THE BIASED AMERICAN MEDIA AGAINST OBAMA

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the American media is colluding to derail Senator Barack Obama’s march to the presidency of the United States.  In many studies, and as a few of the media itself, has come to acknowledge, they are doing everything to get very negative on Obama’s positions, while handling with kids’ gloves what his Republican opponent has been saying and doing, especially with the inconsistency of his position on several issues. 

Yesterday morning, I tuned in to CBS radio, and the first item on the news was “Did Obama’s overseas trip help or hurt him,” and proceeded to quote the new inconsistent USAGallop poll which had McCain with a lead of 4% over Obama of likely voters.  But on Monday at the same time, the CBS, which had been accused of doctoring an interview between its network anchor Kathie Couric and McCain, cutting out certain portions of the interview in which McCain made certain statements detrimental to his campaign, didn’t lead with a poll by the same Gallop organization which showed a bounce for Obama after his trip, with an 9-8% lead over McCain. 

Despite perception to the contrary, in which Americans felt the press was harder on McCain than on Obama, a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, has “found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

“What is most annoying is that the Obama campaign, for reasons best known to them, as if they haven’t learned how the campaign almost came to be derailed by vicious attacks by Hillary Clinton, are adopting the same silly “taking the high road,” approach to the attacks by John McCain and the media.  People tell you they detest negative advertisements, yet they are more than influenced by those ads. 

As we say back in Africa, “Do me, I do you, God no go vex.” You hit me, and I hit you back, God will not be angry.  That needs to be imparted to the people who run the Obama campaign.  Docility in the face of voracious negative attacks, don’t win elections.  Both Al Gore and Kerry tried it, look where it landed them.  A word for the wise. 

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the American media is colluding to derail Senator Barack Obama’s march to the presidency of the United States.  In many studies, and as a few of the media itself, has come to acknowledge, they are doing everything to get very negative on Obama’s positions, while handling with kids’ gloves what his Republican opponent has been saying and doing, especially with the inconsistency of his position on several issues. 

Yesterday morning, I tuned in to CBS radio, and the first item on the news was “Did Obama’s overseas trip help or hurt him,” and proceeded to quote the new inconsistent USAGallop poll which had McCain with a lead of 4% over Obama of likely voters.  But on Monday at the same time, the CBS, which had been accused of doctoring an interview between its network anchor Kathie Couric and McCain, cutting out certain portions of the interview in which McCain made certain statements detrimental to his campaign, didn’t lead with a poll by the same Gallop organization which showed a bounce for Obama after his trip, with an 9-8% lead over McCain. 

Despite perception to the contrary, in which Americans felt the press was harder on McCain than on Obama, a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, has “found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.” Writing in the Los Angeles Times of July 27, 2008, James Rainey had this to say, “Haters of the mainstream media reheated a bit of conventional wisdom last week.

Barack Obama, they said, was getting a free ride from those insufferable liberals.

Such pronouncements, sorry to say, tend to be wrong since they describe a monolithic media that no longer exists. Information today cascades from countless outlets and channels, from the Huffington Post to Politico.com to CBS News and beyond.

But now there’s additional evidence that casts doubt on the bias claims aimed—with particular venom—at three broadcast networks.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.”

Just imagine that: every time the three anchors of the huge three networks opined about Obama, 72% of the time it was negative, and only 28% of the time were they positive on Obama.  Compare this to the 43% they were positive on McCain, while only 57% negative on him, you can see why this race continues to be competitive.  Forget the Fox News Network - also known to many as the “False News Network” a more appropriate name, I must say - is 92% negative on Obama, that is practically every time they say something about Obama, it is negative.  One of its hosts, Sean Hannity, spends 100% of his time accusing Obama of everything under the sun. 

Writing in the wibsite “TalkingPointsMemo,” of July 28, 2008, a MsJoanne, under the headline “Proof Media Cherry Picks Data to Continue Horserace,” cited some startling facts from CNN broadcasts. “Looking at the CNN national polling map, we see Virginia identified as red, meaning McCain, and the poll connected to that (VCU) shows McCain up by 8 points. Yet the RCP Average for Virginia reveals Obama +1. The VCU survey cited by CNN was done on May 12-18. RCP lists no less than six polls that are more recent. Five of them give Obama the lead, while one gives McCain the lead by a single point. Clearly this is a very close race, but why did CNN feel it necessary to quote a poll that is over two months out of date and well outside the statistical norm of the other polling?

