Obama v. McCain - the myth of media bias

By Libby

I see the McCain camp is whining that Obama gets more coverage than he does in the media. Apparently he does.

The imbalance has appeared in various analyses of the news coverage. The Tyndall Report, a news coverage monitoring service that has the broadcast networks as clients, reports that three newscasts by the traditional networks — which have a combined audience of more than 20 million people — spent 114 minutes covering Obama since June; they spent 48 minutes covering McCain.

However, the difference is that at least fully half the coverage on Obama is spent obsessing about his negatives, as they perceive them, and McCain gets a fluffer from the press almost every blessed time, no matter how badly he stumbles or how often he contradicts himself. And I'd like to see how many minutes they devoted to Iraq. I'd bet it was under ten. Additionally, I'd like to see the stats on the coverage of the ongoing revelations about White House criminality. I'd be willing to bet those stories didn't get any significant time either.

Not that it will stop the usual suspects from using this piece to "prove" bias towards the Democratic party in the "liberal press."  Which I suppose explains why they devoted so much ink to Hillary's new hairdo.

Comments

[Nell]

Here's a great example of why sheer number of minutes doesn't tell the whole story. Via Avedon Carol, Eric Boehlert:

Last week, after being hyped by Matt Drudge and Fox News, the Beltway press unanimously decided that Rev. Jesse Jackson's whispered comments, picked up on a live television set mic, in which he expressed anger with Sen. Barack Obama and used some crude language to convey his sentiments (i.e. he wanted to cut off Obama's "nuts"), represented a hugely important event. It was the most-covered campaign story of the week. By contrast, McCain said at a campaign appearance in Denver on July 7 that the Social Security system as structured in America, in which younger people pay taxes to support the benefits of retirees, is an "absolute disgrace" -- but his proclamation was mostly passed over as being irrelevant. The disconnect between the coverage was astounding.

[Libby]

Exactly the point Nell.

[BJ Bjornson]

Man, but I hope the wingnuts keep pushing this kind of bias story. If they do, there's a not insignificant chance that the media may start focusing more on McCain in their never-ending search for "balance". I posted on this back in June. For McCain, invisible is a good strategy.

As long as the focus is on Obama, every gaffe or presumed gaffe is magnified greatly. Shift a good portion of that coverage time over to McCain, and his far more frequent slip-ups and flip-flops and gaffes become far harder to hide from public view.

[Che killer]

It's amazing you stupid lefties still manage to feed yourselves on a daily basis. I guess you have a vested interest in welfare.

[Libby]

Good point BJ. Even though when they do focus on McCain, it's to pimp for him, not pin him down, he's so gaffe prone that more exposure might really help explode the myths.

[John Knight]

You're crazy.