*BREAKING* Media Whores Support the Winner

[Xipe Totec]

Study: Media coverage has favored Obama campaign

NEW YORK – John McCain supporters who believe they haven't gotten a fair shake from the media during the Republican's candidacy against Barack Obama have a new study to point to. Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to in 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

ABC's "World News" had more balance than NBC's "Nightly News" or the "CBS Evening News," the group said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081101/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_media_2

Duh!

[Dennis Donovan]

1. Are you missing an "h" or another "n"?

;)

[Xipe Totec]

2. n. Thanks!

[Dennis Donovan]

8. I figured it was the "n" because it was about Obama...

About McCain? The "h" would've been appropos...:D

[Thrill]

3. Now they have an excuse to kiss McCain's ass more these last few days

[Xipe Totec]

6. For whatever reason,

the media are portraying Barack Obama as a better choice for president than John McCain, said Robert Lichter, a George Mason University professor and head of the center. "If you watch the evening news, you'd think you should vote for Obama."

Uh, yea...

[Bucky]

12. The facts have a well known left wing bias.

Also, if you read a newspaper, believe in science & mathematics, remember the last 8 years of your own life, or operate from a position of logical consistancy, you will be slanted toward Obama. Damn, that gotch media!!

[Aqaba]

4. ....

[pretzel4gore]

5. the pigmedia says they support Barack- they lie

nt

[Xipe Totec]

7. No, they roll over and present

Like Colin Powell, they endorse only after they're sure who's going to win.

[knixphan]

10. Zactly.

[Bucky]

9. The guy engaging in fact-free personality attacks while avoiding the issues gets less kudos? Really?

I'm stunned that the media would be so biased as to say more nice things about enthusiastic and hopeful throngs of supporters reshaping the political map than they have to say about the guy falsely calling his opponent a soft-on-terror socialist greenhorn.

It's like they don't even want to ignore objective reality any more. Sheesh.

[Xipe Totec]

11. You are a master of sarcasm

I bow to thee!

:applause:

[Cha]

14. Yeah, just to beef up their media-

whore cred$ they should have sucked up more to the one devoid of facts and heavy on smear attacks.

[Faygo Kid]

13. Yeah, and they gave Bush a free ride in two elections. Screw this.

Typical bullcrap that we have seen before.

Yes We Can, and Not This Time, Assholes.

[NC_Nurse]

15. Perhaps negativity breeds more negativity...and the complete LACK of coherent

policies could be a factor. I mean, what were they supposed to mention that was positive in the McLame/Palin camp?

[snake in the grass]

19. For crying out loud!

Please lay off McCain. Remember: he was a P.O.W.!

[NC_Nurse]

21. Oops, sorry!

NOT }(

[Sparkly]

16. Are they counting everytime the media reports Obama's successes in the polls, fundraising, etc.,

and the continuous screw-ups and freak-outs of the McCain campaign?

That would explain it.

[CitizenPatriot]

17. maybe because they ran an unprecedentedly ugly negative campaign?

hey, when you lie and attack and call people terrorists, even the conservative neo cons may feel compelled to denounce you.

this isn't apples to apples.

[EC]

18. Well, too bad for them

mccain gets a lot more coverage on his and her speeches, where they just show segments of Obama's they show the whole rally of mccain...I can't remember a morning I have gotten ready for work without mccain being featured on all the channels...until I give up and turn on SciFi channel to get ready for work to...

[democracy1st]

20. when you screw up like the McCain campaign you get negative press

what do they expect!!!

[Vinca]

22. McCain has been running the ugliest, nastiest, dirtiest campaign

in memory so why should he expect favorable coverage? Apparently the fog of defeat has burred the weeks and weeks of Rev. Wright 24/7 in the reich wing memory bank.

[nomaco-10]

23. OF COURSE the Obama campaign got more "positive" coverage...

They ran a more *POSITIVE* campaign. What are the mcsame people thinking? mcsame/phailin were an out of touch, slime driven duo that came across as two cartoon characters.

I'll bet if you added up the sheer minute by minute coverage of the two campaigns, mcclueless and moose breath would wins hands down. governor moose tracks alone took over the media attention and captivated many a news cycle with her zany antics and misspeaks.

Sorry if your side doesn't understand, you got plenty of coverage. The negative came in when your guy chose to pick an unvetted moran for his VP, a media whoring plumber for a spokesperson and he, himself faltered in every debate and even addressed crowds as "My fellow prisoners".

Get over it.

[kenny blankenship]

24. McCain has run a shitty campaign and half of the Repuke party will say so themselves

if only to vent their frustration and to distance themselves from his failure. That being the case only a broadcast media that was entirely on the McCain payroll could avoid sounding negative about him and his chances "on balance". If the media are being at all accurate many of their stories will touch on or center around McCain's difficulties and screw ups. Meanwhile Barack Obama has run a great campaign. There's no way the news won't look like it collectively evaluates Obama as the winning candidate-he's winning. That's reporting not editorializing. Meanwhile did the bean counters at CMPA take into account all the free access McCain and Palin have had for their campaign stops that Obama isn't getting? How do they weight all the things the media ignores, omits, or doesn't do - such as investigate whether McCain and Palin can be criticized themselves for all the things they accuse Obama and Biden of? Not to call all the CMPA's people liars for their chosen line of work, but there's really no objective way to rate media objectivity. Their line of work may be fine, but reducing the subject to quantitative scores (eg 65% positive comments for A vs. 36% positive comments for B) is a lot of crap.

[Xipe Totec]

25. All that is very true

Add to that the fact that the sharks smell chum in the water...

and it is going to be a media feeding frenzy!

:evilgrin:

[Overseas]

26. Who is the Center for Media and Public Affairs? The last study by another group

showed that while Obama got a higher story count, there was much more negative coverage of his campaign.

McHate got more favorable coverage even though there were fewer stories overall.