Reputable Think Tank Finds Media Tougher on Obama

Since the close of the Democratic primary, Senator Barack Obama has received 166 minutes of air time as opposed to Senator John McCain who received 67 minutes, according to the Tydall Report. But quantity does not necessarily spell out quality, argues Dr. S. Robert Lichter, founder of Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University.

According to James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2008:

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) surveyed both conservative and liberal media sources, including the “Special Report with Brit Hume,” “O’Reilly Show” and “Fox News.” It found that “Special Report” was tougher than the other Fox shows, constituting 79% of the statements about Barack Obama to be negative, compared to the 61% of the statements about John McCain to be negative.

CMPA was founded in 1985, and considers itself non-partisan and nonprofit. It has published numerous reports on the media which are used in U.S Congresspersons. Although it is self-described non-partisan, there are accusations to the contrary. Surprisingly, it comes from liberals.

In the same article James Rainey continues,

It might be tempting to discount the latest findings by Lichter’s researchers. But this guy is anything but a liberal toady.

In 2006, conservative cable showmen Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly had Lichter, a onetime Fox News contributor, on their programs. They heralded his findings in the congressional midterm election: that the networks were giving far more positive coverage to the Democrats.

More proof of the liberal domination of the media, Beck and O’Reilly declared.

Now the same researchers have found something less palatable to those conspiracy theorists.

In addition to Lichter’s ties to Fox News, the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) challenges the CMPA’s nonpartisan claim based on the argument that much of its funding comes from conservative sources.

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    To say ABC, NBC, and CBS were tougher on Obama is complete B.S.

    I think im done reading MIchael’s post from how the last couple have been.

  • I am simply reporting the recent buzz regarding the presidential elections– but did some background checking on the actual authenticity of CMPA’s political position (as noted in the post). If you feel it is B.S, take it up with CMPA.

    Lichter was speaking about the data, and I have seen nothing to display his findings were false. But, we are all, in the end, the deciders of information.

  • Frank

    Obama_Sucks,

    In stead of shouting out loud that “the media” is liberal somebody/group has decided to research your assertion. Now that the results dont fit in to your opinion you call the results B.S,
    Your not behaving like an adult O_S

  • Babs

    Michael, are you going to do a post about the $100,000 plus that NBC has contributed to Obama? I believe they are investigating to see if it’s illegal.

    And I think you know that this “study” is in conflict with the majority of reputable studies on the same subject. O_S is right on this one, you’re looking for sources to support your candidate, and for the first time on site, it’s showing.

  • Frank

    So Babs,
    Does this mean that you dont believe the results of this research?
    Im thinking that any research that shows that the media isnt an Obamafan or something in that context will always be treated by you as a flaud research. Am i wrong?

  • Frank

    Babs,
    I would like to know more about NBC contributing money. Whats your source?
    no offence, just curious

  • Josh

    Frank, the Republican party doesn’t run on research or intelligence, they run on gut instinct, flat beer, and hatred for all those who don’t think/act like they do. Didn’t you know that?

    Babs, are you really going to sit there and trash on Michael and act like Nate and CG are the paradigm of unbiased reporting? Give me a break…

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    Yeah Josh you got us there, that is a perfect take on the Republican party. And I believe a good analysis of the democratic party would be: a party that whines and complains and never gets anything done, oh yeah and a party who’s last president had an affair and lied in court, and lastly a party of downright pussy’s Hey Josh and Frank didnt you know that?

  • OBAMA_SUCKS, while I find it hard to believe as well that the media is tougher on Obama, Michael is simply reporting an interesting study. You don’t have to agree with it but that doesn’t mean it’s some kind of biased post because it presents a view contrary to your own.

    I see it as being plausible simply because Obama has had more media coverage in general than McCain. Therefore, one has to assume that with more coverages comes more good and bad scrutiny.

    I’d say if there is a bias, it’s probably that the media has been covering Obama MORE than McCain.

  • Josh

    O.S., I’m not sure you can call a group of people “pussies” because they don’t have an irrational hatred of and/or a wish to kill off an entire ethnic group of people. You know, I thought we were all being nice about this, we liberals could bring back the term “baby-killer” you know. I mean, the Republicans and the military have murdered over half a million Iraqi civilians in this ridiculous war. So if you can term liberals “pussies” because they don’t want to kill innocent men, women, and children for no good, verifiable reason, go right ahead. I’d much rather be a “pussy” than a murderous war criminal like you republicans.

