Media Bias in Favor of Obama And Against Hillary Clinton:Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
It appears Obama is getting a taste of what real question are about..real media IN YOUR FACE! He is scared and doesn't like it...some leadership. No wonder he's promoting the idea HIllary pack up and go...
There is a 4 page pdf doc (03/08)..worth the read!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x342352 Persistent Media Bias in Favor of Barack Obama And Against Hillary Clinton
Edited on Mon Mar-03-08 07:24 AM by Algorem
(4 pages,pdf)
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/Important%20memo%20from%20Walter%20Shorenstein%20on%20Press%20and%20the%20Presidential%20Campaign.pdf ((Must reads)))
Persistent Media Bias in Favor of Barack Obama
And Against Hillary Clinton
Independent media watchdog groups have documented a persistent and pervasive media
bias in favor of Barack Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) took the media to task for writing the
obituary of Hillary Clinton prior to the New Hampshire primary. Tellingly, FAIR’s
report ended with the admonition, “The press corps seems chastened by their misreading
of the New Hampshire electorate, and many are vowing to be more cautious in their
assumptions. Will they follow through on their own advice?” Events since then—
especially in this crucial week leading up to primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and
Vermont—indicate that the answer to that question is, “No.”
Leading up to the New Hampshire primary, the storyline on the Democratic side was the
disastrous state of the Clinton campaign. Her loss was a given; it seemed the only
considerations were the margin of defeat and whether or not she would even continue
running at all. The day of the primary, the Washington Post reported (1/8/08) that a
second loss to Obama "would leave the New York senator's candidacy gasping for
breath," and declared that Clinton's vow to stay in the race
may be more wish than reality. By Wednesday, it may be too late. By then, Obama's
campaign may have inflicted enough damage on the woman-who-was-once-inevitable
that no amount of readjusting, recalibrating and rearranging will give her the wherewithal
to overcome two big losses in the first contests of the 2008 nomination battle.
Clinton, of course, won the primary--surprising the pundits and contradicting the polls
that journalists unwisely use to set the tone of so much of their coverage. In the
aftermath, the media were left asking what went "wrong" with the numbers. As the front
page of USA Today declared (1/10/08), "For pollsters, N.H. 'unprecedented.'" But this
isn't so; the actual USA Today story included a state pollster who noted that pre-election
polls in 2000 vastly underestimated John McCain's victory over George W. Bush. Right
before the primary, the New York Times reported (1/30/00) that "a series of polls showed
the two Republican front-runners in a dead heat." Given that McCain won by 19 points,
journalists and pollsters puzzling over Clinton's showing are ignoring very recent history.
. .
As it stands now, the races for the major party nominations are remarkably close. The
most valuable service journalists could provide now would be to illustrate the differences
between the candidates on the major issues of importance to voters. The press corps
seems chastened by their misreading of the New Hampshire electorate, and many are
vowing to be more cautious in their assumptions. Will they follow through on their own
advice? And will voters ever get campaign reporting that helps them make informed
choices about the direction of their democracy?
(FAIR Media Advisory, “Humbled in New Hampshire,” January 11, 2008)....
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
