Obama's Edge in the Coverage Race

[Gan]

Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party's presumptive nominee June 4. Obama has generated a lot of news by being the first African American nominee, and he is less well known than McCain -- and therefore there's more to report on. But the disparity is so wide that it doesn't look good.

In overall political stories from June 4 to Friday, Obama dominated by 142 to 96. Obama has been featured in 35 stories on Page 1; McCain has been featured in 13, with three Page 1 references with photos to stories on inside pages. Fifteen stories featured both candidates and were about polls or issues such as terrorism, Social Security and the candidates' agreement on what should be done in Afghanistan.

This dovetails with Obama's dominance in photos, which I pointed out two weeks ago. At that time, it was 122 for Obama and 78 for McCain. Two weeks later, it's 143 to 100, almost the same gap, because editors have run almost the same number of photos -- 21 of Obama and 22 of McCain -- since they realized the disparity. McCain is almost even with Obama in Page 1 photos -- 10 to 9.

This is not just a Post phenomenon. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has been monitoring campaign coverage at an assortment of large and medium-circulation newspapers, broadcast evening and morning news shows, five news Web sites, three major cable news networks, and public radio and other radio outlets. Its latest report, for the week of Aug. 4-10, shows that for the eighth time in nine weeks, Obama received significantly more coverage than McCain.

Obama's dominance on Page 1 is partly due to stories about his winning the bruising primary battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton and his trip overseas in July. The coverage of June 4, 5, 6 and 7 led to six Page 1 stories in The Post, including Obama's nomination victory, his strategy, elation among African Americans over the historic nature of his win and his fundraising advantage. Then he made an appearance at Nissan Pavilion with Virginia's Gov. Timothy Kaine and Sen. James Webb, and it became a local Page 1 story. During those few days, there was one Page 1 reference to an inside-page story about McCain going after Clinton's disgruntled supporters.

When Obama traveled to the Middle East and Europe, the coverage dwarfed that of McCain -- six Page 1 stories from July 19 to July 27, plus an earlier front-page story announcing the trip. McCain managed one Page 1 story and one Page 1 reference; the July 25 story said he might pick a vice presidential candidate soon, but that didn't happen. While there was no front-page story about Obama on July 25, it seemed wrong not to count that day because a photo of him in Berlin dominated the front page.

I also counted a story about a Post-ABC News poll concerning racism and its potential impact on the election; 3 in 10 of those polled acknowledged racial bias.

Not all Page 1 coverage has been favorable. Obama was hit right away with two Page 1 stories about Washington insider James A. Johnson, a former Fannie Mae CEO, who was criticized for mortgage deals and then withdrew from vetting Obama's potential running mates. A story about Obama's former Chicago church reminded readers of the controversy over his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. There were also stories with a favorable cast -- about his patriotism, his first appearance with Clinton and the coverage from his foreign trip.

McCain's Page 1 stories were a mix -- a story about the flap over former senator Phil Gramm's comment about a "nation of whiners" over the economy and a story about conservatives wanting to battle McCain on the party platform. But there also were stories about plans to make the federal government more environmentally responsible and McCain's proposal for offshore drilling.

The single most revealing story about McCain -- and one of the best Post stories on either candidate -- was a top-of-the-front-page look at McCain's intellect. The story, by veteran reporter and editor Robert G. Kaiser, was the kind of analysis that tells readers something they didn't know. It was neither positive nor negative, just revealing and insightful.

Another favorite was by Business reporter Lori Montgomery on how both candidates will have trouble lowering the deficit with their spending plans. A Style & Arts change of pace was movie critic Stephen Hunter's look at McCain and Obama as film icons-- McCain as John Wayne and Obama as Will Smith.

Page 1 coverage isn't all that counts, but it is the most visible. Certainly there were many stories on the Politics page and elsewhere in the paper. (I'm not counting opinion columns.) The Trail, The Post's politics blog, had dozens of short items about both candidates, all interesting to political junkies. Post inside coverage has been a mix of horse-race coverage -- stories about endorsements, advisers, who can win where -- and issues stories.