  • Babs

    Frank, I don’t have time to give you all the sources of that I could, so I’ll just give you one. Here:

    http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080725.asp#6

  • Christopher Schwinger

    It really doesn’t matter to me, since Obama and McCain would both take us into one world government.

  • Raymond

    This information obviously came directly out of a cracked out squirrel’s ass. What planet are these people living on?! Are we watching the same television networks?

    Barack Obama has been dubbed the Jesus Christ of 2008 by the mainstream television press, and anyone who is unable to see that is one of two things:

    1.) A moron who is not paying attentin

    2.)A Barack Obama supporter who will defend their candidate no matter what may happen.

    (I personally feel that 1 and 2 are synonomous.)

    In any event, Obama enjoyed an unholy amount of favorable press coverage during the Primary Season, much to the detriment of his leading Democrat contender, Senator Clinton. Several months ago The Center For Media Studies released data from their study which reported that Obama had received favorable press coverage somewhere in the high 80’s, percentage wise. Senator Clinton had received favorable press coverage in the very low 50’s. This was not covered on any of the major news networks.

    No matter what you think of those two candidates, fair is fair, and unfair is unfair. Obama was treated like the media darling in the Primaries, and don’t think that Jeremiah Wright was bad coverage! The media was very crafty in covering that story. They got the benefit of APPEARING tough on Obama, while actually not criticizing HIM directly. It was a clever move that made his supporters cry fowl, when in fact the media was spending their ammo on Obama by slandering a man close to him, while leaving Obama intact. It provided us with the illusion of fair coverage that leveled Obama with Senator Clinton’s Bosnia debacle. It’s a formula that worked and most people in this country were too naive to pick up on it. Nice try, guys. This is just one example of how the media is trying to swing this election in his favor.

    EVERY TIME that I watch a major Television news broadcast, I witness an anchor or a pundit making a snide and patronizing remark about Senator John McCain. The tenor of the press coverage granted to Senator McCain has been largely dismissive and has sought to marginalize him in the eyes of the viewing public. Gaffs made by McCain are given two to three days in a news cycle, while clips of Obama literally stuttering his way through a foreign policy question are replaced with footage from his rallies comprised of cheering rich white people.

    Obama has changed his position and outright LIED during his campaign dozens of times. We hear relatively nothing about his voting to give the Tele-Communications corperations immunity after he said publicly (20+ times) that he would not vote to grant Phone Companies immunity. The media covered it for an hour or two and then returned to painting John McCain out as a senile man who is all but handicapped and should be euthenized.

    We heard very little about Obama voting to reauthorize the Patriot Act after he said that he wouldn’t, but we DID hear about Liberman whispering a correction in Senator McCain’s ear while overseas. We heard very little about Obama voting for Dick Cheney’s Energy Bill which was comprised in secret and written by the oil companies, but we DID here about Senator McCain changing his position on drilling under the veil of “flip flopping”.

    Get with it people. The Media has found their golden boy novelty candidate in the form of Obama. A minority who speaks with pretty words and absolves their white guilt. The mainstream press will do whatever it takes to get this man elected, including destroy the legacy of Senator Clinton and Senator McCain; and we’re just getting started.

  • IndiMinded

    Can’t we all just agree that the media is a bunch of circus clowns cum news reporters? Positive coverage just doesn’t hold audiences so well as negative coverage does. Since when has the news been overwhelmed in positive coverage about ANYTHING?

    God bless C-span, the only real news tv left. It may be duller than the blade of a plastic knife, but at least they don’t let the likes of Bill o’ Reilly or Keith Olbermann pretend they’re in the journalism business.

    It’s become cliche to attack the media, but truthfully I think they deserve worse than they get.

  • Grey

    I can’t help but find it comical that people are biased with regards to how biased the media is. It’s like adding a coat of red paint to rose colored glasses- people are way past a modicum of tint in the way they view things.

    Personally, I don’t think there’s a viable way to measure media bias. One could look at the amount of air time, sure, but whether or not the media is actually acting on some sort of personal opinion of the candidates is hard to grasp. Even the statistics in the article regarding what percent of the comments made about each candidate were positive or negative is relatively intangible- who can say their opinion of positive and negative is not unbiased in and of itself.

