How well did the media report campaign 2008?

I think I'm going to focus on this point: Did the media affect your vote, or inform your vote?

Interesting... Mark Jurkowitz (Associate director of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism) is presenting the idea of coverage that says "winning" generates actual winning. It reminded me of the commentary that polls come to pass.

Kerri asked guest Jon Fine: Did the media help Obama win by the tone of the coverage?

He talks about the difference between negative and unfair coverage, and that the McCain campaign had more internal swipes/snipes, generating more coverage.

*Fine writes the "Media Centric" column for BusinessWeek.

Host Kerri Miller is opening the doors to other media outlets, she specifically mentions cable news. I wonder more about blogs and discussions. Guest Fine is talking about the sheer volume of options, and chasing stories across Web sites.

Was the coverage horse-race based, not policy based? How much of a difference did that make?

Do you think the media had a love affair with Obama? Kerri Miller says they'll talk about the coverage soon, and hints that the journalists covering Obama didn't love him - that they found him distant and that both campaigns were very tight on message.

Sue from Bemidji is on the phone. Her point is that the regular Republican or Democrat knows that the media catered to Obama. She went on to talk about how journalists can give a hard interview if they want to.

I missed the name of this caller - she is presenting that MPR presented an image that Obama talked about issues, and unfavorably compared McCain.

We're back from the news break.

What are the capacities of the various mediums? Does TV have an advantage in sharing an emotional connection?

Jon Fine just allowed that "journalists have feelings."

Will the conservative media go into "Clinton mode" and hunt done scandal?

There's a lot of mention of the coverage during Bill Clinton's presidency. Do you think that Obama will have the same experience with the media?

Ohhh we have a caller talking about journalism's standards. He's speaking specifically about the debates, and how the moderators didn't press for an answer to questions.

Is the media's job to "flush out what is really there?"

Are journalists too civil?! The guests are talking about the rules around the debates, and how these rules are not transparent.

Are news anchors too concerned with their own image?

They're talking about the "metabolism" of the cable news and how much coverage was available. It reminded me of media multitaskers.

After the show, I realized I didn't get what I really wanted to know... which is what YOU think. Care to give the media (yes, even us) a grade?

________________
Julia Schrenkler
Interactive Producer
Minnesota Public Radio
American Public Media

Catch the archived audio of the program on this page.

I think the media was more negative toward McCain. I think the media was relatively even-handed with McCain until Palin came along. I'm not sure how positive they could be after he chose Palin as a running mate. It would be hard to cover her without coming across as negative. She was a train wreck. She had nothing substantial to say, she was incredibly negative herself with her "palling around with terrorists" comments and the like, and her lack of knowledge of the basic workings of government was frightening.

Really, Joseph? It seemed to me the party had a bit of a lift after the RNC and her nomination. Do you think that was just timing?

Juan Williams on the Sunday, October 26 Fox News Sunday:


"If you were going to events during the primaries, what you saw was that the executive editors and the top people at the networks were all rushing to Obama events, bringing their children, celebrating it, saying they were, there's this part of history. I think they plugged into the Obama narrative in a way that they said, “you know what, out with the past.” And they've been very critical of President Bush and Senator McCain, as an extension of Bush, playing into the Obama campaign theme. I don't think there's any question about this. The American people are smart, they can see this. That's why Obama's on every magazine cover -- I've spend too much time in airports, you walk through there, it's like you're walking through an Obama campaign event. So, there's no question in my mind the media has been more supportive of Senator Obama.

But if you ask me, you know, so what does this indicate? Has this shifted, is that the reason for this race going as it has? No it's not. I think people understand the drama of what Senator Obama represents and, in some ways, I think, the McCain campaign has not been sufficiently smart in maneuvering themselves to present their candidate and what he has done and his story, his heroism, his willingness to sacrifice, I don't think they've done a very good job of advertising it."

Pretty much sums it up.

The media was deterimined to bring down Palin.
A. SHe was un apoligetic about being conservative. And wouldn't back down.
B. She had a journalism degree from a non-prestigous school.
C. She was a "pagent queen".
D. She hunted and rode snowmobiles
E. She worked her way up to the the position she had by starting at the bottom and working her way up. Not as being the wife of a President.

Look at all the gafs that Biden said during the race. OMG! and the media let most of them go by. But any slight gaf by Palin was put under the microscope!

OF course all you liberals don't think it's biased!

All the "Woodward and Bernstein" journalists of today have become what they despised 30 years ago!

Remember, McCain was the darling of the media, that is until he won the nomination, then he became a threat.

Brian Williams of NBC asked Obama the day of the election how he was going to pay for half of the stuff he was promising! GREAT TIMING! How about asking that 2 months ago!

