Which candidate is the media rooting for?
The debate over bias in the media has raged for decades, and it’s not likely to be resolved anytime soon. Even among the comments on this blog, one can find accusations that the “liberal” media is “in the bag” for Obama right alongside claims that the “corporate” media is criticizing Obama while giving McCain a pass.
This new poll by Rasmussen on public perceptions of media coverage won’t change any minds, of course (nor does it “prove” anything other than how the public views the media) — but it does inject a rare instance of hard statistics into a debate so often characterized by nebulous generalizations and cherry-picked anecdotes.
Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win
The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.
Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help John McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.
The graphs look like this:
And broken down by party affiliation:
(Rasmussen didn’t say how many Republicans thought the media was biased for McCain, but it could could only have been a maximum of 12 percent.)
But perhaps the most shocking portion of this poll was this response:
In a more general sense, 45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure. Democrats are evenly divided as to whether a reporter would release such information while Republicans and unaffiliated voters have less confidence in the reporters.
It’s well-known that most Americans have fairly low confidence in journalists, but for nearly half of Americans to say that they believe reporters would not just spin the news to favor their preferred candidate, but deliberately hide information that could damage their candidate’s chances is disheartening.
In the same vein, other poll numbers released by Rasmussen today are telling:
A separate survey released this morning also found that 50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality [41 percent, to be exact] believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is.
To me, it’s sad that we’ve gotten to the point today when half of Americans think that reporters want — want — to make the economy, or the war in Iraq, seem worse than it is. Again, this doesn’t “prove” political bias one way or another — such a perception may or may not be caused by ideological factors. However, in a country that prides itself on freedom of the press, it does say something about how little confidence Americans have in the accuracy of the news stories they read in the newspaper or watch on television.
**UPDATE: Well this certainly won’t help change those poll numbers:
An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES — less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The paper’s decision to refuse McCain’s direct rebuttal to Obama’s ‘My Plan for Iraq’ has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.
‘It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece,’ NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain’s staff. ‘I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.’
In McCain’s submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: ‘I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it… if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.’
NYT’s Shipley advised McCain to try again: ‘I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft.’…
Drudge has the full text of the rejected McCain op-ed.
Why is it that people fail to see that it is the people who are the reason behoind the media frenzy. The people are the ones who are excited by Obama.
There isn’t anything intersting about John Mc Cain other than his POW status,which should actually disqualify him as a Presidential candidate.
No one will fall again for becoming excited by another President with all the wrong focus, big business and a low IQ. We want a smart President that also has common sense this time aroud.
McCain is worst than Bush in the IQ and motivation department, he was ranked 894 out of 899 clollege students upon his graduation from college.
Since the NY Slimes wont run it, how about we post it up here?
Good, glad you all agree.
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
Ok, D- for some reason, I just have to know, why is being a POW grounds for disqualification from the office of President? What are Obamessiah’s qualifications, other than being a good speaker and looking good? I will resist the temptation to comment about his listening tour of the middles east, with ears as big as his, he could hear them from here!
Gee, Alex give us a hard question. Here is a quote from Charles Krauthhammer:
“I think that the coverage [Barack Obama] is getting is beyond presidential. It’s papal. I mean, a president never has all three anchors on the way with him. . . . If you needed any evidence of how much in the tank the mainstream media are, this is it” — Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, on the media coverage of the Democratic nominee-apparent’s visit to the war zone.
Also, if this isn’t bias, I don’t know what is. The NYTimes rejected McCain’s op-ed. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2048914/posts
The NYT action tody was outrageous. It is not for a newspaper to decide to edit the policy of a candidate for president. If they disagree, fine, however the purpose of an op-ed page is to present opposing views. It is especially troubling that this newspaper, that continues to see its circulation decline, would attempt to try to force a canddiate to rephrase his position. McCain, in retrospect, got a ton more coverage than he would have had it run in a paper that most of America doesn’t read. If the poll were taken today, the results would be even worse.
“Which candidate is the media rooting for?” is a rhetorical question– yes?
Everybody knows that the MainStream Media is in the tank for Senator “O”, just as everybody knows he’s the least-qualified (presumptive) nominee in ?? years. Read again — the least-qualified — in modern time.
