Bias in the Press - Mark Halperin of Time

[swampy]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15885.html

"Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

Thanks for the confirmation, Mr. Halperin. You have my admiration for stepping up in front of your journalistic peers and saying so.

[Carnos Jax]

With respect Swampy, if there was pro-Obama bias, it was only because McCain ran a FAR more negative campaign. Therefore one can't help but think that those who run more negative campaign ads get more negative attention from the press, especially when the campaign attacks seemed hypocritically baseless.

[rgG]

The media didn't influence me to vote for Obama. The choice of Sarah Palin for VP by the Republicans is what made the decision for me, plain and simple.

[$tevie]

Where are the complaints about the way the reporters tippy-toed around McCain for, well, for his entire career basically. They treated him as if his military career made him untouchable. Everything negative we heard about McCain came from the internet.

[Greg the dogsitter]

rgG wrote:
The media didn't influence me to vote for Obama. The choice of Sarah Palin for VP by the Republicans is what made the decision for me, plain and simple.

Decision, and for me, $250 to the Obama campaign.

[mikeylikesit]

Palin or no Palin, Obama was head and shoulders the superior choice. I'd like my government to focus on ability rather than loyalty and believe in itself for a change.

[deckeda]

"It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

Obama was the story this year. Hence, coverage.

[Wags]

When you get it right, its right. What you call media bias is merely a celebration of the end of our collective neo-fascist nightmare. Hooray! The destruction of the Republican Party was so utterly complete at the hands of Bush that there was no other way to report the news. McCain went on to confirm the bankrupt ideology of pandering to the holier than thou Bible thumpers with his desperate anointment of Ms. Palin. Not so much bias as overwhelming verification of a new reality. Get used to it, the young have kicked your tired old neocon crap to the curb and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

[swampy]

Carnos Jax wrote:
With respect Swampy, if there was pro-Obama bias, it was only because McCain ran a FAR more negative campaign. Therefore one can't help but think that those who run more negative campaign ads get more negative attention from the press, especially when the campaign attacks seemed hypocritically baseless.

That's not what the article said. Carnos. Did you read the short article?

"The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies," Halperin said. "The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her.

The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is," according to Halperin."

It's not a matter of ad campaigns, his article was about bias reportage.

[Spock]

I want the President to be smarter than me so the clear choice was Obama.

Perhaps Palin satisfies that requirement for Swampy.

Hmm ...... would explain a lot.

:eek2: