Democratic Party Unity

Written by Tony

Saturday, 28 June 2008

Ok, so Hillary needs money. Obama has money. Obama needs votes from her supporters. Hmm.

Oh, I get it. That's what that was all about. Makes sense.

I thought Obama had this thing wrapped up though. Why does he need her supporters' votes? well, Dukakis had a lead going into the summer against Bush and lost it. So I guess it ain't over until it's over, right?

The media will have you think that this is all over with. That just shows you how dumb they think we are. Just remember this time a year from now when this is all over and the dust has settled (won't that be nice?). Remember how the media was really pushing for one candidate over the other and how things seemed to be all well and good for this Messianic candidate. We'll then know how things did not turn out how the media was pushing for.

It makes you think... if this really was wrapped up, then why would the media be pushing it so hard? Maybe they're just pushing it so hard because it's really not "in the bag" and they're scared.

-T

P.S. Notice how I can talk about the media and the Democratic Party interchagably.

Bookmark

Email This

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (9) Add Comment

Show/Hide comments

Examples?
written by James Rotering, June 30, 2008

Tony,

Now here's a topic I find interesting. Not the "unity" stuff you started with, but the "left-wing media bias" stuff that you eventually wound up on.

I've been hearing this argument ever since I was a kid, and I'm still not convinced. I think most mainstream journalists are liberals/Democrats in their personal lives - that is pretty-much undisputed. But I can't say I've ever seen any evidence of the mainstream media "pushing hard" for the Democratic candidate over the Republican. Certainly not in this election, for the simple fact that most mainstream journalists LOVE John McCain. He has been building a cozy relationship with the press for years. A few months ago he held an exclusive cook-out at his ranch for his "friends" in the press. I'm not accusing him of anything here - just observing that his long-term efforts to gain favor with the media have greatly helped him with the kind of coverage he gets. Rarely will you ever see the media point out his mistakes or inconsistent statements. They go soft on him because he treats them well.

The media loves Obama because he is a good story, and good stories generate viewers/readers/audience.

But - the media also loves McCain because he has a history of granting them much more "access" than most politicians - he has gone out of his way to talk to them, to know them by name, etc. The more access a politician allows, the better the stories are... and good stories (see above).

So that is my take on it. Yeah, you don't see a lot of negative stories about Obama so far... but you don't see many negatives about McCain, either. Do you really feel that the media is "pushing hard" for Obama, or trying to convince the public that it is "all over"? I'd be very interested to see any examples you can provide as evidence to this point. Simple reporting of polling numbers that show Obama with a lead don't count - that's just reporting the facts. But if the story or broadcast were to then say something like "based on these numbers, I don't see how McCain can come back" or "Obama's lead looks insurmountable" - if they said something like THAT, I would certainly take that as evidence.

Maybe you can find some examples that I haven't noticed, and convince me. I doubt it though. My observation has been that both sides - liberals and conservatives - are firmly convinced that the mainstream media is biased against them. The reality (in my opinion) is that the MSM is usually protecting its own corporate interests and trying to sell ads/newspapers/etc.

Spin is Bias
written by Tony, June 30, 2008

Wow, this statement of yours really shocked me: "But I can't say I've ever seen any evidence of the mainstream media "pushing hard" for the Democratic candidate over the Republican. Certainly not in this election, for the simple fact that most mainstream journalists LOVE John McCain."

So there is no evidence that the media is pushing Obama for the simple fact that they love McCain.

Hmmm. I don't follow that logic at all. Let's put that aside and go on.

You're definitely right that the MSM just wants to sell ads and newspapers. Newsprint is a dying media but what I'm seeing is just not all in newspapers. I mainly read news online. The more sensationalistic things are, the more people are dependent on the news. The more doom and gloom, the more people NEED the news. It's a business and they're essentially selling a drug. Well, I'm not buying.

For instance, there were some stories about $7 gas coming by the end of the year or something like that late last week. From talking to a few people this weekend, they really seemed to take this speculation as prophetic since it was in the news.

Then you said this: "Simple reporting of polling numbers that show Obama with a lead don't count - that's just reporting the facts. But if the story or broadcast were to then say something like "based on these numbers, I don't see how McCain can come back" or "Obama's lead looks insurmountable" - if they said something like THAT, I would certainly take that as evidence. "

Ok, so here's how it works, I'll spell it out - the media doesn't have to give their opinion, like you say, to be biased to the left. They just need to simply report just certain facts to make things look one way. That's called "spin." But I guess that's not enough evidence for you... if they just came right out and gave their opinion like you say, then that would be way too obvious. People would definitely see that and wouldn't buy that paper or visit that website for their biased views. I think the media has figured that much out already. When a story is reported as "news" and has been spun, then the bias is undercover and people believe it as truth because it's "news." It's very deceptive. I guess if you can't see through the spin then you're not going to get much of the "evidence" that you want of this bias because it's done through spin.