    I will say this- I did a quick search on the LA Times guy who reported the story and the agency conducting the study, and it seems that they’re more or less non-partisan. If anything, the CMPA (who conducting the research) has been accused of being conservatively biased, it’s founder being a Fox News contributor.

    Thus, the results of the study seem pretty unbiased, or as unbiased as they can be on such an abstract topic. I’m sorry Babs, but based upon what I read of your source and the content of the articles themselves, I don’t think your source can be trusted as an outlet of unbiased news.

  • Grey

    Also, I think people should take a closer look on the study done- they acknowledge the fact that media covers Barack more (to put it lightly), but they’re saying that the statements made about him are more negative than positive in comparison to McCain.

    A majority of the statements above seem like they were made before the reader even got past the title.

  • Babs

    Grey, I read it, I just disagree with it.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=u6CSix3Dy04&feature=user

  • Grey

    One last note: I did another quick search and I found that other news outlets reported information pretty synonymous to Michael’s, so really, don’t hang the messenger.

    I tried to find as reputable sources as possible, but they were mostly news blog writers.

    ———————————————————
    Same story:
    http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2008/07/obama-and-media.html
    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/27/Study_Media_rougher_on_Obama/UPI-43191217211564/
    http://www.usnews.com/blogs/mashek/2008/7/23/the-myth-of-the-media-bias-toward-barack-obama.html

    A times article that breaks the issue down farther:
    http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/07/warning_story_about_lack_of_su.html

    Another in support of the idea that media isn’t biased against Obama:
    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/jon-friedmans-media-web-no/story.aspx?guid=%7B05F36C9C-40CB-49B3-A679-3432CA660E26%7D&dist=hpts

    A couple of articles arguing that there is pro-Obama media bias:
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lyndsi-thomas/2008/07/28/pbs-acknowledges-media-bias-campaign-08
    http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080728/OPINIONS02/807280321
    ————————————————————-

  • Dreadsen

    This was a bogus talking point. I mentioned before that it had to be false because of all the negative I’ve seen. Especially how Rev. Wright was covered for sooooo long by ALL OF THEM. Then his bitter statement. The “sweetie” statement and McCain was getting a pass the entire time on the “pastor gate”. But when the msnbc and Cnn decided to play the “propaganda” game like Fox did with Wright and they discussed for almost 48 hours about McCain’s two pastors who he sought out. THEN the local media covered it and he came out and denounced them.
    Even the funny video they put out. With the exception of Chris matthews talking about his leg shaking all you had was a bunch of other people asking the question “is the media bias towards Obama”? That was it! They question this so much that it pretty much got brainwashed in.

    And this piece by bob Cesa

    “As we have observed throughout the last several years, the notion of fairness in journalism has been guided by a miscalculated rule that in order to report good news about a liberal or a liberal success, news reporting has to be counterbalanced either with unearned praise for conservatives or trumped up and parroted negative news about the aforementioned liberal or liberal success. Oh, and the reverse doesn’t apply. That’s the rule.”

  • Dreadsen

    Another thing for years the Media was in the Tank for the war until the war turned sour now they have turned on the War and the administration they favored for it. There was plenty of contrary points they could have focused on being the good unbais journalist that they are.
    And now a LOT of them are in the tank for a war with Iran by not reporting ANY CONTRARY evidence or supporting already manipulated information. You should see the C-span versions of the Ahmadinejad interviews versus the ones CBS showed. All of the western civilization is in the tank for Anti Arabic Countries in General. Now who does THIS play into? Certainly not liberals. So the media has their own agendas and will flip flop with the popular tide.
    True enough Obama’s speaking power, him being the first possible non black president and some Republicans supporting some of his policy is definitely going to get more attention both good and bad from the media over McCain.

  • Michael

    Babs, what’s important to consider when you compare CMPA and the website you offered is the distinction between social science and “humanities” information. What I mean by that is the criteria for postulating theories or making an argument. I have worked with some professors in Communications and the work they do at CMPA is social-science oriented (meaning, statistical analysis). You will have people gauging and charting the use of certain words, analyzing pages and pages of text from a news source, and then creating spread sheets and charts from it. The subjectivity in this line of research is the qualifications for analysis (e.g., what is considered a negative word, what is the required context for negativity, etc.). From there, you can have a biased report.

