Post by Woody Williams on Jul 25, 2008 13:53:44 GMT -5
The Media's Bias Toward Barack Obama Will Hurt Him
By Bonnie Erbe
When the media start backing away from supporting a candidate or a cause, read this as a sign that media elite understand the public is seeing through the media's ruse of neutrality.
Witness this Web story at newsbusters.org/node/22753?q=blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/07/21/andrea-obama-trip-what-some-would-call-fake-interviews , which includes a link to video of a live segment on MSNBC. One of the commentators waxes poetic about Sen. Barack Obama's rave visuals on his current trip abroad. (Quite frankly, I thought the video of Obama shooting hoops with the troops made him look less credible, not more.) The other takes a deep breath, steps back, and admits that the Obama campaign has manipulated media coverage during his trip to an extent not witnessed in recent presidential campaigns. And that's saying something.
Now check these new numbers from Rasmussen Reports at www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/belief_growing_that_reporters_are_trying_to_help_obama_win showing the public is growing increasingly annoyed with media outlets that are so blatantly pro-Obama:
If you peruse the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking numbers on the same website, you'll see that Obama and Sen. John McCain are running almost neck and neck. A month ago, Obama was a solid and consistent 5 points ahead of McCain. If the media keep feigning neutrality but treating Obama as an infallible messiah, it will ultimately redound to McCain's benefit. The American public does not suffer terrorists, fools, or biased media gladly.
The Obama campaign's arrogance in dealing with the media is not helping the candidate. Barring a reporter from a seat on the press plane at
latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-newyorker.html produced a flood of Internet bad press. And it makes the candidate and his handlers look thin-skinned.
Perhaps that's exactly what they are...
By Bonnie Erbe
When the media start backing away from supporting a candidate or a cause, read this as a sign that media elite understand the public is seeing through the media's ruse of neutrality.
Witness this Web story at newsbusters.org/node/22753?q=blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/07/21/andrea-obama-trip-what-some-would-call-fake-interviews , which includes a link to video of a live segment on MSNBC. One of the commentators waxes poetic about Sen. Barack Obama's rave visuals on his current trip abroad. (Quite frankly, I thought the video of Obama shooting hoops with the troops made him look less credible, not more.) The other takes a deep breath, steps back, and admits that the Obama campaign has manipulated media coverage during his trip to an extent not witnessed in recent presidential campaigns. And that's saying something.
Now check these new numbers from Rasmussen Reports at www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/belief_growing_that_reporters_are_trying_to_help_obama_win showing the public is growing increasingly annoyed with media outlets that are so blatantly pro-Obama:
If you peruse the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking numbers on the same website, you'll see that Obama and Sen. John McCain are running almost neck and neck. A month ago, Obama was a solid and consistent 5 points ahead of McCain. If the media keep feigning neutrality but treating Obama as an infallible messiah, it will ultimately redound to McCain's benefit. The American public does not suffer terrorists, fools, or biased media gladly.
The Obama campaign's arrogance in dealing with the media is not helping the candidate. Barring a reporter from a seat on the press plane at
latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-newyorker.html produced a flood of Internet bad press. And it makes the candidate and his handlers look thin-skinned.
Perhaps that's exactly what they are...