Media Bias?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I just saw an interesting article about another issue that has come up here several times - the issue of media bias. But this recent study, by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, has reached the opposite conclusion of what has been asserted here, stating that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign. And lest one think that this study was done by someone with a liberal bias himself, it is worth noting that this same researcher was touted by conservatives as recently as the 2006 mid-term elections, when his analysis showed that there was a pro-Democratic Party bias in the networks.

The article is here.

[solicitr]

Vor, could you split off a separate media-bias thread? I have something to bring up on that topic which I think is pretty interesting.

[sauronsfinger]

And we have the most recent example of CBS news substituting an answer for the gaffe John McCain made in relation to the Iraq timeline. In fact, the answer they did substitute for his gaffe was the terrible "Obama wants to lose the war so he can win the election" answer.

If that is pro-Obama media bias, it certainly appears to be the exact opposite.

[solicitr]

Whereas the press has not degned to notice *at all* Obama's own version of the Iraq timeline- specifically, that the Anbar Awakening was caused by the Democrats' victory in the 2006 elections.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I've never seen that statement, soli. Where are you getting it from?

[sauronsfinger]

I too would like to see this.

[sauronsfinger]

I just read the claim on a right wing site and its one of those extremely typical twisting of the actual words Obama said, then attributing something to them which was not in the statement, then arguing against the attributed part itself. Not unusual right wing tactics.

The fact that Obama mentions the elections is true. He does not credit the elections for the Anbar Awakening, merely mentions that some of it occured after the elections.

Again, its the typical ruse of attacking what somebody intrepets Obamas remarks to mean.

This is one of those things that becomes a minor cause on extremist sites and then they moan and complain as to why this "major story" is not getting play in the traditional media. Its not that they have uncovered some deep dark secret information. Its just that they take something which is a molehill and turn it into a mountain.

[sauronsfinger]

btw- the website with this big Obama story is redstatemobile.com.

Among their BIG STORIES is one that is clearly labeled as "this is probably not true" but they run it regardless ... and its the same stuff you have seen here in recent days talking about the Obama so-called snubs in the Middle East during his trip. They say its probably not true but run it anyways. Some site.

[solicitr]

I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi'as. We should start negotiating now. That's how you change behavior.

--Barack Obama, 1/5/08

But, as Obama's own supporters have pointed out in their attacks on McCain's 'gaffe', the Awakening had begun several months previous.

Obama's entire claim is historical nonsense- the creation of AC's and CLC's was almost directly proportionate to US troop presence. Unsurprisingly, since after Petraeus took command in Jan '07 US commanders were tasked with forming ACs and CLCs within their areas. Yes- in many or perhaps most cases *we* recruited the sheiks, not vice-versa.

A typical example:

The joint security operation cleared 50 villages. A permanent combat outpost has been established in the village of Mukeisha, "in the heart of the river valley area." Iraqi and Coalition forces followed the combat operations with humanitarian and medical assistance.

Iraqi and Coalition forces are also engaging the tribes in the region to fight al Qaeda in Iraq, continuing the bottom up reconciliation and security process that has proven successful since the "surge" began. "More than 80 tribal leaders and representatives, some of whom had not spoken in over a year, met Aug. 19 [ie a week after the operation] to discuss their grievances and swore on the Quran to unite in their fight against terrorists and become one tribe of Diyala," Multinational Forces Iraq stated.

[sauronsfinger]

Which is not the same thing at all as your original statement that Obama is claiming that the Democratic victories in 2006 are responsible for this.
Your first statement, and the min-storm about it on redstatemobile.com,
is not the same as the actual Obama statement.

There is a tactic used here and elsewhere which goes like this:

A statement of a candidate, or action by a candidate is cited.

That statement or action is then subject to a extremely partisan interpretation putting it in the most unflattering light possible.

Then the person argues against the twisted and unflattering end product of their own bias.

That seems to be what we have here.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I agree, sf.

soli, I'm still waiting for you to post the information that you said that you had when you requested that I split off this thread. Surely you weren't referring to this tempest in a teacup about Obama's comment about the Awakening and the 2006 election?

Even more, I'd like to see what you have to say about the Center for Media and Public Affairs study that I posted about, because it really does seem to contradict the point that you (and many conservatives) have been making about media bias. I am much more willing to put credence to a scientific study done by a demonstrably non-partisan think tank than I am to the distorted claims made by by partisans on either the left or the right.

[solicitr]

Vor, why is it evidence of McCain's 'senility' if he fumbles the Awakening timeline, but Obama gets a pass when he fumbles not merely the timeline but adduces a spurious 'cause?'

[solicitr]

I'd like to draw attention to the ongoing New York Times series 'War Torn'

The focus is on Iraq and Afganistan veterans, post-traumatic stress syndrome and other mental problems: and especially focusing (in lurid detail) on murders committed by returned vets. The Times staff identified 121 combat-vet killers.

But let's take a look at the numbers here. 121 homicides? Divide that into the number of servicemen who have deployed to the battlezone and returned, that gives us

.07% of Iraq/A'stan vets have killed someone;

BUT--

.83% of the American public have killed someone.

There you have some context: an Iraq/A'stan veteran is twelve times less likely to commit a homicide than a civilian is.

But that certainly isn't the message the Times conveys, at all. It pretty explicitly equates an exposure to combat with an increased proneness to violence. It's spin. It's distortion.

It's fraud.