    Unlike this, the website you directed is much like ours. It is “humanities” driven, where people are commenting and analyzing information from their standpoints, using logic and reasoning. It is less quantitative and absent of the statistical rigor. There is no better system, it is just important to note where subjectivity falls in with these reviews.

    Taking the social science method into account, I doubt that CMPA created a liberal-biased system to input their data into, but this is something you could raise as a possibility.

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    Hey Josh if your going to sit around and bad mouth republicans which you always do and say stuff about us hating anything that isnt what we believe and that we play on fears and crap like that dont get upset if I call you a generalized statement which can be said for your party. Dont get so upset when I call you that and start ranting about the war and saying irrational and incorrect numbers that are completely flawed just because i called you a name. If you throw a stone Ill throw one right back at you.

  • nzpudding

    Not ALL Republicans are bad…LOL

    A friend of mine jokingly said the other day, that just before he dies he’s going to change his allegiance from a Democrat to a card carrying Republican, because it’s better a dead Republican than Democrat. In a twisted way I found that quite amusing as it pointed out some of the radical views out there.

    There is a media bias, but I think that’s more towards the Democratic Party in general rather than just Obama. Most of the media don’t like Bush and since he’s a Republican it goes hand in hand with them not really liking McCain. I don’t agree with it but I understand it.

  • Todd

    Guys for those who don’t know I have been involved in a good debate with Dreadsen in another blog.

    I believe this relates to the media’s coverage in that some, pushed by Republican’s, have presented Obama as a Muslim in hopes that it will be looked at as bad. This tactic is wrong and I believe it is very harmful to the war we need to be engaged in. Being a Muslim is NOT indicative of being a terrorist. Please read the following post and let me have it. While reading it remember I am a Conservative person who has voted for Republican Presidents in every election, although I have voted for a few democrats in the senate and house and locally.

    ANYWAY HERE IT IS

    Dreadsen,

    You know what I just thought of reading your post ? When you said I sometimes start on talking points my first thought was that these are not talking points it is how I really feel, then it hit me you guys really believe what you say too. I know that may be condensing but I always looked at liberals,libertarians,Greens and others as spouting their “talking points” meant to critique the sitting party. I guess the environment of politics has created this distrust.(I bet we could argue over who started the distrust if we wanted to) ;).

    Anyway, back to the war. You cite the truth about a lot of countries and yes we should deal with all of them as enemies until they prove otherwise. Dealing with them as enemies is not, however, a call to fight all of them at the same time.

    Iran–This country is supporting a different kind of terrorist (not any better but different)Iran’s actions are based almost solely against Israel, in that they support Hamas and suicide bombings and indirectly see us as an enemy of that entity which occupies their brother’s land. Iranians are Shia Muslim’s they do not believe the infidel should die just because they are infidel’s and they are seen as dirty by the extremist Sunni’s (Wahhabi’s), who believe that in the coming of GOD, will be seen as blasphemous to the Islamic religion. Sunni extremist, such as the Taliban, believe that Shia are just as dirty as us. This is why you see sectarian violence in Iraq (Shia v Sunni). Iran can be talked to because the visceral hate of the west is not present BECAUSE IT IS NOT RELIGION BASED but they have to accept Israel !

    Pakistan–this country has placed itself in between a rock and a hard place. They want to be our “allies” yet they have a significant Muslim population. In order to keep the extremist from overthrowing the U.S. friendly government the U.S. has to make it appear as though Pakistan is handling the matter of terrorist in the country. As soon as the U.S. goes over that boarder in mass Pakistan will become an extremist controlled country with nukes. Yet I can promise you that we are in Pakistan.

    Saudi Arabia—The birth place or Sunni extremist. This is the country that teaches the Wahhabi version of Islam to it’s kids and then exports it by virtue of spreading Islam (their version). We should abandon them, treat them as an enemy and befriend Iran (their natural enemy) We cannot simply talk to Saudi Arabia and ask them to do right because they cannot really go against the terrorist and keep their kingdom. It would also kill our economy since they are our biggest middle eastern supplier of Oil. Another reason we should be drilling our own oil, until we have mass produced alternative fuels.