Style stories have dealt with the Internet, voters and volunteers, and the cultural aspects of the campaigns. Cindy McCain was featured in a big Style spread and Michelle Obama in a Metro story about her recent visit to Virginia.

Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, thinks that I'm wrong to put weight on numbers. "We make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy. We are not garment workers measuring our product every day to fulfill somebody's quota. That means as editors we decide what we think is important, because that's what our readers look for us to do -- not to adhere to some arbitrary standard.

"The nomination of the first African American presidential nominee after a bitter primary campaign and his efforts to unite a party afterward were simply more newsworthy than a candidate whose nomination was already assured and who spent much of that time raising money. In the end, we can and should be judged on the fairness of our coverage, but that is a judgment that must be made over the course of the whole campaign, not a single period of time."

Numbers aren't everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503100.html?sub=AR
______________________________________

Wait, I thought it was McCain who was getting more coverage?
WTFBBQ?

[Back]

Tonight at 11, we’ll have a special report on why a young man with progressive ideas is more interesting than an old man who wants status quo.

[Kembal]

Wait, I thought it was McCain who was getting more coverage?
WTFBBQ?

Who said that? Obama's been getting more coverage week in and week out.

[Parkbandit]

The media's love affair with Obama is a fucking joke.

[Back]

The media's love affair with Obama is a fucking joke.

Does the media sell ratings for cash money?

[Jesuit]

Does the media sell ratings for cash money?

Not sure. But the Democrat superdelegates sure sell votes for cash money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a593lfawFBU

[Back]

I got to 2:00 and realized you are like Carrot Top.

[Jenisi]

McCain just isn’t interesting to watch. It’s the same with Bush, no one enjoys watching him speak. Naturally Obama being a historic candidate with excellent rhetoric and new ideas, he is going to be the focus of an election where the American people are begging for change. When McCain talks, he talks normally about big business and tax breaks for business. Obama can relate to the people, he’s of our generation; he’s not a “has been”.


People repeat history and the American people are afraid of McCain repeating Bushes mistakes. If you even watch McCain give a speech, people in the background look like they’re dead. McCain doesn’t know what it’s like *want*, the only time he did was when he was imprisoned. He’s condescending when he talks to anyone in general… and I resent when he says “my friends”… He’s not my fucking friend.

[Khariz]

The president of the United States does not need to be "interesting to watch. Your post makes me want to throw up.

[Back]

Not sure. But the Democrat superdelegates sure sell votes for cash money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a593lfawFBU

Are you at all willing to admit who is lining McCain’s pockets?

[Warriorbird]

I don't agree, Khariz. Republicans do the same sort of thing. Who was liked better... Reagan or Ford?

[Khariz]

I don't agree, Khariz. Republicans do the same sort of thing. Who was liked better... Reagan or Ford?

I'm not saying they don't. I just think it's rediculous and shallow.

The only way I would succumb to this is if some hot babe was running for president (joke, I hope).

[Jesuit]

Are you at all willing to admit who is lining McCain’s pockets?

I'm not a McCain fan. I'm willing to admit that all politicians are crooked. Even the ones trying to sell hope and change. Are you?

[Back]

I'm not a McCain fan. I'm willing to admit that all politicians are crooked. Even the ones trying to sell hope and change. Are you?

Sure. And I will cast my “Democratic” vote accordingly.

So, your point is that you have no one to vote for? If your candidate was running, who would you vote for?

[Daniel]

The president of the United States does not need to be "interesting to watch. Your post makes me want to throw up.

Thanks for catching the point. It's pretty sad that you make Jenisi look more reasonable and informed.

The *Media* is going to show someone who is interesting to watch *more* than someone who is about as interesting as Jello solidifying. Unless you think the intent of our media outlets is anything other than getting viewership, which would be patently stupid.

[Jesuit]

Sure. And I will cast my “Democratic” vote accordingly.

So, your point is that you have no one to vote for? If your candidate was running, who would you vote for?

I'd vote for Cookie Monster. At least I wouldn't be surprised when I caught his hand in my cookie jar.

[Back]

I'd vote for Cookie Monster. At least I wouldn't be surprised when I caught his hand in my cookie jar.

I think Godwin has been trumped. Every thread boils down to food...

