Media=Fail.

In a new Rasmussen poll, 68% of voters believe that the media is biased.

The perception that reporters are advocates rather than observers is held by 82% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats, and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party. The skepticism about reporters cuts across income, racial, gender, and age barriers.

Ideologically, political liberals give the least pessimistic assessment of reporters, but even 50% of those on the political left see bias. Thirty-three percent (33%) of liberals believe most reporters try to be objective. Moderates, by a 65% to 17% margin, see reporters as advocates, not scribes. Among political conservatives, only 7% see reporters as objective while 83% believe they are biased.

Given these results, it's not surprising that 76% of voters believe the media has too much power and influence over elections. Just 3% believe the Fourth Estate has too little influence while 16% say the balance is about right.

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Republicans believe the media has too much influence along with 80% of unaffiliated voters and 65% of Democrats.

Voters have little doubt as to who is benefitting from the media coverage this year--Barack Obama. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Obama has gotten the best coverage so far. Twenty-two percent (22%) say McCain has received the most favorable coverage while 14% say that Hillary got the best treatment.

At the other extreme, 43% say Clinton received the worst treatment from the media. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say the media was roughest on McCain and only 15% thought the media coverage was most unfair to Obama.

Looking ahead to the fall campaign, 44% believe most reporters will try to help Obama while only 13% believe that most will try to help McCain. Twenty-four percent (24%) are optimistic enough to believe that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

Even Democrats tend to believe their candidate will receive better treatment--27% of those in Obama's party believe most reporters will try to help him win while only 16% believe they will help McCain. A plurality of Democrats--34%--believe most reporters will be unbiased.

The point here is that most in the media don't bother objectively reporting on much and providing the public the opportunity to assess facts for themselves.  If we take the lessons of the past as a guide, like Democratic candidates coverage in previous election cycles, selling the public on the Iraq war and the fact that the press had no qualms about acting as campaign advocates during the Democratic race then the public should be asking themselves....

How will the media manipulate (or ignore) facts to promote agendas that will come up in the GE national debate?

UPDATE: Thanks to the awesome Student Guy for the title suggestion.

There's more...

Will the media try to help Obama or McCain? (poll)

I recently posted a diary expressing my view that Drudge is, and has been for a while, in the tank for Obama.

Few commenters agreed, some politely disagreed, and the rest was of the opinion that I was crazy.

A few days later, Politico published a report in which GOP officials expressed dismay at Drudge's apparent distancing from his past pro-Republican style.

Anyways, I just wanted to brag a bit about that new piece of evidence supporting my view.

In a related note, even Democrats believe the media will help Obama in larger numbers than those who believe it will try to help McCain win, in a just-released Rasmussen poll:

Even Democrats tend to believe their candidate will receive better treatment--27% of those in Obama's party believe most reporters will try to help him win while only 16% believe they will help McCain. A plurality of Democrats--34%--believe most reporters will be unbiased.

Among all respondents,

Looking ahead to the fall campaign, 44% believe most reporters will try to help Obama while only 13% believe that most will try to help McCain. Twenty-four percent (24%) are optimistic enough to believe that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

I hold the same view of the plurality in this poll, though I'm not too concerned, as the beneficiary will be a progressive, and the ends justify the means.

I would post a poll within this diary, but many of you are so paranoid that you will likely believe McCain is the same media darling he was in 2000.
And I don't blame you. The media has been historically a Republican ally.

Not this time around.

There's more...

The media is jonesing.

Today I read an AP piece on the media obsession with HRC that couldn't help but make me chuckle.  Described in the article as soul-searching, it is a mea culpa of sorts for the press.

Now that Hillary Clinton has ended her bid for the presidency, political journalists are suddenly deprived of one of their favorite stories: When is she going to drop out?

A study shows the only campaign topics that got more attention the past two months were Barack Obama's talkative former minister, the Pennsylvania primary and the fallout from President Bush's remarks about appeasement while in Israel.

More time was spent talking about when Clinton might call it quits than about how the candidates might deal with the war in Iraq, the high price of gasoline, home foreclosures or the sputtering economy. Or about anything that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain said or did during April and May, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism's analysis of political coverage in newspapers, on Internet sites and on television news.

The coverage embittered the Clinton campaign and, in the eyes of one veteran journalist, should provoke some soul-searching.

"It was inappropriate, for journalists especially, to try to cut the process short," NBC News' anchor emeritus, Tom Brokaw, told The Associated Press. "It was an appropriate issue for people to report on, in context, but there was an awful lot of commentary disguised as reporting that gave the impression that people were trying to shove her out of the race."

Brokaw's old-school attitude often put him at odds with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann when he joined them for primary night coverage on MSNBC this year. One example was last Tuesday. Brokaw was talking about the contrasts between McCain and Obama when Olbermann interjected about "a third one trying to shoehorn her way" into the coverage.

"Well, I think that's unfair, Keith," Brokaw replied. "I don't think she shoehorned her way in. When you look at the states that she won and the popular vote that she piled up, and the number of delegates that she has on her side, she's got real bargaining power in all of this."

Brokaw called all the discussion about Clinton's exit a product of "too much time and too little imagination."

As I read this, I was reminded of a comment Mark Halperin of Time Magazine made back in December.

Your typical reporter has a thinly disguised preference that Barack Obama be the nominee. The narrative of him beating her is better than her beating him, in part because she's a Clinton and in part because he's a young African American. . . . There's no one rooting for her to come back.

So now that HRC is out and it only took the press one day to begin the journey of self reflection - what do you think they'll do next?

There's more...

Fox News Reality Chasm

Sorry for the short diary, but this made me laugh out loud.

Fox news has a hilarious attempt to charge Obama with plagiarism.  They compare one of his recent speeches to a speech of Mario Cuomo's and the two speeches have absolutely nothing in common.  It's political bias at it's very best.  

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 608/Great_moments_in_cable_TV.html

There's more...

Pollster John Zogby rips "self-centered" Clintons

In some sort of op-ed in his website, pollster John Zogby becomes pundit-for-a-day and rips the Clintons.

In this sort of op-ed column, Zogby calls Clinton "permanently adolescent", self-centered (both he and his wife).

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=15 14

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads