<p>Okay now that Obama is going to Iraq it is starting to make news about the media bias on how he is covered compared to McCain</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to admit the big 3 need to accept the fact that they are in the boat with Obama and not being fair and balanced in regards to McCain. How they scream we are not leaning the news in one direction, but give no acknowledgement to McCain is not fair and balanced.</p>
<p>This is surprising…how? Media is run by liberals.</p>
<p>What’s the point in the media covering McCain’s “trip in a bubble”? Surrounded by security and handlers, he hardly got an accurate picture of Iraq. Why should any more newsprint or air time be wasted on that PR stunt?</p>
<p>And how is Obama’s trip any less of a stunt? No one can ever again say with any credibility that there is no media bias.</p>
<p>zoosermom beat me to it.</p>
<p>The media have become totally irrelevant as far as I am concerned.</p>
<p>Media bias?</p>
<p>Obama is the new boy on the block. Whatever he does is news–just as McCain was in 2000.<br>
However, considering that McCain had been taunting Obama for not traveling overseas and having limited foreign policy experience, it seems churlish to criticize for going overseas.
I found the NYT article about his foreign policy shop very interesting. Like the rest of his campaign, good organizational structure, lots of different viewpoints but little drama.</p>
<p>I’m not saying Obama’s trip to Iraq isn’t also a PR stunt. Let’s see what the media coverage will be since no details have been released. McCain has been pushing him to go there. Obama has been advised to seek out knowledgeable people and I hope he’ll get some useful information. One can hope.</p>
<p>I don’t think he is criticizing him for going overseas, I think he is criticizing the media circus surrounding it. This trip is just like American Idol; a whole lot of noise but little substance.</p>
<p>Media envy?</p>
<p>^^ Maybe. But the difference in coverage between similar trips is striking, and the media does have an impact.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t call it envy, in the long run, substance will triumph over style. With all the media fawning over Obama, the race is still very close, signifying that a lot of people are not buying into this Obama hope and change rhetoric. </p>
<p>The media have lost all objectivity, their role have been turned into a propaganda machine for the two parties. The basic rule for the media is to be objective, once they fail to adhere to this rule, they are just like the any propaganda machine around the world. </p>
<p>Some of them even have the temerity to question China Communist Party media propaganda.</p>
<p>Actually, what I have found surprising is that no major media have analyzed how McCain’s foreign policy pronouncements have been rendered obsolete by the new Bush policies in Afghanistan and Iran. State’s Fred Kagan has a good analysis of the differences between Obama and McCain in this regard.
I think that McCain had not made such a deal of Obama going abroad, the media would not have made such a huge deal either. It would have made a big deal–the fact is that Obama is hugely popular abroad–and McCain is not. The media have to take that into account. But the trip would not have been such a circus.</p>
<p>As for media bias, is the New Yorker cover a sign of pro-Obama bias? or the article by Ryan Lizza?</p>
<p>Marite, I think for McCain and Obama to have similar trips close together in time and have them treated so differently IS telling. I’m not sure how that is even in dispute. </p>
<p>The New Yorker coverage was an example of a sophisticated media entity being entirely too cute by half. It was satire, it was just too much. The intent was clearly to lampoon Obama’s critics, not the man himsef.</p>
<p>I guess what it is that bugs me, beside the lack of parity, is the fact that the three networks are treating this trip like a state visit. It is not.</p>
<p>Zmom:</p>
<p>But McCain has been making many trips. One more is not news. That’s what I mean by not being the new kid on the block. It’s the nature of the beast.
And because he criticized Obama for not going to Iraq, he has invited scrutiny of Obama’s trip there–and in consequence, his own highly circumscribed walk through Bhagdad earlier. </p>
<p>As well, when he goes abroad, he does not attract crowds the way Obama is most likely to do. The media would be nuts not to take all these into account.