Oreos and milk.

[crb]

Tonight at 11, we’ll have a special report on why a young man with progressive ideas is more interesting than an old man who wants status quo.
I've seen this attitude from a lot of people and don't get it. On many major issues Obama is very similar to McCain. So does McCain also have new ideas, or is Obama stealing his old ones?

For instance, with his flips on oil, nukes, and clean coal, Obama is now, with broad strokes, identical to McCain in energy policy. Only in details and in corn ethanol do they disagree.

Obama has tweaked most of his foreign policy positions in recent weeks to more or less match McCain. Depending on the day of the week he says he'll withdraw from Iraq based whenever, or based on conditions on the ground, so he's there half the time. On Georgia Obama blasted McCain for being too tough on Russia at first, then by the end of the week he was with him. They agree on Afganistan.

[Daniel]

For instance, with his flips on oil, nukes, and clean coal, Obama is now, with broad strokes, identical to McCain in energy policy. Only in details and in corn ethanol do they disagree.

Uh...

Not really.

Obama is promoting the establishment of an alternative transportation infrastructure, whereas McCain is offering a huge cash reward for someone who does it for him. Although you can technically call that a "detail" I wouldn't exactly call their policies identical.





Obama has tweaked most of his foreign policy positions in recent weeks to more or less match McCain. Depending on the day of the week he says he'll withdraw from Iraq based whenever, or based on conditions on the ground, so he's there half the time.

Kinda like the whole Time table thing?

[Ashliana]

I see Obama as having compromised on oil--who would've thought someone claiming to try and see past party lines would EVER compromise? And where exactly did Obama "flip" on nuclear power? I don't agree with his position, but he simply isn't a supporter of nuclear power.

[crb]

McCain just isn’t interesting to watch. It’s the same with Bush, no one enjoys watching him speak. Naturally Obama being a historic candidate with excellent rhetoric and new ideas, he is going to be the focus of an election where the American people are begging for change. When McCain talks, he talks normally about big business and tax breaks for business. Obama can relate to the people, he’s of our generation; he’s not a “has been”.


People repeat history and the American people are afraid of McCain repeating Bushes mistakes. If you even watch McCain give a speech, people in the background look like they’re dead. McCain doesn’t know what it’s like *want*, the only time he did was when he was imprisoned. He’s condescending when he talks to anyone in general… and I resent when he says “my friends”… He’s not my fucking friend.
Hahah, how does the koolaid taste going down? Seriously, talk about sheeple.... YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR AMERICAN IDOL.

I think maybe they should raise the voting age to 25.

Which mistakes has Bush made exactly other than hiring Rumsfeld? (a decision criticized by McCain before Democrats became vocal about it) Both Hillary and Kerry and almost everyone else also voted for Iraq. Bush's tax cuts ended the 9/11 causes recession and spawned the longest period of consecutive job growth in US history. He tried for moderate bipartisan SS reform, derailed by extremist democrats, and moderate bipartisan immigration reform, derailed by extremeist republicans. Gitmo isn't popular, torture isn't popular, and John McCain has always been against those. Bush is against stem cell research, McCain is for it.

I'm really failing to see here. There is a reason the OBama campaign tried repeating Mcbush or bush-mccain over and over and over again, they were hoping on sheer repetition to get the point to stick to their sycophantic supporters, and I guess it worked. 18 months ago John McCain was every democrat's favorite republican because he often went against the president, and now suddenly he is a Bush clone? please, open your eyes and smell the bullshit.

If you understand and prefer Obama's policies, fine, vote for him. but do not vote for him simply because he puts on a good show when chorepgraphed with a teleprompter (as opposed to debates, where he sucks) and do not vote for him simply because you've bought the line that McCain is a bush clone.

And oh ya... who do you think gives people jobs? BUSINESS! Don't be so anti business. McCain voted AGAINST the Bush energy bill that gave big tax breaks to the oil companies, Obama voted FOR it.... and obama is also promising tax breaks for businesses in his campaign commercials. Fricken sheeple.