Julia, think anybody voted for Coleman or McCain over there at MPR?

Think Obama got 95%, or even higher than that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

Pretty much sums it up.


Now we wait to see what happens.

When I think about Palin I think less of the news coverage and more about the entertainment coverage... i.e. SNL etc. What was their impact, and should they be subject to the same review as news media?

I guess you have some thoughts on this, Winston. Did you catch the show? If so, what did you think about the caller's question about presentation?

As to votes I dunno, Winston. Even at a small post-coverage get together we didn't talk about our individual votes or anything related to the campaign, except for the work to be done covering the recount and the fascination with the dog question. How about at your work?

I am in the construction business and whether you are a contractor or a union tradesman, "Change" means an extended recession. Change means the people that want to have a building built won't have the money because they will be taxed higher.

A good show would be how union votes affected the results. Trade unions vs. government unions. Government unions, including government school unions, vote Democratic, trade unions(not union trade leaders) are becoming more Republican. The rank and file trade union guy knows that higher taxes mean less buildings being built. They also hunt and fish, own guns, have snow mobiles and ATVs, live in outlying areas and commute long distances, have SUV's and pickups, all things Democrats hate!

They are really worried that the first thing an Obama administration will pass is the bill that takes away their right to a private ballot for a union vote.


We'll wait and see. I'm not giving the idle threat that I'm going to Canada, or call OBama Hitler. He will be my President. I can call him a Marxist or a socialist, because that is a proper political science term to describe his beliefs.

Two scenarios...........
A. He and the Democratic congress ram through all the stuff he promised. He enacts the Fairness Doctrine and looks like Hugo Chavez. And surrenders in Iraq, causing extreme chaos with Iran, Iraq, and Syria. He appoints Hillary Clinton to the Supreme COurt, even though she hasn't worked a case at the Supreme COurt or in the Appelate Courts. So bad the American public is embarrased they ever fell for him

B. He and the Dems in congress fight and battle and get nothing done because the Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats have some spine and realize that taxing more in a recession will just make it worse.

In the mean time, the NY Time, Star Tribune, and the major networks evening news becomes a non-factor and just doesn't mattter anymore.

Julia, I understand your point about the equal-time rule (indeed that question came to mind the night that Obama's 30-minute campaign commercial ran, nearly concurrently with Larry King's extensive interviews on McCain's side). I don't have a solution, however. It's a tough call.

Meanwhile, while some say that the "media" reported more glowingly about Obama, the reality is that there were several negative -- and sometimes unsubstantiated -- "news" items about Obama that were indeed passed along by the media cart blanche. That's something McCain didn't have to face.

The only reason it appeared Palin was being "picked on" is because everything came out in a concentrated two month period. Think about it. McCain and Biden have been around forever. We already sort of KNEW everything there was to know about them. Obama, while not nearly as long in politics, has been campaigning for two years. We had two years to learn about him.

Palin got dumped on us at the end of August, for god's sake. Less than three months before the election, McCain pulls a rabbit out of his hat...what was the press SUPPOSE to do? Of course, the first thing they are going to do is fall over themselves to learn who she is. And not just the press, EVERYONE had less than three months to figure her out.

What did we learn?

McCain selected a VP who was already in the middle of an ethics charge. No good comes of that. Of course the media is going to jump on it. Then there was the librarian issue. Then the wolf-shooting issue. Then the polar bears issue. Then the Creationism issue. Then the pregnant, unwed teenager issue. Then the "I can see Russia from my house" issue. And it all hit one after another after another in rapid succession. If this had been spread out over two years, she probably would have been able to weather it better. But it was concentrated in less than three months. It was too much to absorb.

Consider if as a business owner. You have one employee for ten years, and in that ten years he made a dozen screw ups. Chances are you don't even remember or care about half of them. You have another employee for two years, and he had a dozen screw ups. You may be a little concerned, but his good qualities outweight the screw ups and so you keep him. Then you have a new employee for three months and she has a dozen screw ups. I'm sorry, she's out the door.

The reason for the media favoring Obama are simple and straight-forward, journalists consciously or sub-consciously work to confirm the bias of their audience. Obama enjoyed strong support among cultural elites who are the primary consumers of the news.

This explains why FOXNEWS has done so well, it simply targeted the audience the MSM ignored.

And Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a HUGE supporter of Hillary Clinton!

Rupert Murdoch, is a good businessman, he knows the media is full of leftists and knows the marketplace needs conservative leaning news to offset the leftist leaning news. Good business decision!

