Is the media being fair to McCain or have they sided with Obama

Thecure

i was wtaching Cnn yesterday and the discussion took place around teh New York Times refusing teh McCain co-ed. teh bigger discussion took place around teh amount of coverage that Obama gets in teh media as compared to Obama. i got this article and i am wondering what people here think.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIHbNjxgyh98CZcVL1vYRM6JBVNQD9228C300

blackredyellow

First, I think the NY Times made a mistake. I understand that they wanted McCain to lay out a concrete Iraq plan instead of just rebutting Obama's editorial, but rejecting it really made them look bad.

I think as far as coverage, Obama is getting more of it... But part of that is due to the circumstances or his campaigning. The nomination fight went on soooo long, that the media had to cover it more than McCain at that point.

Since then, there have been days where McCain has gotten more coverage, but a lot of Obama's media advantage is due to his campaign. The Obama camp has been masterful in setting the agenda and getting their message out when and how they want. As soon as McCain is getting a lot of coverage, the announce something as simple as the convention at a football stadium, or lay out this foreign trip with all of the fanfare that they could muster.

I also think that McCain has gotten a free pass on A LOT of mistakes and misspeaks that he has committed... Those same mistakes (most harmless) made by Obama would have been dragged out for days by the media.

fuck

When have the media EVER been fair?

seriously, is this news?

Thecure

_outlaw wrote:

When have the media EVER been fair?

seriously, is this news?

is this news? yes! what would you rather talk about? i would say that this is big news as most of teh people get their news from newspapers and news shows.

fuck

Thecure wrote:

is this news? yes! what would you rather talk about? i would say that this is big news as most of teh people get their news from newspapers and news shows.

News: Information about recent and important events.

Thecure

_outlaw wrote:

News: Information about recent and important events.

recent as of last week when teh NY times rejected McCain piece.

fuck

Thecure wrote:

recent as of last week when teh NY times rejected McCain piece.

I was joking, but I seriously don't think this is anything NEW that's been going on (which is why I said it's not recent)... the media has shown bias to different candidates all the time, depending on how they feel.

What bothers me more than McCain getting a little ignored, is Nader getting COMPLETELY ignored.

nick1977

The lack of coverage for McCain has nothing to do with media bias. It has to do with the fact that he has done nothing spectacular to get coverage and that will sell papers or get ratings.

Obama's trip to the Middle East was brilliant. He came out of tons of press coverage from the lenghty primary fight, and immediately goes on a trip to see first hand the wars we are fighting....automatic press coverage. He is charasmaitc, good looking, well spoken, and is now acting like a leader.

McCain's campaign seems to be lost. They seem to be reacting to everything Obama's campaign is doing.

Sure, Obama is getting more coverage, but it is because he is doing things that people want to read about.

Having said that the NY Times made a mistake in asking McCain to re write his essay because it gives them a perception of bias.

callen

nick1977 wrote:

The lack of coverage for McCain has nothing to do with media bias. It has to do with the fact that he has done nothing spectacular to get coverage and that will sell papers or get ratings.

Obama's trip to the Middle East was brilliant. He came out of tons of press coverage from the lenghty primary fight, and immediately goes on a trip to see first hand the wars we are fighting....automatic press coverage. He is charasmaitc, good looking, well spoken, and is now acting like a leader.

McCain's campaign seems to be lost. They seem to be reacting to everything Obama's campaign is doing.

Sure, Obama is getting more coverage, but it is because he is doing things that people want to read about.

Having said that the NY Times made a mistake in asking McCain to re write his essay because it gives them a perception of bias.

This post should pretty much end the thread.

Thecure

nick1977 wrote:

The lack of coverage for McCain has nothing to do with media bias. It has to do with the fact that he has done nothing spectacular to get coverage and that will sell papers or get ratings.

Obama's trip to the Middle East was brilliant. He came out of tons of press coverage from the lenghty primary fight, and immediately goes on a trip to see first hand the wars we are fighting....automatic press coverage. He is charasmaitc, good looking, well spoken, and is now acting like a leader.

