<p>Sorry, fairness and amount of coverage are different things.</p>
<p>I wish that the media actually analyzed the policy differences between the candidates, but news and entertainment seem to have merged. And Obama is benefitting from this trend both because he is a new candidate instead of one who has been a candidate before and because he is the first African-American candidate to run for office. </p>
<p>I thought Fox news was the most watched/trusted program (as per a CC poster)? Is that staffed by liberals? Is the WSJ which reported --erroneously as it turns out–that Obama had raised $22 million in June a liberal newspaper? It sure got that figure quoted in a lot of other news sources. The NYT is a liberal paper; the Boston Globe is liberal. But what about others? From whom do ordinary Americans get their news? Rush Limbaugh? Lou Dobbs? Are they liberals?
There ARE liberals in the news media; but do they truly dominate?</p>
<p>I think that liberals in the media was very much a post-Watergate phenomenon. But it’s been nearly 40 years ago and no one has really done a study of the political beliefs of the people from whom Americans derive their information (and these no longer are restricted to the print media and TV news programs).</p>
<p>zm, news coverage is relative. At the various times McCain was overseas, Obama-Clinton was still the bigger story. And now, Obama, a black candidate whose father was born a Muslim, visiting Muslim countries is much bigger “news” than anything McCain is going to say here about the economy, like it or not. </p>
<p>If McCain wants to take the spotlight off Obama, he’ll have to come up with a bigger story to trump – maybe naming his VP?</p>
<p>I think it this context, they are connected. The message sent by the coverage of Obama here is that this is a state visit and he is already the representative of the US. I think you make a lot of valid points in general, but, again, with the greatest respect, this particular situation is indefensible.</p>
<p>The Washington Post, NYT, LA Times are all liberal papers. Go to Borders, Barnes and those are the papers you will find in every store.</p>
<p>Let’s go back to the dem primary…wasn’t Hillary complaining about the same thing (no coverage for her when she is delivering a policy speech, but Obama buys a coffee at 7-11 and it is plastered everywhere)</p>
<p>Finally, Rush is on the radio during work hours, Lou is on tv after work. Then add in the big 3 who have nightly news and morning programs. Rush and Fox will never reach as many Americans as Lou Dobbs, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, NYT, LA Times, Washington Post, London Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS,ABC, and NBC!</p>
<p>There was a study done a few months ago, and only @10% of the media declare themselves as republicans. The story was a big deal b/c as journalists they actually donated to campaigns, which is taboo</p>
<p>I completely, vehemently disagree (but ain’t life grand that we can?). There can always be an excuse found to provide a platform for one candidate or the other. But I say again that the networks have a professional responsibility to provide balance and equal coverage. What for the hundreds of millions of dollars raised if not to buy media coverage? The three networks are giving Obama a gift beyond measure, with absolutely no pretense of offering the same to McCain and I object.</p>
<p>I just want to add that part of the rock-star image of Obama is because he’s something different. And part of what energized the Dems this election is that their two best candidates were different. When the GOP nominates something other than a white male, people – including the media – will be falling all over themselves about that, too.</p>
<p>^^ You don’t say, I completely agree with everything you say. But I still stand by the positions that (a) the presence of the three anchors creates news, and (b) in light of the fact that they do MAKE news, the networks have a responsibility to provide equal coverage. This isn’t a little difference. They’re going to give Obama priceless coverage for days and nothing to McCain. In my mind, that’s meddling or tampering with the electoral process. I’m not speaking to motivation here, but, rather, to responsibility.</p>
<p>Okay let’s put him on as ABC Nightly News as the anchor! </p>
<p>Truly it is not about the time slot, it is about the ability to reach the audience. Rush is on AM and XM, but he is not on CNN or Fox, it is a limited audience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely right…afterall with GW the media fell all over themselves days prior to the election about his alcohol and Laura killing someone!</p>
<p>So if Condi decided to run, do you actually believe the media wouldn’t call it a 3rd term, and they would follow her around like Obama…how about Kay Bailey Hutchinson, would she get the attention?</p>
<p>zm, I agree that the presence of the anchors gives the event great weight. Truthfully, I have not been paying a lot of attention to the race in weeks and so wasn’t even aware the anchors were going to follow him around. I’m not terribly interested in the back-and-forth at this point. When the VPs are picked I’ll pay attention again, and during the conventions.</p>
<p>bandp, if station owners thought they could make money by giving him a better time slot, they would. If Fox thought it would make money off of Rush, it would give him lots of air time.</p>
<p>And I don’t like to get involved in going round and round on these things. I don’t think I’ll change anyone’s mind, and I’m not sure anyone will change mine. So I won’t even go the route of Condi and KBHutchison (just FYI, only one n; lots of people get that wrong) and why they would or wouldn’t get more coverage (though I don’t think Condi or KBH have the WOW factor at this point either – old news (Condi) and now both of them would look like tokenism (double tokenism for Condi!).</p>
<p>Adding I got logged off for taking so long to write this (easily distracted by a phone call), but I saw marite’s response and wanted to add that a wise man once told me that journalism is a business that performs a public service. So smart. Without wise business decisions, there is no forum for the public service.</p>
