I'm sick of the Media and their Myth that Obama gets preferential Press Treatment! THAT IS A LIE!

[NattPang]

I was especially incensed that Rasmussen, the polling firm,
jumped into the frey, to also say what is being said over
and over again by the corporate media; The Press want Obama to win.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/belief_growing_that_reporters_are_trying_to_help_obama_win

This has to stop, because it is not true.

Rasmussen contact: Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Dear Rasmussen Reports,

In reading your findings that a growing number of Americans believe that the media wants Obama to win, I wonder if the fact that the media constantly says that the media favors Obama is why people think it.

According to a widely respected Pew report, the quantity of media reports does not equal qualitative or positive press. In their April 2008 report, titled "Less news is good news for McCain", The Pew reported that http://people-press.org/report/412/less-news-is-good-news-for-mccain
McCain's coverage, however sparse, has been mostly positive, while Obama gets more coverage, with a lot of it being negative.

An example is a recent Washington Post poll that showed 72% believed that McCain would be a better Commander in Chief. This poll was heralded by just about everyone in the press (just do a google). How is that favoring Obama, when the media literally hid the fact that the same poll favored Obama by 8 points overall? Media Matters weighted in to discuss these poll results and how they were massaged by the media to favor John McCain.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807170011

Also, take for instance Obama's trip abroad. The media repeatedly posed doubting questions of Obama strategy on this, and whether Obama's trip could bring risks. Then on Sunday, Howard Kurtz's topic of conversation on CNN was how the press is favorable to Sen. Obama. Meanwhile, many reporters on television (in particular on Cable) prior to that had been insisting last week that the big networks were accompanying Obama, and that this meant that the media favored Obama and were being unfair to McCain. No such fuss had been made for the McCain trips, they said, while ignoring the fact that McCain had not invited the media to come on his trips.

In closely watching the coverage of the election, I do not find that the media favors Barack Obama, although he may get more coverage. In fact, there appears to be collusion between some in the Corporate media (AP, WAPO, CNN, MSNBC, etc...) to say that the media favors Obama. I submit that if facts and statistics were taken into consideration when the media made this assertion, they wouldn't have any evidence to back them, as I mentioned earlier, numerous mentions does not equal positive coverage.

Then conveniently, here comes your publication with an article and "poll findings" that agree with the multitude of the media and the new "meme"; the media wants Obama to win.

I repeat that corporate media does not favor Barack Obama in its reporting, and repeating it over and over again does not make it so. Your article is a prime example of the media stating that Obama gets more favorable press, while at the same time not giving Obama any favorable press.

I do wish that the media was fairer, and reported McCain's negatives as much as they do Obama's, but to date, that is only a myth being built by the corporate media, and its enablers; outfits like yours.

Sincerely,

[Wapsie B]

1. This is just another part of the gop spin to try and help McCain.

It's a meme that'll be chanted nonstop before the election.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. Again, it worked for Hillary. She and her surrogates continued to repeat the meme

that the media was unfair to her and extremely sexist. Yes, there was some outrageous and disgusting sexism apparent, but it is NOT true that Obama had received more favorable coverage. Still many Americans, especially her supporters, bought into the meme and are angry with Obama because of what the media actually did. This was done by design to divide the Democratic party.

Repeating a lie over and over again doesn't make it true!!

Here's the PEW's study:

<snip>

Character and the Primaries of 2008
What Were the Media Master Narratives about the Candidates During the Primary Season?
May 29, 2008

If campaigns for president are in part a battle for control of the master narrative about character, Democrat Barack Obama has not enjoyed a better ride in the press than rival Hillary Clinton, according to a new study of primary coverage by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University.

From January 1, just before the Iowa caucuses, through March 9, following the Texas and Ohio contests, the height of the primary season, the dominant personal narratives in the media about Obama and Clinton were almost identical in tone, and were both twice as positive as negative, according to the study, which examined the coverage of the candidates' character, history, leadership and appeal -- apart from the electoral results and the tactics of their campaigns.

</snip>

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/854/candidate-character

More:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080707/alterman/print

<snip>

But even though we might be taken with McCain personally, we would like to think that we would resist the urge to offer the sort of spontaneous testimonials to his character that have gushed from the pens of so many MSM journalists. These would include calling McCain "a cool dude" (Jake Tapper, Salon); "an original, imaginative, and at times inspiring candidate" (Jacob Weisberg, Slate); "a man of unshakable character, willing to stand up for his convictions" (the late R.W. Apple Jr., New York Times); "a man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage" (Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek); "blunt, unyielding, deploying his principles.... What he does do is what he's always done, play it as straight as possible.... The maverick candidate still" (Terry Moran, ABC News's Nightline); "worldly-wise and witty, determined to follow the facts to the exclusion of ideology...willing to defy his own party and forge compromise...pragmatic in the service of the national interest...rises to passion when he believes that America's best values are at stake" (Michael Hirsch, Newsweek); "kind of like a Martin Luther" (Chris Matthews, MSNBC's Hardball); "the perfect candidate to deal with what challenges we face as a country" (Mika Brzezinski, MSNBC's Morning Joe); "rises above the pack...eloquent, as only a prisoner of war can be" (David Nyhan, Boston Globe); "the bravest candidate in the presidential race" (Dana Milbank, Washington Post); "an affable man of zealous, unbending beliefs" and "the hero still does things his own way" (Richard Cohen, Washington Post); and who, in "an age of deep cynicism about politicians of both parties...is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest" (David Broder, Washington Post).

