Custom Search

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Is The 'Old Media' Against Barack Obama?

Ok, stop laughing.

I know, it sounds funny, hysterical even huh?

No smirking, quit giggling and pay attention ok?


I was going through a few pieces as I usually do, just browsing around and I ran across a piece in the Conservative Edge and while I do not totally agree with their reasoning here, I also cannot discount it because I have no verification one way or another.

So, we will stick to the facts and you can go read their view of these facts for yourself.

FACT: Six negative articles written about Barack Obama or the his campaign since the beginning of the week:

There has been an interesting development in the coverage of the Presidential campaign since the first of the week. The Washington Post has published a damaging story about Barak Obama's illegal campaign fundraising. Time Magazine has published an unflattering story about Lyin' Joe Biden being muzzled. The Atlantic Magazine has an editorialcriticizing the LA Times for failing to release the tape of Obama at a party for Rashid Khalidi. The AP has a story about Palestinians actively campaigning for Obama. Campbell Brown of CNN has a video and story critical of Barak Obama's broken campaign promise to take public funding of his general election race. And to top it all off, Howard Fineman of Newsweek says the race is not over.

Those links go to the stories the blogger wrote about each of these negative stories in the traditional media about Obama.

Those original media articles are:

The Washington Post today with "Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations." (We discussed this earlier ourselves right here)

TIME partners with CNN, with "Hidin' Biden: Reining In a Voluble No. 2"

The Atlantic with "What is the L.A. Times Hiding?"

Yahoo News, "Mideast Conflict"

CNN with "Obama breaks promise on campaign finance"

NewsWeek with "Why It Is Still A Race"

You can go over to Conservative Edge to get their take on why some media outlets are finally starting to report truthfully about Obama, which they think is the "Clinton" old media asserting itself.

Told you to stop laughing! Be good.

I have found a few more examples though of something in the air, evidenced by CNN's refusal to air the Obama 30 minute campaign commercial and issuing a memo explaining why:

Unlike the broadcast networks CBS, NBC, FOX -- and MSNBC and other cable networks -- CNN declined to accept the Obama program length commercial. In response to press inquiries this is the CNN statement that was given. And so this can be used as well on our air and websites when reporting about tonight's Obama program. We were approached by the Obama campaign and declined their request. We did not want to preempt our programming lineup with a 30-minute paid commercial program. We would rather use our air to continue to cover the campaign, candidates and issues like we always do from all points of view with the best political team on television.

MidWest Voices at voices Kansas, with "Obama's cheap-shot attack on Sarah Palin"

There are more, but you get the hint. The media has done everything possible to avoid writing negative pieces about Barack Obama, and studies have been done showing how many more negative pieces they write about McCain than they do Obama, proving it without a doubt and yet since the beginning of the week, there has been considerably more percentage wise than in the previous months.

Fifty-seven percent of the print and broadcast stories about the Republican nominee were decidedly negative, the Project for Excellence in Journalism says in a report out today, while 14 percent were positive. The McCain campaign has repeatedly complained that the mainstream media are biased toward the senator from Illinois.

Obama's coverage was more balanced during the six-week period from Sept. 8 through last Thursday, with 36 percent of the stories clearly positive, 35 percent neutral or mixed and 29 percent negative.

McCain has struggled during this period and slipped in the polls, which is one of the reasons for the more negative assessments by the 48 news outlets studied by the Washington-based group. But the imbalance is striking nonetheless.

Whats up with that?