[crb]

I see Obama as having compromised on oil--who would've thought someone claiming to try and see past party lines would EVER compromise? And where exactly did Obama "flip" on nuclear power? I don't agree with his position, but he simply isn't a supporter of nuclear power.
In his big energy speech he gave down the road from me, he said we needed more nuclear power and clean coal. He muttered the words, after talking about alternatives, but he said them.

Lookup the transcript of Obama's Lansing Michigan Energy speech if you don't believe me.

[Khariz]

In addition, we'll find safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste. And we'll invest in the technology that will allow us to use more coal, America's most abundant energy source, with the goal of creating five "first-of-a-kind" coal-fired demonstration plants with carbon capture and sequestration.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/04/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_104.php

[BigWorm]

Wall of bullshit

My favorite republican senator has been Arlen Specter for some time.

[Daniel]

Hahah, how does the koolaid taste going down? Seriously, talk about sheeple....

I loled.

[Sean]

So does this thread count as an obama thread or a mccain thread?

[Gan]

McCain just isn’t interesting to watch. It’s the same with Bush, no one enjoys watching him speak. Naturally Obama being a historic candidate with excellent rhetoric and new ideas, he is going to be the focus of an election where the American people are begging for change. When McCain talks, he talks normally about big business and tax breaks for business. Obama can relate to the people, he’s of our generation; he’s not a “has been”.


People repeat history and the American people are afraid of McCain repeating Bushes mistakes. If you even watch McCain give a speech, people in the background look like they’re dead. McCain doesn’t know what it’s like *want*, the only time he did was when he was imprisoned. He’s condescending when he talks to anyone in general… and I resent when he says “my friends”… He’s not my fucking friend.
See Khariz's quote below for my agreed response.


The president of the United States does not need to be "interesting to watch. Your post makes me want to throw up.
/agreed


Thanks for catching the point. It's pretty sad that you make Jenisi look more reasonable and informed.

The *Media* is going to show someone who is interesting to watch *more* than someone who is about as interesting as Jello solidifying. Unless you think the intent of our media outlets is anything other than getting viewership, which would be patently stupid.


Tonight at 11, we’ll have a special report on why a young man with progressive ideas is more interesting than an old man who wants status quo.
That would be fine if everyone were wanting interest stories from People magazine. However, some still feel that those entities who report the news should report it unbiased. That not only goes for content but also for overall editing and inclusion/disclusion.

While I have no doubt that Obama will generate more interest among readers (because of being the first mixed race black candidate among other factors) and because this is not the first time McCain has run for president (old news is still old news), that still does not - should not - be an excuse for those outlets who brand themselves 'news' outlets to present an unbiased presentation of the candidates. That definately does not excuse those media outlets who interpret what they believe their audience 'wants' to hear or see. Its the readers responsibility to interpret whats presented - not the broadcasters or editors.




So does this thread count as an obama thread or a mccain thread?
LOL
+10 for this post.

[Daniel]

While I have no doubt that Obama will generate more interest among readers (because of being the first mixed race black candidate among other factors) and because this is not the first time McCain has run for president (old news is still old news), that still does not - should not - be an excuse for those outlets who brand themselves 'news' outlets to present an unbiased presentation of the candidates. That definately does not excuse those media outlets who interpret what they believe their audience 'wants' to hear or see. Its the readers responsibility to interpret whats presented - not the broadcasters or editors.


I'll be happy when you spend some time in the real world and realize that news organizations are after one thing: Money. Which comes with "Readership", which doesn't come from boring old people who have nothing new or substantive to say.

If McCain wants to make himself more appealing to the right by rehashing policies that have been covered ad nauseum, that's his perogative. That doesn't mean that the news are now somehow obligated to cover it AGAIN.

If McCain wants the news to pick up one of his stories then maybe he should say something interesting. That has nothing to do with it being "American Idol".

Just saying.

[Gan]

I'll be happy when you spend some time in the real world and realize that news organizations are after one thing: Money. Which comes with "Readership", which doesn't come from boring old people who have nothing new or substantive to say.

If McCain wants to make himself more appealing to the right by rehashing policies that have been covered ad nauseum, that's his perogative. That doesn't mean that the news are now somehow obligated to cover it AGAIN.