    Syria—Syria is the exact replica as Iran, same method should be applied.

    My point is that as a result of the extremist views held by a growing Sunni Muslim extremist religious population (I should also say that even the Sunni’s who do not hold the extreme viewpoint are considered dirty to the Wahhabi’s and in their view need to be cleansed) we have an opportunity to rid the world of all terrorist. Iran supported our invasion of Afghanistan becasue the Taliban are Sunni extremist, their enemy.

    We should talk to Iran and Syria, become more balanced in our dealings with Israel (mainly in demanding the dismantling all settlements) and Secure Iraq, move a large force into Afghanistan and win there and then deal with Saudi Arabia. This will take time ! We can start by making it very clear to the kingdom that they will no longer be considered a friendly nation if they continue to fund extremist schools and export terror. We should demand that THEY, with logistical help from us if needed, wipe out the Wahhabi sect. This will be a huge under taking for them and they will have the chance to show the world where they stand. If they do not do this we should be able to gather a large contingent of countries including Iran and Syria who will support an eradication of the most dangerous terrorist, Sunni Wahhabi’s. Yes I am talking about invasion. However I do not think it will come to this if we are fair in our dealings with the Middle East and Israel. Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and the smaller countries of that region can and will support us if we show we are trust worthy and do what we say we will do.

    If we do what we say and stay fair, I believe that Hamas and terrorist sponsored by Syria and Iran in Lebanon will go away on their own, if not Iran and Syria will handle it because they will see it as a losing matter and against their own interest. Given the fact we can respectfully ask them to stop based on our acts of goodwill. They also would know we hold the key to the key of an independent Palestinian state.

    The alternative to this in my view is a war that is actually eternal, which is what democrats say they oppose the most. The Wahhabi do not plan on living with any of us, therefore we will always be at war if we do not stop them. A war we cannot stop simply by being nice anymore than a Catholic can stop being a Catholic, a JEW stop being a Jew or a Baptist stop being a Baptist. Sunni Wahhabi’s are of the religious belief that the world must be made clean in preparation for GOD (and you thought Christians were demanding). This is not about oil to them it’s about unclean people inhabiting the earth who must be cleansed or killed, to be cleansed you have to subscribe to their belief.

    Keep in mind this cannot be done without drilling our own oil. But also keep in mind the U.S. government must be MADE to remove all subsidies from all companies. (Why do we pay farmers not to grow certain food when the world is hungry ?), tax them at the same rate as every other company and use the subsidies to fund alternative energy.

    If we did all this we could have world peace and settled boarders in 10 years and alternative fuel in 5.

    by the way I did not mean to say we should change our reasons for going into Iraq, but I meant to say that should have been the reason in the first place. I am currently attending a course of instruction Called Understanding Islamic Terrorist-it’s worldwide context, When I complete it I will have college credit and California credentials as a Law enforcement intelligence officer specializing in terrorism. I assure you from what I have seen Republican’s and Democrats are not taking this thing seriously. The course is taught by US Naval intelligence officers. I have seen the extremist in their own words, I have heard from those who were called to cleanse their own families but choose to flee Saudi Arabia instead they give very interesting insight as to what Iraq is about to them and what it will mean if we are perceived as the loser. With all that said I ask you this-if a local law enforcement officer in small town USA knows all this do you really believe the democrats don’t ? When we hold Democrats AND Republican’s accountable on Iraq we can began what we really need to do first and that is acknowledge a war on terror is actually needed and it has to be both bi-partisan and real. This stuff about they didn’t attack us worked in the 20th century but extremist are by nature not held to border limitations, like religion in ever aspect it spreads across nations and has no respect for bounds. It is no longer valid to say, ___________ (insert your pick) didn’t attack us so we should not attack them because the nature of the problem, which is to allow it to accumulate and fester in your country is a danger to us all. Democrat & Republican, Green & Reform, white & black, male and female, Christian & Islamic–worldwide.

    I hate to keep using comparison’s which are old and stupid but there is a reason they take the cancer out of your body, if it stays it kills you.