McCain's campaign seems to be lost. They seem to be reacting to everything Obama's campaign is doing.

Sure, Obama is getting more coverage, but it is because he is doing things that people want to read about.

Having said that the NY Times made a mistake in asking McCain to re write his essay because it gives them a perception of bias.

good post. but i have a couple of questions if you don't mind. what has Obama done that has been exciting (specches, most of them void of context) and i don't dislike him. McCain goes to iraq and teh middle east but no real mention of him. if i look at both McCain and Obama campaign i see McCain talking about issues (you might not agree with what he is saying but he is saying things)

finally, teh next questiosn is kindof liek teh chicken or the egg argument. is Obama getting moer coverage becuase people want to read about or are people wanting to read about Obama becuase that is what the media gives them?

unsung

Ok, I have to ask. Do you think it is cool to spell 'the' t-e-h or are you simply stupid?

I'm guessing the latter since you actually made a post to ask this question. Uh calling Capt. Obvious.

Solat13

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=136283

dontloseyourheat

nick1977 wrote:

The lack of coverage for McCain has nothing to do with media bias. It has to do with the fact that he has done nothing spectacular to get coverage and that will sell papers or get ratings.

Obama's trip to the Middle East was brilliant. He came out of tons of press coverage from the lenghty primary fight, and immediately goes on a trip to see first hand the wars we are fighting....automatic press coverage. He is charasmaitc, good looking, well spoken, and is now acting like a leader.

McCain's campaign seems to be lost. They seem to be reacting to everything Obama's campaign is doing.

Sure, Obama is getting more coverage, but it is because he is doing things that people want to read about.

Having said that the NY Times made a mistake in asking McCain to re write his essay because it gives them a perception of bias.

You realize that McCain has been to Iraq numerous times, right?

In fact, this spring McCain even suggested that the two candidates go to Iraq together but Obama refused.

The media is portraying Obama as if he already won but if you take a look at the polls, it is much close than it appears.

nick1977

Thecure wrote:

good post. but i have a couple of questions if you don't mind. what has Obama done that has been exciting (specches, most of them void of context) and i don't dislike him. McCain goes to iraq and teh middle east but no real mention of him. if i look at both McCain and Obama campaign i see McCain talking about issues (you might not agree with what he is saying but he is saying things)

finally, teh next questiosn is kindof liek teh chicken or the egg argument. is Obama getting moer coverage becuase people want to read about or are people wanting to read about Obama becuase that is what the media gives them?

Media publishes whatever attracts an audience. Obama is a lot like Reagan in that he knows how to use the media to his advantage. Clinton was also good at this. Bush is terrible. He avoids cameras and does not have a good relationship with the media. Using the media is not McCain's strong suit.

In a political campaign, timing is everything. Obama perfectly timed his trip to the Middle East. It could not have worked out better for him. He has executed the trip perfectly from a media perspective. His campaign pulled their strings in the media, presto, it is all over the news. The Iraqi leader made a statement the same day Obama was over there indicating he would like the US troops to be gone by 2010. The Obama campaign designed great pictures of Obama looking out of helicopter to accompany the stories. This is all done when it is done for show to cater to the media. There is nothing wrong with that, but in our system, he or she who knows how to best use the media will get the most coverage.

McCain, whom I really like and respect, did a good job using media when he was a maverick in the Senate. However, now that he seems to have retreated from his maverick role, he does, nor his campaign, does not know how to use the media.

A candidate who merely sticks to talking about issues will get very little media coverage. A candidate who knows how to speak well and draw in an audience will get media attention, whether or not he talks a lot of substance. Obama knows how to do just this.

He is getting the attention because it has been a LONG time since there has been a President or candidate who knows how to use the media and can capture crowds by his or her presence. Think about the past few candidates: Bush, Gore, Kerry...all smart people in their own ways, but none of them has charisma and knew how to capture media attention very well and use the media to their benefit. Obama is far superior in his use of the media than Hillary (though Bill could use the media to his advantage very well, that ability did not rub off on Hillary, due to her personality I believe). Now that we have a candidate who draws in crowds, is attractive and professional looking without looking like a corporate puppet, and can speak very well, the media will undoubtedly flock to him.

