Shorenstein Center Founder -- Clinton Backer -- Hits Press 'Bias' Against Her

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: Editor&Publisher/AP

Published: March 02, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO The founder of a prestigious institute on media and politics added his voice Saturday to the chorus of complaint over perceived press bias in favor of Democrat Barack Obama. Walter Shorenstein, a prominent San Francisco-based real estate developer, Democratic fundraiser and longtime supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, penned a memo to Democratic party "superdelegates" and other activists criticizing media coverage of the presidential campaign.

Shorenstein is the founder of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University....

The former first lady and her advisers have lashed out at the press in recent days, suggesting unfair coverage of the campaign has in part led to Obama's victories in the last 11 voting contests....In his memo, Shorenstein concurred with the Clinton campaign's assessment. "I am absolutely outraged with the media coverage of the presidential campaign," Shorenstein wrote in the memo, which was obtained by The Associated Press. "This is the most important election in my long lifetime, and to quote one of my favorite movies, 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!'"...

"There is too much on the line for the media to ignore important issues while they obsess about Hillary's hairdo or Barack's baritone," Shorenstein continued. "Is it in the country's best interest that voters received far more information about Hillary's laugh than Obama's legislative record? Is it good for our nation that more attention is paid to the differences in their speaking style than their health care plans?"

Shorenstein attached several studies to the memo indicating the press had given more favorable coverage to Obama than to Clinton, and urged activists to forward the material to friends and voters and to complain to reporters. "Our democracy depends upon the fourth estate to fulfill the uniquely critical role of informing voters about the important issues facing our nation," Shorenstein wrote. "Yet far too often, the campaign coverage has been biased, blase, or baseless."

Read more: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003718346

[AX10]

1. It's about time!

This bias for Obama exceeds what Bush got in 2000.

[NorthernSpy]

2. funny -- all those months when the media's theme was "Hillary The Inevitable"...

... he sure as hell wasn't complaining about "bias" then.


figures.



:eyes:

[ladywnch]

3. exactly. almost from the time she announced she was the 'presumptive' nominee.

All those "it will be me" interviews. No one was cryin 'bias' then.

And where has this women over the last 7 years while the press/media has been asleep or worse still in bed with this administration? why wasn't she saying anything then about them then?

[Zhade]

5. Indeed. Hypocrites.

NT!

[indimuse]

4. BIG K&R!!!

:dem: :kick: :dem: :kick:
:dem: :kick:

[indimuse]

6. Obama fans are in utter denial..

..

[Pastiche423]

7. Denial of what?

[gerrilea]

8. O is all media hype, and there isn't any movement here in Buffalo NY

But all the supporters, or correction, a lot of the supporters of O here at DU keep repeating the same stuff our wonderful MSM says about HRC and then say it's all her fault...

Denial that once the media gets him as the democratic nominee, then they will destroy him...and we will lose the GE...as per their puppet masters plan...

[Pastiche423]

9. What a load

Although I am not supporting any candidate in the primary, I know it doesn't take the MSM's reporting (which I do not watch) for people to form an opinion about Hillary Clinton.

Btw, it matters not one whit whether the Dem nom is Clinton or Obama. The MSM will go after either in the run up to the General.

[MagsDem]

10. Everything you think you know about HRC comes from the media

and its spin. It always amazes me when people act like they are above the media (i.e I don't watch). If you didn't watch or read or listen to people that do you wouldn't know anything about her in the first place. When the media is 90% bad about someone, and 90% good about someone else, then it's no surprise that sheeple adopt those attitudes. Sad, but true. It's why our media has become accustomed to picking our leaders.

[Pastiche423]

11. Hillary Clinton's character

has shone brightly during her campaign, allowing anyone and everyone to see her true self and it ain't pretty.

Her actions speak VOLUMNES and have turned this Independent off for life.

Presidential campaigns sure enough draw out the DLC supporters.

Sickening.

[gerrilea]

12. Well, that may be true for most but not me, please read

here's a link to my post a few days ago, HRC has helped me and my family first hand...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4734529

[bhikkhu]

13. The anti-Edwards bias was much more pronounced

and was duly noted as well. It is hard to say how much worry and care should be spent on this, as it is likely that, after the fact, every election victory or defeat can be accounted for by media bias.

I would like to think that people make up their own minds in any case, as any other possibility leads to thoughts of vast conspiracies controlling us all...

[Algorem]

14. the Shorenstein memo (4 pages,pdf)

Persistent Media Bias in Favor of Barack Obama And Against Hillary Clinton

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/Important%20memo%20from%20Walter%20Shorenstein%20on%20Press%20and%20the%20Presidential%20Campaign.pdf

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/the_shorenstien_memo.php

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)....

[theHandpuppet]

15. Thanks for the link...

This has been a shameful chapter in history for the MSM.