So sorry, I can't produce the kind of evidence that you need because there is none.

I guess if the snake in the Garden of Eden said to Eve, "Eat this apple and you'll die" she probably wouldn't have eaten it, but that's not how it went down, right? It was a little more deceptive than that. Some things don't change.

-T

...
written by James Rotering, July 01, 2008

Not sure what is hard to follow about my argument:
1)McCain is a media darling
2) therefore he is seldom questioned or criticized by the mainstream media, but instead usually gets a "free pass" to push his message through the daily news cycle unchallenged.
3) Therefore if McCain gets regular/daily good press exposure, I don't see how the media can be "pushing hard" for Obama in any sense. Unless they were giving him even better treatment than they give McCain. And judging by how they have picked up on even the silliest right-wing criticisms of Obama - and lent validation to them by making them mainstream - I don't see how that is the case.

Do you realize that you started by claiming to be "shocked" by my statement that I can't say I've seen any evidence... then you closed by saying that you cannot provide any tangible evidence because there is none?

I realize that you are making a point about how it is subtle... and I agree with your point to some extent. "Selective" reporting is definitely an issue in the mainstream media (and the conservative and liberal fringe media as well). Sensationalism - which you also mentioned - is an even bigger problem I'd say. The biggest problem I have with mainstream media - I'll use cnn.com as an example because I have a bad habit of looking at it regularly - is that they never have the stories I want to know about (political topics mostly) because they are pushing all of the sensationalistic/flashy/sexy stories instead.

It is scary to think that most people look at the 20 or so "stories" each day in the news and subconsciously "buy" the agenda... "these must be the most newsworthy stories today, because they are the lead stories." Yeah, right. They are there because they are provocative or sexy - NOT because they are important. To this point, I agree with your example of the $7 gas story. On the web, people are definitely going to click on that story, and are going to talk about it around the water cooler.

But that just shows that they want to generate revenue - not that they are "pushing hard for the democratic candidate". You made some very strong claims in your first post - the media "really pushing for one candidate over the other" and that maybe they're "scared" because it isn't really "in the bag" (as you claim they want us to think). It seems to me that if that is really true, you should be able to site some clear examples to back it up.

I understand that you are claiming it is in the "spin" - that they are doing the "pushing" by focusing on certain stories and ignoring other stories or other sides of the story. But there should still be some actual evidence of this if it is really happening. I'd be curious to see some examples of what they are doing that is "pushing hard" for Obama over McCain. There's lots of ways you could provide evidence if it is really happening in a widespread manner.

Watch What You Watch
written by Tony, July 02, 2008

Well, I wish I had the luxury of time to sit down and reply to all of this, but I'm really busy at the moment. I will say a few things though.

Since I really hate being misquoted / misunderstood, let me explain why I was shocked by your statement. I'm shocked that you don't think there's a bias toward Obama. I can see it everywhere with the spin that's going on so to me, it's shocking that others don't see it. That's just a shock to me though. We're apparently looking at different places for news.

And I was wrong by saying that there is no evidence. There's plenty. I don't have time to dig it up at the moment since I'm really busy with work. Again, it's mainly in spin and it just seems absurd to me that there are people out there that don't see it. Apparently it's working really well.

As I browse through the news in the next few days or week, I'll be sure to come back here and site examples I've seen. Again, to me, this has just been so strong that I didn't think I needed to provide specific examples. So it'll be very easy to do, so watch for that to come. I'll do my homework.

My original point is that the media is run by liberals. That's plainly obvious and not even debatable. So which candidate are they for? That's obvious, too. People just need to keep that in mind when checking out the news. That's all.

The football news in Wisconsin is going to naturally be pro-Packers and anti-Bears or anti-Vikings, right? Same thing. They're just selling papers. Who's buying newspapers still? Liberals mainly (conservatives gave up on it a long time ago and even more people seems to be giving up on them now as well). The same media companies and groups that were writing newspapers are spewing the same news online as well. It's sensationalistic, emotional and designed to get attention regardless of integrity.