The McCain campaign brought the negativity upon itself. They chose to go after personalities instead of the issues. They underestimated the voters. I think that the media was fair minded with the McCain campaign, but there were too many gaffes that couldn't be overlooked. Sarah Palin did not treat the media well, and, yet, the media made every attempt to give her another chance. She continually bumbled her way through her interviews. Obama, on the other hand, focused on the issues that the voters were interested in. It was a simple case of the old guy with a sense of entitlement taking on the new guy who did his homework. If it appeared that the media responded to that, then so be it. I think that they each had the same shot at managing the media for the benefit of their campaigns. The McCain campaign played the game poorly.

There was simply more going for the excellently run Obama campaign than the almost criminally slipshod McCain campaign.

I think the media was very biased with their coverage of this election. I hated the way their opinions came though so much that I refused to view them.

I think they did sway many peoples vote but no, they did not mine. I research the canidates on my own to find out the facts on where they stand. I have always done this.

They did not affect my vote in the slightest. I was turned off by the negativity by which NBC, ABC, and then CBS reported the news towards McCain. They were SOOO pulling for Obama. I refused to watch anything but Fox News the night of the election, and even then I had it muted, because that was poorly covered.

The McCain campaign brought the negativity upon itself.

Joe,

The Democrats and Obama ran the most negative campaign in history. Through surrogates such as The Daily Kos and MoveOn.Org, they churned out eight years of pathological hatred against the Bush Adminstration.

There are people on Gather, who shall remain nameless, whose paranoia and rage is clearly over the line of mental illness, and in large part has been helped along that journey by the above mentioned groups - groups who the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign worked with hand in hand.

For Obama to cast John McCain as "four more years of Bush" is Orwellian in the extreme, since there was no one in the party who consistantly opposed Bush more than McCain. There was no one in the party who opposed party policies more than John McCain.

The truth is that Obama had nothing to run on, so he ran against George Bush - but Bush was not running, so he painted John McCain as Bush.

A deft move - but none the less - the very definition of a negative campaign.

It only worked because the Democrats and the Obama campaign had a willing media.

I did not hate the Bush administration. However, because they were so incompetent, arrogant and lawless these things need to be discussed and the press simply was not discussing them.

As far as Daily Kos and MoveOn being surrogates of Obama. Wow, pot kettle black.

McCain opposed Bush until it was time to get the fanatics, or more rightly called the base, on board. After that he was in the tank with Bush.

How can you possibly say that Obama had the most negative campaign in history.. Did you not get one of McCains robocalls?

As far as Daily Kos and MoveOn being surrogates of Obama. Wow, pot kettle black. ..

What exactly does that mean? The Obama campaign coordinated its activities with both The Daily Kos and MoveOn.org. Obama personally visited their offices for meetings several times.

Kevin, anyone on Gather with eyeballs can read the history of hate and paranoia that the left has fostered. Do you want links to the insane ramblings of the 9/11 Conspiracy theorists or the people channeling from The Daily Kos who were howling about Sara Palin's Down Syndrome child?

But that is just insane chatter.

The truly insane chatter was Obama smearing McCain with Bush, even though the Democratic Senate and Congress held the power of the purse for two years.......

But this is really about the press, and how the press did not do its job.

I will give you a classic case in point. The press helped suppress the accusations (true) about Barak Obama launching his political career in Bill Ayers living room. The event was confirmed by three people who were in attendance.

The real question is - had John McCain launched his political career in the home of an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber --- would he still have a career?

The answer is an emphatic NO!!!!

The media did not affect my vote. Except for two or three sources, all media was biased in favor of Obama. Although we have freedom of the press, biased reporting is dishonest unless it specifies that it is op-ed.

It would be illegal for Obama to work with 527s. You should know that. IDid the shrub work with Swift Boat Verterans for lying and injustice? Show me the proof. Otherwise it is just some whacko rabid right wing zealot talking.

No McCain launched his career when he divorced his disabled wife for a hot rich trophy wife. Then he solidified it with Charles Keating.

You seem to have forgotten that McCain called the press his base.

The Democratic Senate and House did NOT control the purse. You can only really do that if you have a veto proof majority. There were still 49 + 1 living breathing cool aid drinkers.

McCain got away with massive amounts of crap. Keating for one. Sarah Palin for two. Lack of family values for three. Hating the troops for four. The self destruction of his campaign is almost legendary... Do some reading. It is amazing that he actually got the votes he did. But the base of the republican party has shown again and again that they will vote against their own best intrests.

Remember. Bush was a failure as a president. Even you cannot refute that. Yet the democrats did not impeach him. The republicans have taken impeachment off the table as a realistic means of controlling the mafia crime family or more commonly called the republican party.

"Did the media affect your vote, or inform your vote?" Sadly, or perhaps gladly, neither!