    Rayven I never said we are innocent I have tried to tell you that we are the right ones in this fight though. I also just said we should be more balanced but that doesn’t keep the Sunni from killing the Shia and being a Shiite is as close as you will ever get to thinking like an Sunni extremist. I do not intend to be a jerk but you need to educate yourself before you decide it’s our fault because religious belief is much more involved than whose fault it is. It is salvation to the Wahhabi’s. We have to stop applying OUR thought process to the oldest religion in the world which has been diluted by extremist, it ain’t working in politics and it doesn’t work in any attempt to understand or reason with them. Did Spain, Indonesia, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and the royal family of Saudi Arabia have their foot on their throats also they are all victims of terrorist attacks since 2005.

    Dreasden I will give you my response to all these post tomorrow, I am sleepy right now.

  • Todd, interesting conversation. If you or Dreadsen wish to expand on this through a guest commentary, let me know.

    As for your analysis of different countries, I would caution you in how you characterize them. You are speaking of governments, not the people or diverse groups and nations living underneath them. Certainly our current administration is not a strong reflection of everyone living in the U.S. I would urge people to think the same about other governments around the world. This political world is one of governments, policies, power-brokerage, and economic undertows.

    Greg Mortenson’s work in Pakistan and Afghanistan is a good read (Three Cups of Tea) and exemplifies this point.

  • Dreadsen

    Michael

    How would a guest commentary work for Todd and I?

  • Todd

    Michael,

    I too would like to know how it works.

    On your point I would just say that I am referring to the people under the governments as well as the governments who support it. The Wahhabi’s extremist viewpoints are no better than the KKK using the bible in the U.S. to justify killing, it has to be stopped. It is the responsibility of every government to protect it’s people since in this matter it causes us to war against each other and ourselves it is the responsibility of all governments to stop it. Look at it this way Sunni extremist are at war with other Sunni’s who are moderate and Shia’s period, or infighting if you will over who is the best or who is more correct. We in the west are engaged in a war of words which get heated at times over the way we should respond to the extremist. It’s causing all of us to fight, even against our own people

  • Robert

    This study does not appear to break down the statistics by network. Fox, for example, may contribute a huge chunk to Obama’s negative percentage. Does that mean the media in general is leaning against him?

    Furthermore, I find the disparity between total airtime given to Obama over McCain to be far more decisive. In my opinion, there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

    The findings are not so cut and dry.

  • Yes, Michael, give those two a chance at a guest commentary, they’d be great at it. With a limit of 900 words, they might even post smaller commentaries than they do posts! *L* (just kidding, Dreadsen and Todd, you’ll enjoy it)

  • Todd

    Hey Babs !

    I am working on a post that explains why I need more than 900 words to post. :0

  • *ROFLMAO* Todd, why am I not surprised?! Go for it, I enjoy your posts very much. Very well thought out, and I agree with the majority of what you say.

  • Todd

    Hey guys since this blog is about the media bias I thought you may want to see this article I got off realclearpolitics.com

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/Aug/05/critical_of_mccain__obama_quiet_on_own_energy_vote.html

    after you guys read this watch the major news networks and see if they mention Obama’s voting on this issue. seems he was in the Chaney/Bush oil wagon himself.

  • Yes, factcheck tore him up on that one, too, and the fact that his latest ad touts McCain as being “in the pocket” of big oil, insinuating that big oil companies themselves were floating his campaign. He pulled the same trick on Hillary, and everyone knows its illegal to accept campaign funds from oil companies. As far as oil company employees go, Obama accepts those as well. It doesn’t matter who an individual works for, they can donate to the candidate of their choice, and plenty donate to Obama. He would have served his purpose better to leave that one alone.

  • paul

    The news media loves Obama and the trust they had has been gone for sometime. The news media has done more damage than any enemy we had in our history.

  • Todd

    Amen Paul

    They kill the spirit of this country with constant yelping about things that increase their ratings. They are aware that human nature is drawn to controversy and they do what they can to, enhance, the drama of every story they tell.

    They are the modern day version of a train wreck except they intentionally make every issue the equivalent of a disaster just so we will watch.

    A perfect example, even though I watch them, is Fox when they play the music and flash the words “breaking news” across the screen. The commentator then will almost always say “this just in to Fox news”. We are sitting there thinking oh no what has happened ! Then we discover the the LA County Fire Dept. is trying to put a car fire out on the interstate—WHAT, that’s breaking news ?

