out" two campaigns that are on opposite ends of every conceivable gauge of success.

[WinkyDink]

30. Nothing is stopping McCain from making the same journey.