Believe us, we could go on (and on and on...). Suffice it to say that no candidate since John F. Kennedy, and perhaps none since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, has enjoyed such cozy relations with the press. In his book Politicians, Partisans, and Parasites: My Adventures in Cable News, Tucker Carlson explains the source of many journalists' attraction to the Arizona senator: "McCain ran an entire presidential campaign aimed primarily at journalists.... To a greater degree than any candidate in thirty years, McCain offered reporters the three things they want most: total access all the time, an endless stream of amusing quotes, and vast quantities of free booze." Ryan Lizza, reporting for The New Yorker from the current Straight Talk, notes the dichotomy of McCain's press-friendly campaign style and that of his opponents: "The Democratic candidates rarely speak to the traveling press. McCain not only packs his bus with reporters (whom he often greets with an affectionate 'Hello, jerks!') but talks until the room is filled with the awkward silence of journalists with no more questions." Lizza also notes that the "chumminess" between the campaign and the reporters has almost no boundaries. Questions of strategy--even media manipulation--are discussed openly with reporters present, and "McCain's senior advisers dine almost nightly with the people covering the candidate."

</snip>

Bottom line: It was a LIE when Hillary and her Enablers complained that Obama received more favorable coverage. It IS STILL a LIE when McSame and the Repukes do so. Receiving MORE coverage doesn't mean that the coverage is favorable!!!

[Kdillard]

2. I am sick of it too hopefully if enough letters are sent to places

like CNN detailing as you posted above why this is a myth it will be a short story.

[TexasObserver]

3. the GOP attacks Obama more in media than he attacks McCain

So, the GOP constantly talks about Obama and tries to make Obama the topic. Naturally, the corporate media accommodate the GOP talking heads, and thus begins more "media coverage" of Obama.

They start most of the dialogs about Obama, and then wonder why all the coverage is about Obama. It's because they are not out there building up McCain, but trying to tear down Obama. The topic is Obama because that's all the GOP can talk about.

They don't want to admit that McCain's main campaign points are new to him, and that he opposed them until a few months ago.

[NattPang]

5. That's what you should say in your letter,

because you are correct.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. The freepers are always complaining about the liberal media bias

& the left about the rw bias. On the basis of that I'd say it was actually all pretty balanced.

[NattPang]

7. You would.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. Anger managment

Give it a try.

[NattPang]

11. Yes, I am so angry.

or whatever.

Call me a whiner, why don't you?

[Skittles]

9. LOL

I really, REALLY hope you are kidding

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. Averaging the reaction on the internets & webroots only. I'm too lazy

to pay much attention to the actual mainstream editorial content & keep score anymore.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

6. I don't think the media wants to cover McCain's gaffes of which there are many

"Less news is good news for McCain" is right.

[NattPang]

12. So they protect McCain while claiming that the smears on

Obama are media coverage and therefore,
not fair!

Doing their best to confuse us, I guess.

[nc4bo]

13. Too bad...

Some one entity isn't keeping a running tab of the amount of negative Obama media coverage vs. mccant's. Too bad.

If MSM and it's sycophants wish to count the gop smearing/lies/nontruths as "coverage" than Obama would most certainly have more of it than mclame and I'd say it's high time to even up the playing field by giving mcbush the same negative treatment.

Where's the sunlight when you need it?!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. If you only read two books during this summer's election season, please read...

"Free Ride: John McCain and the Media," by David Brock and Paul Waldman

and

"The Real John McCain," by Cliff Shecter

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_4912.shtml

[samsingh]

16. the people asking this question are the media and they are pro Mccain

of course, they are too stupid to understand this.

[Hutzpa]

17. The McCain camp are wasting their time

the Media has already done a ratings review and found out
that reporting positive stories about Obama gives them
more ratings than McCain or Hillary, this was done during
the primaries when Hillary complained.

They pulled the plug on Obama and guess what.... yup you
guessed right, their ratings plummeted, this was actually
reported on Keith's show, but can't remember when, so they
are wastin their precious time.

They should be using that time to find solutions on
how to get this country back on track rather than looking
to win the popularity contest, if there is any.