What about the critical state of Florida? CNN paints it red on the basis of an ARG poll dated 7/21 giving McCain a 2 point edge. The RCP Average for Florida reveals a tie. The most recent Rasmussen poll (7/22) shows Obama at +2. The most recent Quinnipiac (6/16) shows Obama at +4. To be fair, the RCP site is not yet showing the most recent ARG poll cited by CNN, and only shows ARG’s poll from June which had Obama at +5. The question this begs is: why does CNN have the most up to date polling only when it favors McCain? Why does CNN ignore more recent polling only when that polling favors Obama?

What about Indiana? This is another close race that needs an honest analysis. CNN paints Indiana red on the basis of a poll done in APRIL by the South Bend Tribune (a journalistic juggernaut?) giving McCain an 8 point lead. Yet the RCP Average for Indiana is Obama +0.5. The surveys used in that average include the poll cited by CNN, but also three other polls, all of which give Obama an edge, by +8, +1, and +1.”

We need hardly forget how the Associated Press, owned by most of the major newspapers invited the two McCain and Obama to their press bash.  McCain was given a standing ovation by the journalists assembled, and even the AP’s Washington correspondent, Liz Sidoti, brought favorite doughnuts and coffee for McCain, the way McCain likes it, with a little cream and sugar, saying “I brought you your favorite, and here’s a little cream and sugar the way you like it.” On the other hand, Obama was excoriated by the same journalists, and even the President of the organization went on to call Obama, Osama bin Laden.

But now, it turns out in an update that the Bureau Chief of the Associated Press in Washington, DC, was actually being courted by the McCain campaign to join its team, according to Politico.com.  “Before Ron Fournier returned to The Associated Press in March 2007, the veteran political reporter had another professional suitor: John McCain’s presidential campaign.

In October 2006, the McCain team approached Fournier about joining the fledgling operation, according to a source with knowledge of the talks. In the months that followed, said a source, Fournier spoke about the job possibility with members of McCain’s inner circle, including political aides Mark Salter, John Weaver and Rick Davis.

Salter, who remains a top McCain adviser, said in an e-mail to Politico that Fournier was considered for “a senior advisory role” in communications.”

Since Obama returned from his triumphant world tour, greeted as a Head of State, by European and Middle East leaders, McCain decided to falsely accuse Obama of avoiding to meet with wounded US soldiers.  The press knows that, yet they have boosted McCain’s false advertisement more than 100 times on network news, when in fact McCain paid for merely 12 spots, thereby contributing mightily and financially to the McCain campaign.

But why has the media become so voraciously anti-Obama?  “Don’t be stupid,” a colleague of mine said.  “Are you stupid enough not to know that the media is totally controlled by white people, the newspapers, the radio stations, the television stations.  In fact, the one station that used to be owned by a black man, BET, was purchased by the same CBS which has been fawning all over McCain.”

Another said to me, “Listen, now they are writing about how Obama has become ‘arrogant and presumptuous,’ the same adjectives that the Republican Party is using.  Obama being a black man is not supposed to be free to express his opinion, he’s not saying yes master.” That irks the daylight out of these people.”

Another chimed in and said, “lately they have been talking about the Bradley effect.” We all remember the former Mayor Bradley of Los Angeles, California, who ran for governor of the state.  He was leading in the polls by about 12 percentage points, but lost because when the voters went into the polling booths they changed their minds and voted for his opponent, who is white as against Bradley who is black.”

What is most annoying is that the Obama campaign, for reasons best known to them, as if they haven’t learned how the campaign almost came to be derailed by vicious attacks by Hillary Clinton, are adopting the same silly “taking the high road,” approach to the attacks by John McCain and the media.  People tell you they detest negative advertisements, yet they are more than influenced by those ads. 

As we say back in Africa, “Do me, I do you, God no go vex.” You hit me, and I hit you back, God will not be angry.  That needs to be imparted to the people who run the Obama campaign.  Docility in the face of voracious negative attacks, don’t win elections.  Both Al Gore and Kerry tried it, look where it landed them.  A word for the wise.

To comment on this article, please click here.