If McCain wants the news to pick up one of his stories then maybe he should say something interesting. That has nothing to do with it being "American Idol".

Just saying.

Yea, its insane to hold the organizations who proportedly report the news to the expectation that they would do so unbiased.

Thats so totally not a realistic expectation at all, especially when some of them still try and advertise that they are unbiased.

Buddy, I do walk in the real world - that still does not alleviate their obligations as they tout them nor my expectations of how they should report the news simply because its blatantly obvious that the media is biased. Especially if they want to earn my patronage as a customer. Nor does it forgive them for duping the ignorant into buying what and how they report said 'news'. If anything they are just perpetuating the sham that politics has come to resemble these days.

Perhaps it would be better if they actually stopped trying to pass off what they report as objective news. Maybe then people, such as myself, would not hold them to such unrealistic expecations.

[Daniel]

It's very telling that you claim that being biased is simply not reporting on someone who does nothing significant to report on.

WTF do you want them to say?

...Meanwhile John McCain woke up today, seemingly in good health. More at 6.

[Latrinsorm]

That definately does not excuse those media outlets who interpret what they believe their audience 'wants' to hear or see. Its the readers responsibility to interpret whats presented - not the broadcasters or editors.Hmmm....
The way I see it... no one is bending your arm to stay tuned to that channel/station. ... Until the time when we are forced to listen to one viewpoint or another without recourse - I dont feel that adding restrictions on a 'free will' medium will be of any benefit and in fact lead to even more restrictions (slippery slope argument).Conflicting statements?

[Gan]

Hmmm....Conflicting statements?
Not when you take the rest of the quote in context. ClydeR Jr...


Yea, its insane to hold the organizations who proportedly report the news to the expectation that they would do so unbiased.

Thats so totally not a realistic expectation at all, especially when some of them still try and advertise that they are unbiased.

Buddy, I do walk in the real world - that still does not alleviate their obligations as they tout them nor my expectations of how they should report the news simply because its blatantly obvious that the media is biased. Especially if they want to earn my patronage as a customer. Nor does it forgive them for duping the ignorant into buying what and how they report said 'news'. If anything they are just perpetuating the sham that politics has come to resemble these days.

Perhaps it would be better if they actually stopped trying to pass off what they report as objective news. Maybe then people, such as myself, would not hold them to such unrealistic expecations.

[Daniel]

Oh! They are duping people now!

I get it...

You're not a hypocrite at all. God, I'm so glad you're such a moderate.

[Gan]

Oh! They are duping people now!

I get it...

You're not a hypocrite at all. God, I'm so glad you're such a moderate.

Me too. I have you to thank for being my role-model.

You're my fucking hero - man.

[Latrinsorm]

So to make sure I have your position correct, Gan: you feel that a biased station or program is not problematic due to the bias itself, but because some people might believe that the biased statements are unbiased truth, news stations/programs should not be biased? This even though (as you've stated in the past) a wide variety of viewpoints is available for even the most indigent citizen?

[Khariz]

So to make sure I have your position correct, Gan: you feel that a biased station or program is not problematic due to the bias itself, but because some people might believe that the biased statements are unbiased truth, news stations/programs should not be biased? This even though (as you've stated in the past) a wide variety of viewpoints is available for even the most indigent citizen?

Guys, this is real easy. I'm sure Gan feels similarly to the way I do on this topic:

It is fine for a journalistic entity to be biased if they are forthright with the bias. If MSNBC were to go on the air and so "Oh, By the way, we only care about Barack Obama, so expect to hear about him 80% of the time, and always in favorable light", then I would be fine with them making that choice and doing that.

If, however, they got on the air and said "We have the most bipartisan coverage of the election that you will find on your television dial" and then obviously pocket themselves in one corner or the other, that would NOT be fine. And people who watching them thinking they really were getting bipartisan coverage would be being deceived (let's not talk about how stupid such people are for thinking the network is being fair in this situation).

I've said this in a thread before with regard to the WSJ vs Fox News, but I think it applies here:



I think what some people don't understand, and this goes for both the WSJ and the Fox News Channel, is that there is a difference between shows/articles that are Editorial in nature, and supposed to be slanted one way or another (and the source is open about that), versus News content, that is supposed to be delivered in an objective way, being obviously slanted one way or another.