Does that mean that Obama gets more coverage? Yes it does. Does that mean the media are biased in his favor? Not clear. The media have had a very close relationship with McCain thanks to his policy of easy access. Obama has been more distant–and reporters have complained about it.</p>
<p>I think we should distinguish between amount of coverage and bias in favor of or against someone. I’ll bet that Obama should does not appreciate the New Yorker’s latest issue, from cover to inside.</p>
<p>I agree that all this coverage will be more about style than substance. But an analysis of the policy differences between McCain and Obama may not be to the former’s advantage as the WH is finally adopting some policies that were advocated by Obama quite a long time ago (devoting more resources to Afghanistan; engaging in dialogue with Iran).</p>
<p>What really bothers me is how the mainstream media argues that they cover both candidates equally and the reality is they need to acknowledge that they are treating them differently. I think it will be interesting to see how they cover him since the honchos have already had to come out and explain why they are covering Obama and didn’t for McCain…can we remember what happened to Dan!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1st off McCain is constantly criticized for being so open with the media…he is known to go and hang with the pool on all of his flights, unlike Obama who rarely goes back to the pool…so rare it makes news that he went and spoke to them on the plane!
2nd McCain gets criticized for going to Columbia and Canada while he should be concerned about the economy here. Obama goes to Germany and not a biggie!
3rd McCain has gone over quite frequently and he doesn’t care if reporters are around him, he is there for feet on the ground fact finding, Obama is going with a staggering 300 advisors</p>
<p>From the drudge
</p>
<p>Let’s remember most likely none of these 300 people are working pro-bono, in other words for all of you who donated money to his campaign, that’s where some of the money went. If Obama needs 300 foreign policy advisers for his campaign, how many will he need when running the country?</p>
<p>Marite, I respectfully submit to you that I think the big three networks have to make a concerted effort to treat both candidates fairly and provide at least the appearance of equal coverage to both. Both candidates traveled abroad after winning the partys’ nominations, so their first trips abroad as the potential president should have been treated the same and that’s not even in the ballpark of happening. McCain shouldn’t be punished or marginalized because Obama has less experience than he. Which is a valid point for the election, and the media shouldn’t be in the business of removing one candidate’s most important characteristic. As far as the New Yorker, Newsweek has been very tough on McCain, which is fine. The New Yorker issue is only noteworthy because it is unusual.</p>
<p>Oh, and one other thing. I don’t necessarily think this is a manifestation of the fact that the three anchors favor Obama (although I think the preponderance of their work shows that they do), but as you say it is exciting for them, which is what they thrive on. However, as beneficiaries of the public airwaves it behooves them to conduct themselves in a (dare I say it?) fair and balanced manner, which is not the case with the coverage of this trip. This situation is a blight upon the credibility of those networks and lots of people should be hanging their heads in shame.</p>
<p>Go to [Media</a> Research Center Home Page - 7/18/2008 10:55:02 AM](<a href=“http://www.mrc.org%5DMedia”>http://www.mrc.org) this is a site dedicated to trying to put the medias feet to the fire. They are acknowledging the facts that the media forget to mention. or how it is slanted in a way that people are influenced believing it is fact. I admit I watch Fox and CNN, listen to AirAmerica and America Right on XM b/c the only way to make a decision is to hear both sides…I can’t watch MSNBC without bile filling my throat!</p>
<p>When McCain gets @30min. air time in June compared to over 100 for Obama there is no fairness. </p>
<p>If ABC/NBC/CBS comes out and says Obama attracts more, thus we can charge more for the advertising b/c of ratings…than fine. Just don’t say you are not bias, when the numbers are proving the fact that they are covering Obama @4 minutes more to every 1 of McCain!</p>
<p>Here is an interesting article from MRC
</p>
<p>Wow so the liberal think tank is on 2 of 3 of the national/mainstream networks within days, but the conservative think tank has not been cited for 3 yrs!</p>
<p>If we all use the media to obtain info, and the networks don’t interview the other side how is that helping people to make an informed decision? I see it more as us being sheep and the media is leading us into the pen!</p>
<p>BTW you can link to jibjab from there for their new comedic ad!</p>
<p>I call a bit of BS on this. </p>
<p>In March – and even in early June – Obama, potentially the first black presidential nominee, and Clinton, potentially the first female presidential nominee, were still locked in a battle. McCain makes another trip overseas. Which is the bigger news!!! Of course, McCain’s trips weren’t given as much play when his nomination was all wrapped up. There still was a major, historic battle going on here at home.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well Obama’s got it locked up now, so why is it news? Also, don’t you think the anchors are creating news here by their very presence? If the networks are sending their top resources, you know they’re going to gets tons of air play.</p>