McCain vs. Obama: Media coverage tilted?

We used to say that the line between News and Entertainment has become blurred. Now it seems that the line is gone, that with most of the MSM the two have often become one.
The Obama campaign (like any skillfull well funded political organization) knows this well and have crafted the perfect Rock Star candidate -- young, good looking, vigorous, with plenty of short, vague catch phrases.
It's little wonder, then that the Infotainment industry have made him their own.

you do realise that lots of press coverage is very different from lots of 'positive' press coverage, right? an independent study this past week (check LA times) found that although obama got more coverage than mccain, 73% of it was negative, and no, i'm not making that up. it would mean something either way if the coverage was more and positive but its not, its more and negative so obama aint benefiting from anything. stop making it out to be like the press are in love with obama because that is far from the truth and everyone keeps repeating it like it is the reality.

but more than half (5 percent) say they didn't learn much or learned nothing at all.

5% is less than half the last time I checked.

Yet, another media research group just released their study saying that the news coverage has been more anti-Obama. CBS was jsut caught manipulating John McCain's answers to a question, which made him look much better, if they kept the actual answer he did give to the question, so it can't be too slanted towards Obama.
Some of the "talking head" programs on MSNBC is tilted towards Obama, but one doesn't really expect "fairness" from those type programs. That would be like expecting to see fair and unbias reporting from shows like Bill O'Reilly and and Hannity and Combs. They're expected to be bias, and the viewer knows what to expect when they listen to those commentators.

Poor, poor, John McCain.

The candidate with the most American sounding of names, name I.D. from having been in Washington for 25 years, access to his wife's millions & private jets, sucked up too by the media who dubbed him "Maverick" - poor, poor, John McCain.

McCain's opponent on the other hand is black with a Muslim sounding name - and John McCain is the underdog - poor, poor, John McCain.

John McCain just can't catch a break - poor, poor, John McCain.

It's amazing to me, how confused people can be. More coverage doesn't mean positive coverage. The fact is, that Obama is under intense scrutiny, while McCain receives little.
And a recent scientific study, from George Mason University, shows that Obama receives far more negative coverage, than McCain.
The media accepts the McCain narrative as gospel - - that he's the Maverick, Hero, GOP-defying, Straight-talking, Independent, Foreign Policy wizard - - despite much evidence to the contrary.
That this article fails to mention the Mason Study, when its results are widely available, kind of proves the study's veracity.

If you "hope" for "change" then you have to support Obama, right?

The heavy coverage of Obama has backfired on the media and on him. The more the American public sees of Obama, the more questions arise about his maturity, his judgment, his inability to speak coherently when not on Teleprompter, and his rather nutty ideas (inflate your tires to fight high oil costs). The polls following the collective media gush on Bama's trip were an eye-opener; McCain ahead in some, tied in others. Obama says people will question whether he's risky. Many have already answered that question.

Everybody knows the political press is overwhelmingly Democrat/Leftist, election after election. And overwhelmingly pro-Obama. Naturally, their coverage reflects their pre-existing bias.

In fact, almost the only critical coverage Obama receives is from leftist media types complaining that he isn't Leftist enough!

In 2004 Slate.com ran an article on how its 14 senior writers and editors voted for president. As you can guess, Republicans got 0 votes from that bunch.

The Swamp should do the same. Not that anyone doubts how they'll vote for president in 2008, but let's have full disclosure from Silva, James, Dorning, Fretland, Zuckman et al. If not 2008, then who they voted for in 2004.

The simplest way for the Swamp to counter charges of pro-Obama bias would be to disclose that half the Swamp journalists vote Republican. Of course, if they are 100% Democrat, 0% Republican, I can see why they wouldn't want to disclose this.

With the Stevens indictment hot off the presses, one is reminded of just how lucky Jonah McCain has been in escaping accountability.
His involvement in the Forrestal fire conveniently sanitized. (Yes, he did penance or paid an appropriate price for that). His record as a pilot, the crashes, etc. (reminds one of Georgie's record as a pilot). The Keating Five starring role. Intimacy with Miss Vicki.
His phony "maverick" persona as a legislator.
Yeah, Jonah McCain, the press has been really tough on you!

I keep hearing about somebody named "everybody."

Does anybody know everybody?

Bruce's post assumes that increased media coverage of Obama is directly related to the political preferences of journalists. Is it possible that Obama is just more interesting?

Bruce,
Have you listened to radio or Fox news? It is completely biased towards Republicans. All news outlets were right leaning up until the bungling of Katrina. Especially after 9/11.

The MEDIA gives more coverage to Obama, than McCain, and then they complain about McCain pointing that out with a Paris ad showing how media has defined Obama to the American public.

Then, Obama has the audacity to complain that McCain should instead have more "serious debates". Well, I recall McCain calling for serious DEBATES, over and over again, but Obama flipped on that idea. So, unless the media pushes for those debates and puts the screws Obama has coming on that comment, then don't complain about McCain's politics of shining a light.

McCain should be sending fruit baskets to all the media for not analyzing his every word with a fine toothed comb. McCain has made glaring error after error, and yet, the only time you hear about it is if you watch MSNBC. MSM tends to give McCain a "pass" because of his history and age. He could not withstand the scrutiny Obama has received.

Poor Obama, with the majority of the media calling him the "messiah" and saying that he gives them thrills up their legs is certainly heavy scrutiny, what with all this "negative" media going around, its suprising that anyone is even considering voting for him.

The media have been criticized throughout the campaign because of a perceived bias in reporting. This Pew poll is interesting because it shows how the media covered the campaign. I think the study paints an accurate version of how this campaign has been covered. It shows that the media focuses more positive coverage toward a front-runner. I think that is human nature, when people are winning we usually chose to not focus on their negatives. It is much easier to be negative when someone is faltering.
It is important to remember that this does not mean that the media is slanted toward Obama. The coverage of McCain has not been negative because he is a Republican, but because of how he has run his campaign. The political media, just as like the sports media, is more willing to critique a candidate’s performance when he is struggling during a campaign season.
Politico reporters John F. Harris and Jim Vandehei put it best in their story about the negative media coverage of the McCain campaign. “McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own,” they wrote.
This poll shows how the media frames campaigns. The media have focused its coverage on McCain’s failures and Obama’s successes. They are overly-concerned with the winner and loser. At the same time, people like to know who is winning and what the other candidate has done wrong, or needs to do better to have a chance to win. That’s why people look at tracking polls to see how the campaign is shifting from one person to the other. The media should deemphasize the horserace aspect of campaigns, in favor of more substance. However, it runs the risk of alienating viewers so it will probably not happen.