But — at least so far — the MSM dare not undress him. Hillary tried but got tagged (mostly Bill) with hints of racialism and back she slithered… ah, withdrew.
While off on his Magic Flying Carpet tour his web page is being scrubbed. Obama’s “long articulated, often reiterated view that American policy in Iraq is doomed to failure. It’s been tossed down the memory hole.”
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PaulGreenberg/2008/07/21/good_news_is_no_news?page=full&comments=true
In the next few days look hard and long for any stories from CBSNBCABCCNNMSNBCWashPost, the once great NYTimes & the local rag. I’m guessing you’ll be like me, sadly disappointed though not surprised.
===
Here’s the full text of Shipley’s e-mail:
From: David Shipley/NYT/NYTIMES [mailto:XXXXXXX]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:31 PM
To: XXXXXXX
Cc: XXXXXXX
Subject: Re: JSM Op-Ed
Dear Mr. XXXXXX,
Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.
I’d be very eager to publish the Senator on the Op-Ed page.
However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.
I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft.
Let me suggest an approach.
The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.
It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And
it would need to describe the Senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.
I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. Her email is XXXXXXXX; her phone is 212-XXXXXXX.
Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.
Sincerely,
David Shipley
Shipley is way off the mark as Obama’s editorial was filled with generalities and NOT detailed.
===
Si,
Because no one walks away after years of being held prisoner of war and and torture without damage to ones mental facilities. Look up the kinds of mental damage that is associated with such a misfortune, and you will learn that no one with any possiblity can be risked as top commander of a country. We know from reports that McCain is a hot head. A president is required to be measured and balances. You guys made a great mistake with our present President Bush, now you are crazy enought to consider another one? Not to mention he was obviously a under achiever ranking 894 out of 899 as a college graduate.
What I find the most surprising about the article is that Mr. Mayer seems genuinely puzzled and concerned regarding the publics perception of liberal media bias. I believe Mr. Mayer would like to believe that the problem is the public’s perception rather than actual bias.
For many generations, the mainstream press was dominated by people with a left wing mindset. Everyone agreed with one another, so the writing had to be honest and unbiased. At least that is what they convinced each other. However, the rise of alternative media has exposed the diversity of thought among Americans. Diversity has nothing to do with skin color, gender, or ethnicity. It has to do with different perspectives and viewpoints.
The bias in the mainstream media is so ingrained that an enormous amount of soul searching and introspective thought is required in order to cleanse the offending souls. In some ways it is very subtle, such as defining a person as an “extreme conservative” and rarely as a “liberal” much less an “extreme liberal”. Other times the bias is far more offensive such as ignoring or downplaying racist behavior by “diverse persons” and blowing innocent comments out of proportion by deemed conservatives. Straw man arguments are repeatedly presented and refuted while dissenting views with a strong intellectual basis are ignored.
Any hint of hypocrisy dooms an “evil conservative” in the eyes of the press (i.e. Bob Livingston). Hypocrisy by heroes of the left such as Rep. Jefferson, Jessie Jackson, or Al Gore is downplayed. Spurious allegations of voter fraud in Florida are repeated over and over. Real vote fraud in Democratic strongholds gets barely a mention in the press.
If the Post-Dispatch or any other media outlet is really serious about minimizing bias, an independent review board made up of a truly diverse crowd should be established. I for one would gladly donate my services. I would not always be correct, but I would certainly provide a different perspective on many issues.
D-, that is pretty far fetched, even for you.
“You guys made a great mistake with our present President Bush, now you are crazy enought to consider another one?”
First, yes, it is our fault for nominating and electing a President who will fight terrorists, not indict them. Second, WE (conservatives) didnt want McCain, his momentum came from states with open primaries where democrats could vote for him. Since he is the nominee, it is what it is. He is immensely more qualified to lead this country than Obamessiah and his empty promises .
“Not to mention he was obviously a under achiever ranking 894 out of 899 as a college graduate.”
Where did you place in your Academy class?
I guess I should give up on thinking you will one day behave as an adult and act like you have good sense.
I am not running for President.
But the fact is, McCain ranked 894 out of 899, and he thinks he is smart enough to be President. Comment on that.