When you have a News Anchor giving the same type of opinion that Al Franken or Sean Hannity would give, that's problematic. When you have a News Story giving the same type of information that the editorial page should, that's problematic.



That about sums up the issue, to me.

[Daniel]

Yea. Too bad the issue isn't about editorial vs News Content but sheer volume of stories.

That was a nice attempt at deflection though. I was content to let the both of you look like jackasses, but it got too far.

[Khariz]

Yea. Too bad the issue isn't about editorial vs News Content but sheer volume of stories.

That was a nice attempt at deflection though. I was content to let the both of you look like jackasses, but it got too far.

That was what it was originally about. The discussion has morphed significantly over the life of thread. My post was appropriate given the context at the time. If Gan mysteriously created the context, well then my apologies.

[Keller]

Quick question: Is the issue that more front page articles are about Obama or that those articles are biased?

[Khariz]

Quick question: Is the issue that more front page articles are about Obama or that those articles are biased?

I was obviously talking about the latter. I apologize if that took the thread to the wrong area.

[Gan]

So to make sure I have your position correct, Gan: you feel that a biased station or program is not problematic due to the bias itself, but because some people might believe that the biased statements are unbiased truth, news stations/programs should not be biased? This even though (as you've stated in the past) a wide variety of viewpoints is available for even the most indigent citizen?

You are incorrect.

[Gan]

Guys, this is real easy. I'm sure Gan feels similarly to the way I do on this topic:

It is fine for a journalistic entity to be biased if they are forthright with the bias. If MSNBC were to go on the air and so "Oh, By the way, we only care about Barack Obama, so expect to hear about him 80% of the time, and always in favorable light", then I would be fine with them making that choice and doing that.

If, however, they got on the air and said "We have the most bipartisan coverage of the election that you will find on your television dial" and then obviously pocket themselves in one corner or the other, that would NOT be fine. And people who watching them thinking they really were getting bipartisan coverage would be being deceived (let's not talk about how stupid such people are for thinking the network is being fair in this situation).

I've said this in a thread before with regard to the WSJ vs Fox News, but I think it applies here:



That about sums up the issue, to me.

winner

And the fact that there are still some here who think the media isnt biased... even in light of this article. I thought it was worth posting.

[Keller]

I was obviously talking about the latter. I apologize if that took the thread to the wrong area.

Ahh, ok.

I read the OP and then skimmed the rest and wasn't sure how it got tripped up.

As far as the OP goes -- it's pretty clear that Obama sells news. Whether it's Obamaniacs (the positive kind) wanting to read about their candidate or Obamaniacs (the negative kind) wanting to read/complain about how much coverage he gets. Neither group can get enough of Obama.

[Daniel]

That was what it was originally about. The discussion has morphed significantly over the life of thread. My post was appropriate given the context at the time. If Gan mysteriously created the context, well then my apologies.

Mysteriously created context = Deflection?

[Daniel]

winner

And the fact that there are still some here who think the media isnt biased... even in light of this article. I thought it was worth posting.


Ahh, ok.

I read the OP and then skimmed the rest and wasn't sure how it got tripped up.

As far as the OP goes -- it's pretty clear that Obama sells news. Whether it's Obamaniacs (the positive kind) wanting to read about their candidate or Obamaniacs (the negative kind) wanting to read/complain about how much coverage he gets. Neither group can get enough of Obama.



As I said....

[Khariz]

Look Daniel, all I'm saying is, is that I was responding to the Gan/Latrinsorm line of thought, and nothing else. I apologize for deflecting, which I now realize I did.

However, after going back an reading the thread again, the concepts of volume of stories and bias content of the stories are not mutually exclusive. They may be treated that way in the quoted article, but in real life, that's not the case.

[NocturnalRob]

i can't believe it takes almost 50 posts to argue about liberal media bias.

It's a fucking fact. Just deal with it.

[Warriorbird]

Where I start to argue is when people argue that their isn't conservative media bias or corporate shyness from real content either.