Once the cycle starts, the media and the candidate feed off of each other in a symbiotic relationsip. Every candidate would love for this to happen. Once that relationship begins, it is very, very difficult for the other candidate to recapture much media attention until it finally dies down a bit.

I'm not saying there is no media bias. I'm sure there is. But what I am saying is that it is Obama who has successfully capturted the media's attention due to his brilliant campaigning...or more likely due to the brilliant campaign strategies devised by his senior campaign staff.

Edit: Yes I know McCain has been to Iraq. But in politics, timing and execution is everything. Just because he goes to Iraq does not garner media attention. He must do something to capture it. The way Obama's campaign has planned and carried out this trip, it caputred media attendtion. Timing and execution of the trip was perfect. It all goes back to knowing how to run a public relations campaign and use the media to your benefit.

decides2dream

nick1977 wrote:

Media publishes whatever attracts an audience. Obama is a lot like Reagan in that he knows how to use the media to his advantage. Clinton was also good at this. Bush is terrible. He avoids cameras and does not have a good relationship with the media. Using the media is not McCain's strong suit.

In a political campaign, timing is everything. Obama perfectly timed his trip to the Middle East. It could not have worked out better for him. He has executed the trip perfectly from a media perspective. His campaign pulled their strings in the media, presto, it is all over the news. The Iraqi leader made a statement the same day Obama was over there indicating he would like the US troops to be gone by 2010. The Obama campaign designed great pictures of Obama looking out of helicopter to accompany the stories. This is all done when it is done for show to cater to the media. There is nothing wrong with that, but in our system, he or she who knows how to best use the media will get the most coverage.

McCain, whom I really like and respect, did a good job using media when he was a maverick in the Senate. However, now that he seems to have retreated from his maverick role, he does, nor his campaign, does not know how to use the media.

A candidate who merely sticks to talking about issues will get very little media coverage. A candidate who knows how to speak well and draw in an audience will get media attention, whether or not he talks a lot of substance. Obama knows how to do just this.

He is getting the attention because it has been a LONG time since there has been a President or candidate who knows how to use the media and can capture crowds by his or her presence. Think about the past few candidates: Bush, Gore, Kerry...all smart people in their own ways, but none of them has charisma and knew how to capture media attention very well and use the media to their benefit. Obama is far superior in his use of the media than Hillary (though Bill could use the media to his advantage very well, that ability did not rub off on Hillary, due to her personality I believe). Now that we have a candidate who draws in crowds, is attractive and professional looking without looking like a corporate puppet, and can speak very well, the media will undoubtedly flock to him.

Once the cycle starts, the media and the candidate feed off of each other in a symbiotic relationsip. Every candidate would love for this to happen. Once that relationship begins, it is very, very difficult for the other candidate to recapture much media attention until it finally dies down a bit.

I'm not saying there is no media bias. I'm sure there is. But what I am saying is that it is Obama who has successfully capturted the media's attention due to his brilliant campaigning...or more likely due to the brilliant campaign strategies devised by his senior campaign staff.

Edit: Yes I know McCain has been to Iraq. But in politics, timing and execution is everything. Just because he goes to Iraq does not garner media attention. He must do something to capture it. The way Obama's campaign has planned and carried out this trip, it caputred media attendtion. Timing and execution of the trip was perfect. It all goes back to knowing how to run a public relations campaign and use the media to your benefit.

well stated.


i know many find 'playing the game' offensive, but i say you need to get IN the game to play, so as to actually be able to do some of the things you might like to do...from the office of the president. it becomes a circular arguement at times, but for me anyway....i take no issue, have no problem, with a candidate playing the game and playing well. yes, i expect substance in there and most especially if/when elected, but hell yes....you need to know how to get elected. and i ain't no sheep.