<p>My point was the amount of listeners that Rush has is very small when you compare him to all of the other media outlets. In total the morning shows before we all go off to work have at least @ 13 million viewers per day, add in the print media who read the papers and do not watch the shows, and then the 20 million who watch 1 of the big 3 on any given night! That is also not including MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News…I would guess that at least 23 million per night! Rush isn’t even near that amount!</p>
<p>Youdon’tsay,</p>
<p>truthfully I am tired of the presidential campaign, and feel that we need as Americans to address this process… it is now way too long!<br>
I am more infuriated on how the media defends their actions. Don’t tell me you are giving equal time. McCain won the nom back in early winter, the dems fought it out. McCain has done several trips to Iraq, it’s the 1st for Obama. It seems as McCain is being punished. When the news becomes about the anchors going and not the candidate, than we must admit that something is amiss!</p>
<p>I am an Obama supporter and I agree the media is biased in favor of Obama. </p>
<p>But I do not think the bias is just because the people who control the media are trying to give him a competitive edge. IMHO, the bias is simply because Obama is more likely to cause people to tune in. A man who can attract 75,000 people to come in and hear him talk live, can also attract a lot of viewers to switch on the TV, or at least not change the channel. Obama is new, charismatic and ‘exciting’, while McCain is kind of boring. I really like McCain’s speeches because they are usually substantive and I like much of what he says. But boy, his delivery is dull and gets tiring very fast. </p>
<p>Why do you think there aren’t too many TV shows starring 70 year old men? Because they don’t make for good TV.</p>
<p>It is not about politics, it is about the ratings.</p>
<p>^That’s what I’ve been trying to say. There is bias and there is liberal bias. The bias I see is due to the “new kid on the block” phenomenon rather than because the media are filled with people who are Obama voters (for all I know, a lot of the liberals in the media would have been Clinton voters or Edwards voters).</p>
<p>As for Rush Limbaugh, his station must think there are lots of listeners out there who like him, otherwise it would not have given him that huge contract.
I don’t watch the evening news because I’m invariably cooking or eating dinner. I don’t believe in watching TV and trying not to burn food at the same time or watching TV while eating. Dinners are reserved for family discussions. I listen to news in the morning (but not to Limbaugh).</p>
<p>I don’t have cable so I think that’s how I’ve managed to escape getting too immersed in it all. I’m sure some of y’all see/hear much more than I do. I will agree that if any of the major networks are claiming they have given equal coverage to McCain and Obama through this long process, they are nuts. But again, it’s in part because McCain’s nomination got wrapped up early and so he became “old news” (no pun intended!), while Obama stayed fresh because of the ongoing uncertainty of the outcome. Now, however, coverage should become more balanced, but I still think it’s not (though getting better). And that’s in part due to Obama’s relative newness to the national stage. </p>
<p>But also, remember a lot of the “extra” coverage given to Obama was because of the Wright brouhaha. More coverage? Yes. Positive coverage? No. I am quite sure that he would have been happy to have less coverage at times. :)</p>
<p>Still, if you are a McCain backer I can see where this is frustrating to no end.</p>
<p>I actually think it’s both, but in any case, should stewards of the public airwaves have no obligation to treat candidates the same? Obama is receiving the equivalent of a large campaign contribution that McCain has no access to. I hope we all remember this when the next Congress attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.</p>
<p>Remember McCain’s format is totally different, he does town halls and not stadiums (my guess is b/c he can’t compete on thaat level…Bush did smaller venues compared to Kerry and still won!)</p>
<p>It is more titillating to see a stadium of 50K+ than McCain answering questions!</p>
<p>The truth is it is about ratings, and I get that, but I am angry that they defend their actions by saying they are not bias! They know that they have an influence in the US with the news, than do your job…for every minute Obama gets, give 1 to McCain…for every negative piece about MCCain give 1 to Obama…otherwise you are nothing better than Star or National Enquirer and writing articles to get $$$</p>
<p>Again I am with zoosermom…we as Americans need to demand more from the Hill than they are giving…if I hear 1 more time it’s GWs fault from Pelosi or Reid I will spit, b/c IMO they could change things, but they don’t want to be blamed. Sorry, but Byrd, Kennedy, Stevenson, Dodd, Biden and anyone else who has been on the Hill for decades need to go…all they do is point fingers and accomplish absolutely nothing. </p>
<p>The most ironical part is the same people who will vote for Obama b/c he is about change in West Virginia will vote for Byrd…That is definetely talking out both sides of your mouth! Same with MA and Kennedy, Del and Biden, etc. Be real how is Biden who has been in for 20+ yrs a change factor in DC?</p>
<p>Of course it’s about profits. I find it amusing that whenever the left is favored, the right screams, and whenever the right is favored, the left screams. We can all site examples of bias on almost all networks, and we’re all more sensitive to the bais that goes against our own.</p>
But what would they say? If your remember Obama’s Portland appearance, it was all about the numbers, not the speech itself. So what would they say about McCain’s town hall forums? That 200 people showed up? that there was no queue?</p>
<p>No problem here, but what I want and ask is that the big 3 be honest! Don’t say we give equal coverage, and we have no bias. Say here’s the fact, America wants to hear about Obama and so we are going to aim our broadcast to him. </p>
<p>What they are doing is slanting reports, again go to [Media</a> Research Center Home Page - 7/18/2008 1:13:21 PM](<a href=“http://www.mrc.org%5DMedia”>http://www.mrc.org), they are showing how the media reports on something and cherry picks the info. </p>
<p>For me I am really just ticked at the big 3, I now watch CNN and Fox, because they seem more balanced than NBC or CBS…I must admit I will tune in for a few minutes to ABC</p>