    The worse part about it is that at least 40% of the people out there believe it’s breaking news

  • Mike11

    “The news media loves Obama…”

    I’m sorry, but I find that to be a poor argumented idea that many people are falling into. Why? Is there evidence that the media is going soft on him? I can agree on how much they talk about him, and of course, that’s always propaganda. Bad propaganda is propaganda anyway. But I find the media going much more softer on McCain. And hey, that turned out to be more than just an opinion. The Center for Media and Public Affairs argues this too?

    Why does people choose to ignore something like this? Ok, they don’t believe it, but they got something on it BESIDES mere opinion? Todd, what do you think of this?

    Look, I would happily like to watch an impartial american media bussiness, but that’s as hard to find as it gets. But, when I see the “news”, I can’t find the same kind of news that I find in an (arguably) unbiased place like Youtube. Youtube!

    Seriously, just type “McCain” in youtube and open the first video in the list. Here it is:

    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

    Now this… this defines flip-floppin’.

  • Dreadsen

    Mike11

    Some people don’t like Facts.
    Especially when they have a talking point preprogrammed.
    Their whole argument was based on this Media being nice and not covering anything negative on Obama.
    Now the truth is out and they don’t like it.
    But one things about Facts is you don’t have to like it. Liking it is not required.

  • Todd

    Mike11, sorry I took so long to respond,

    I went to your link and watched the video and I believe it points out exactly what Republican’s believe. Tell me is there anybody interested in this race that does not know about McCains conflicting statements on these subjects ?

    It has been covered, I watched the correction by Liberman on Fox the day it happened.

    McCains comments on walking through the streets of Iraq were widely covered on all networks.

    In my opinion Obama kinda set himself up for problems with the media. He became popular by trashing all old style politicians, first in his own party and now McCain. He got traction with the voters by doing this which made him appear to be fresh and pure (in a political since). Now that he has a competitor who is not from his party we are hearing things that damage that image. The Obama supporters were not frustrated with the media during the Clinton war but have become so now that the media dares to say ANYTHING which does not reflect a total devotion toward him or his cause. His cause is beating Mac right now and when the media doesn’t give issues the attention HE feels they need he and his supporters are in bewilderment as to why.

    The fact is, like it or not when a man portrays himself as the honest all inclusive candidate that can solve all issues it will get more coverage. Mac,as a 27 year politician is simply not as interesting as Obama therefore he will never get more news coverage. But here is the catch the trap Obama has set for himself is that since he is more interesting- when he changes on a position or trys to say he didn’t know he attended a racist church for 20 years or some other “political” issue arises it is more interesting because of who he says he is. It does more damage because he has this awe factor surrounding him. I find it interesting that Obama supporters are yelling about McCain not getting enough negative coverage while complaining that the negative coverage they get is unfair.

    Mike another point you made was to say the best info comes from sources like You Tube. I checked on Brave New Films, the film company who posted your video. I went to THEIR SITE and looked at all the vidoes they have posted. If you do this it is easy to see it is a left wing attack site. Every video they have is against anybody who slants against Obama. They even hit Chris Matthews, a long time Democrat. I also typed in “Obama” I could not find one negative video on him from that site.

    I would like you to find me a video montage from that site against Obama. If you can’t then your source is not FAIR AND BALANCED. (I did that just to bother you guys)

  • Dreadsen

    Todd

    just wanted to tell you that your analogy on media coverage is correct.It defeats this false crap about the media being in love with Obama. They may be in love as far as wanting to cover him. But they want to peddle this bull that they are only covering positive things and are doing away with anything negative. But just one thing i want to disagree with. I think the liberals argument about unfair negativity was during the long weeks of rev. wright coverage. Not the same stance now.

  • blah blah

    The media IS seriously in love with this guy.Everywhere I turn;the tv, computer, magazines nothing but how great he is.makes me sick.I barely ever hear anything good bout mccain.And seriously listen to the reasons people dont like mccain.hes old?are you serious?and “uhhhhh i didnt like bush.can you not find anything actually bad to say bout MCCAIN?and if i hear the words “I want change” one more time outta of spoiled youtube addicted teenagers im gonna spew.im not a republican and not a conservative im just not insane or brainwashed enough to ever vote for obama.and dont pull the racist card id vote for colin powell in second.