[ClydeR]

It seems to me that the Wall Street Journal has run a lot more articles about Obama than about McCain. I posted about several of the articles in this forum.

[Back]

It seems to me that the Wall Street Journal has run a lot more articles about Obama than about McCain. I posted about several of the articles in this forum.

Browse the politics forum and it’s clear who is the more popular candidate by thread titles alone... Obama. Like Sean pointed out earlier in this thread by asking if this was an Obama or McCain thread.

crb chastised Jenisi for saying Obama is more interesting proclaiming anyone under 25 should not vote and that this is not American Idol.

I’m pretty sure it IS American Idol and has been since the country was founded. Thats HOW IT WORKS. PEOPLE VOTE FOR WHO THEY LIKE. THE WINNER IS THE MOST POPULAR OF THE PEOPLE. Thats democracy and American Idol is copying the forefather’s ideals and not the other way around.

Daniel pointed out that news outlets, like any business, make money on good product.

Is it biased for NBC to constantly show Olympics while there are other sporting events going on? Should NBC or any other news outlet show equal coverage of every sporting event from horse chip tossing to Olympic events?

Gan seems to think this all means there is media bias. Sean points out that this is yet another in a long line of threads about Obama rather than McCain in the Politics forum.

If you are sick of hearing about Obama, Gan, or anyone else, lets see more threads about how great McCain is.

[ClydeR]

If you are sick of hearing about Obama, Gan, or anyone else, lets see more threads about how great McCain is.

Not many McCain supporters think McCain is great. People are either voting for Obama or voting against Obama.

[CrystalTears]

Not many McCain supporters think McCain is great. People are either voting for Obama or voting against Obama.
Way to assume.

[ClydeR]

Way to assume.

It's more than an assumption.


An astute campaign has the serenity to accept the things it cannot change. McCain's re-jigged team did just that by belatedly recognizing that this election was going to be all about Obama. When the main alternative was that it could be all about McSame and George W. Bush, the Republican's strategists concluded, perhaps that wasn't such a bad thing after all.

Obama has made his extraordinary life story the central plank of his political career. But the constant repetition of the carefully-crafted narrative has begun to wear a bit thin. All the talk about himself can seem a bit, well, self-regarding.

Team McCain now gets this. In a neat judo move - using the weight and momentum of your opponent to throw him to the floor - they hit upon the Celebrity ad, comparing Obama to the vacuous pop icons Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. A bull-session idea that was forced into reality by the hard-charging strategist Steve Schmidt, it was not without risk.

More... (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/mccain_catches_on_its_all_abou.html)

Judo chop!

[Ashliana]

I don't think Clyde was assuming. I've seen a bunch of polls indicating that the percentages of people whom are excited about their candidate are wildly disparate; last time I read, it was 30% of democrats are excited about Obama, versus 14% of republicans for McCain.

[CrystalTears]

Well then you'd also have to assume that people are voting for Obama because he isn't McCain/Republican.

[Khariz]

Well then you'd also have to assume that people are voting for Obama because he isn't McCain/Republican.

Of course they are.

There's a group of people who are going to vote for Obama because he's black.

There's a group of people who are going to vote for Obama because he's the democratic nominee (presumably).

There's a group of people who are going to vote for Obama because they agree with with his goals for the country.

There's a group of people who are going to vote fo Obama because they have been duped buy his celebrity personality.


AND on the other side:

There is a group of people who are going to vote for McCain because he's white (and not Black).

There is a group of people who are going to vote for McCain because he's the Republican nominee.

There is a group of people who are going to vote for McCain because he's older.

There is a group of people who are going to vote for McCain because he's supposedly a "maverick", and will reach across the aisle.

There is a group of people who are going to vote for McCain because they agree with his goals on where to take the country.


ET CETERA to infinity and beyond!

Many people will have a combination of these reason, and other reasons! Hell, like I've said before, I'm not particular gung ho for McCain, but I think his keeping the economic status quo, is better than what I think Obama is gonna offer us in that realm.

And for one last cliche: Opinions are like assholes...

[Gan]

Put me in the category that likes McCain's platform so far but one thats not terribly excited about him as a candidate.