11-24-2008, 01:43 AM
swampy wrote:
[quote=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.
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.
Yes, FWIW I read the article. My reference about the ads were to correlate the 'reportage'. In regard to Cindy and Michelle, I did not read the entire profiles. But if it's to be believed, I could find similar negative bias about the Obamas. And one such data point does not paint the media as being biased. All the negative press I saw in the mainstream media basically reflected the negativity by McCain's campaign.