One more myth shot down: Obama gets the most favorable coverage in the MSM (from kos)

[cali]

Obama is Corporate Media's Favorite
by Linda in SFNM
Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 08:35:09 AM PST
It's not a surprise to most of us that the Corporate Media has been pushing a couple of candidates for voters to select.

We've been seeing them do it since last year, when I was a bit naive to believe Senator Obama would keep at least one of his US Senate Campaign's pledge, he surely didn't when he voted for the Patriot Act 2 or continuing voting for the War, but as his backers were also pushing him as a candidate for President, like Hillary's, he promised he would serve a full Senate term before doing so. And of course, I thought being only 2 years in the US Senate, he wouldn't possibly think to rushing a run for President.

Linda in SFNM's diary :: ::
Yes, I was wrong on all fronts. But, in a stunning set of numbers, Barack Obama not only gets coverage, he recieve the most highest favorable coverage of the candidates. Again, not that we haven't noticed, but to see the numbers in reality, really crystalizes who the Corporate Media favors and unfairly gives coverage or not.



Now, take that in comparison to even when Governor Howard Dean's coverage was considered more favorable before they turned on him.

"Also of little surprise is the network turn against Governor Howard Dean. In the first two weeks of January, Dean commanded a relative high positive in network news coverage of his campaign with more than 26 percent of all news statements considered positive; less than 16 percent was considered negative. By the final week, Dean's news image had changed. Negative press statements had risen one percentage point, while his positive coverage fell ten points from more than 26 percent at the beginning of the month, to 16 percent in the final week."

So these numbers show an incredible amount positive media coverage for one candidate.

Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.
And the media's coverage?

In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found.
This clearly shows the media is pushing the candidate and their campaigns, not based on policy or their record versus their campaign speeches.

When you see this, it can only leave you with the question of why? What are they hoping to do? Select the Primary winners and then do the same for the General election? Hide the issues until there it is too late to choose? Shouldn't they avoid the question and provide fair coverage for all and discuss the issues the VOTERS TELL THEM THEY CARE ABOUT?


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/27/105456/03

[aquart]

1. Obama: 46.7% Positive 15.8% negative

Clinton: 26.9 Positive 37.8 Negative

Now can the little martyrs stop whining about the Hillary MSM and how the media wants Hillary to be the candidate? Can they stop LYING? Obama is the anointed darling. Unless your tortured souls insist this is fake, too.

[cali]

3. you're hardly going to get people to agree with you

by calling them "little martyrs" who are "whining" and "lying".

The post I copied from kos should be examined and should help dispel the myth about Clinton being the MSM annointed one, but it probably won't. Certain myths are persistant, and people are vested in them.

[aquart]

5. I'm not going to get them to agree anyway. The myths are set in stone.

The tone was sheer mean personal satisfaction.

[Tactical Progressive]

7. No, they're not going to stop lying.

Lying is pretty much all they have. What are they going to do if they stop lying?

[WCGreen]

2. In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign...

That shows one of two things...

That the media takes the easy way out, looking at the battle...

Or that the media is frightened by decades of charges from the right that they were biased so they do not look at the positions of candidates in anything but a neutral way when they do to get out from under the bias allegations still hurled by the likes of Rush and O'Reilly....

We all know that if the positions of all the candidates were given equal scrutiny, then the GOP would be floundering in lower approval ratings then they all ready are...

[wyldwolf]

4. Why is the media trying to coronate Obama?

:)

[aquart]

6. Rock star?

You think they don't get crushes?

[Evergreen Emerald]

8. because he is a lightweight and easy to beat in the general election

It is all about how to help the neo-cons. Our media is propaganda. And Obama supporters cheer a negative story about Clinton, knowing it helps their candidate. But it is short term and it is sleeping with the enemy.

The truth is that the media is helping push Clinton's numbers down. I guess America has not yet learned from the last mistakes we made in believing the media.