I see the conservative view as being set on truth and steadfast values that don't change with the wind. It's not emotional and not based on what everyone else thinks at the moment. So, again to my main point, watch what you read and recognize how it's written and what spin is put on it. This has always been my point and I'm not changing it.

I'm more against the media than Obama. Definitely. Garbage in, garbage out. What you sow, you reap. People are influenced by their environment, so people need to watch what they watch. This next generation of kids are being raised by the TV (media), violent video games and an online world where anything and everything is available, all the time. That's very scary to me. A lot of this comes down from the '60s, I think.

Anyway, time to get back to work. This is more than I wanted to write. :-)

-Tony

Media Bias Prevalent
written by Tony, July 21, 2008

Doing my homework:

Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080720/ap_en_tv/ap_on_tv_obama_s_trip

Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/mccain-oped-not.html

some credit, and some questions
written by James Rotering, July 22, 2008

Alright man, I'll give some credit where it is due.

You did your homework. Although one could argue that the media did your homework for you, since these are articles written *by* the "liberal media" *about* the "liberal media". But still - you have now brought some potential substance to the argument.

Here is how I see it. It is undisputed that Obama is getting *more* coverage in the media than McCain thus far. The first link you provided gives some specific numbers of what percentage of all stories each candidate is mentioned in. So yeah, he is getting more attention.

But does more equal better? I would say that having more coverage is a double-edged sword - it can cut both ways. There is that old saying that "all press is good press" but I'm not so sure it is true. Talking about someone more doesn't always mean talking about them favorably. I mean, Rush probably talks about Obama twice as much as he talks about McCain too, right? But to what end?

All eyes are on Obama as he goes on this big overseas tour - but what if he stumbles? Will it be swept under the rug, downplayed? Or will it be talked about endlessly for the rest of the election? I'm curious to see. Personally I think he is getting more coverage because he is by far the more exciting candidate - not because the media is "in the tank" for him, but because he makes money for them. And he'll make just as much money for them if he stumbles and the attention turns negative. Americans love juicy stories, love seeing the mighty stumble. My prediction is that he'll dominate the media - with either favorable or negative coverage - for the rest of the campaign cycle.

As for the New York Times rejecting McCain's "editorial"... if you read through to the end, it is clear that this type of thing happens all the time - pieces are sent back for a "do-over" for various reasons. I'll leave the reasons for this particular case for another time - but the point is, this apparently happens a lot with editorial submissions, and usually it doesn't get made into a big deal. In this case, the McCain campaign has made hay of it, and the Drudge Report chose to amplify it.

Well, the good news is there's less than four more months of all this nonsense to go, and then for better or worse at least we are done with it for a few years.

This May Backfire for Obama
written by Tony, July 22, 2008

Yeah, it might work against Obama having all this coverage. There's evidence of it already.

Obama had to take down things on his website about how he was against the surge before he headed overseas. He told reporters that he would not have supported the surge if he could go back - even now after seeing that it has worked. This doesn't make sense because the media is covering everything he's saying in Afghanistan - like how he wants 10,000 more troops there. Um... oops. Make up your mind, dude.

It seems that when you tell lies / half truths / what people want to hear, you have to spend lots of time covering your tracks. The more media attention you have, the harder it is to do that. This will all catch up to him, I know it.

The whole Afghanistan thing is purely publicity and a media event, too. He has no Constitutional power to make any changes there - just like Pelosi (who messed things up pretty bad).

I'm glad there's only a few months left. When this is over, it'll be great. More time for Obama to mess up, too. The guy is an unknown still... only 143 days as a Senator and he really couldn't beat Hillary very well. It took him way too long to do that. With all the hype, he really has no chance. I think there are going to be a lot of dropped jaws in November - but we'll see.

-T

Some actual evidence?
written by James Rotering, July 23, 2008

Imagine if you will:

One of the major networks interviews one of the candidates about the "surge".

In his answer, he makes an absolutely, demonstrably false factual statement about the "surge". Clearly he either doesn't have his facts straight or he is being deliberately deceptive.

Rather than letting the candidate speak for himself (to his own doom), the network then EDITS the interview, replacing the candidate's botched, false statements with his answer to another question - along with some B-roll footage of the candidate meeting with General Petraeus.

Would THAT be a tangible example of media bias?

Let's watch and discuss:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIAsS9VXiM

Good One
written by Tony, July 23, 2008

Yeah, that's a great example. I don't deny that it happens both ways. My point is that it's tipped more toward one direction. Thanks for pointing this one out.

-Tony