This is I think an illustration of an inherent danger in journalism, one which is all too easy to abuse: narrow focus. We're all I think familiar with 'plane crash syndrome'- many people believe that flying is more dangerous than other forms of travel, when of course it's actually far safer. Why is this? Because a plane crash attracts lots of media coverage, whereas the daily death toll on the highways doesn't.

Often this is innocent; naturally Big Stories sell papers. But often it isn't, if there is agenda to be pursued (even subconsiously). It is no accident at all that the grim toll of US caualties in Iraq was front page news, especially during the heavy fighting last summer when Petraeus' forces launched their assaults on insurgent strongholds ( a context which the press pointedly didn't report). But what happened when this May and June's casualty figures were the lowest of the war? The Times ran the story on page A16; the Washington post at the bottom of page A12. Good news is no news.

But these stats did eventually make the front page- spun negatively, as in "Afganistan Deaths Exceed Iraq."

All right, some might still find some logical excuse for this sort of uneven emphasis. But let's return to 'War Torn.' for a moment. Journalism, it's said, is the first draft of history, and I'm afraid that's too true. Journalism can create 'history,' even when it's false. The 'War Torn' series is almost a direct repetition of the creation a generation ago by the media (news and entertainment)- the zonked-out, misfit, often violent Vietnam Vet. In particular, look at the entirely bogus 1988 CBS News 'documentary' The Wall Within. Even today- this year- one hears nonsense like 'a million Vietnam vets are homeless on America's streets.' Come, on people. I grew up around Vietnam vets. My father was a Vietnam vets. Most of the Americans here know Vietnam vets.

How many here have ever known a Travis Bickle or a John Rambo?

99-point-odd percent of Vietnam vets did pretty much what my father did: successful engineer, church elder, scout leader. And, yes, he did suffer from PTSD - he had screaming nightmares for years, and reacted very badly to sudden loud noises. But neither he nor the others, save a scant handful, ever became junkies, lushes, psychos or Skid Row bums. Or murderers.

Statistics indicate that compared with peers who did not serve Vietnam veterans are:

More likely to have attended college.

More likely to be married.

Less likely to be unemployed.

No more or less likely to be imprisoned.

So where did this stereotype come from? It was invented: invented in the service of a Narrative, a first draft of history. The fastest way to convince the public that a war (or anything else) isn't worth the cost is to exaggerate the costs and suppress the benefits.

This the major press outlets continue to do; the spirit of Walter Duranty still stalks the New York Times.

[Alatar]

Wait... nearly 1% of Americans have killed someone? Are you serious?

Population:
303,824,646 (July 2008 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 20.1% (male 31,257,108/female 29,889,645)
15-64 years: 67.1% (male 101,825,901/female 102,161,823)
65 years and over: 12.7% (male 16,263,255/female 22,426,914) (2008 est.)


So thats nearly 4 million people in the US have killed someone? Not just killed someone, but actual deliberate homicide. Murder. 1 in every 100 people you meet.

Guess that has nothing to do with all the guns though...

[solicitr]

Thanks, Alatar- I missed out a zero in both figures.

The US murder rate peaked at 9.8 homicides per 100,000 population in 1991 and has since dropped sharply to 5.5/100,000. The number of murderers would actually be somewhat less due to multiple homicides and serial killers, but they are a very, very small proportion.

All the guns? Canada, Norway, Finland etc all have about as many guns per capita as we, and Switzerland many times more; but only a fraction of the murder rate.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Vor, why is it evidence of McCain's 'senility' if he fumbles the Awakening timeline, but Obama gets a pass when he fumbles not merely the timeline but adduces a spurious 'cause?'

First of all, soli, I never stated that McCain's statement about the Awakening was evidence of his "senility". I never suggested it, or implied it any way. In fact, what I said was that I accepted his explanation of his comments, and thought they made sense. So I would very much appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Secondly, I don't put much or any stock in a statement made six months ago, undoubtably taken out of context and/or cherry-picked from among other statements that Obama has made on the subject. There has been an awful lot of that.

Thirdly, you still have not addressed the findings of the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs study, which flatly contradicts the repeated cries of "media bias" in favor of Obama that you have made (and that other conservative keep making).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Vor, why is it evidence of McCain's 'senility' if he fumbles the Awakening timeline, but Obama gets a pass when he fumbles not merely the timeline but adduces a spurious 'cause?'

First of all, soli, I never stated that McCain's statement about the Awakening was evidence of his "senility". I never suggested it, or implied it any way. In fact, what I said was that I accepted his explanation of his comments, and thought they made sense. So I would very much appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Secondly, I don't put much or any stock in a statement made six months ago, undoubtably taken out of context and/or cherry-picked from among other statements that Obama has made on the subject. There has been an awful lot of that.

Thirdly, you still have not addressed the findings of the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs study, which flatly contradicts the repeated cries of "media bias" in favor of Obama that you have made (and that other conservative keep making).

[solicitr]

Voronwë, I would prefer to read the actual study, which has not yet been posted to the CMPA's website yet. You link to an LA Times story, which UPI picked up.

I suspect that the bulk of the 'negative coverage' on Obama was the Reverend Wright affair- and since ithe study was only just released, it may well have been prepared before last week's World Tour.

I would also like to see the extent to which, if at all, the study considered airtime devoted, which the Tyndall study found hevily weighted to Obama.

However, CMPA's posted studies include:

Study Finds Obama's Media Momentum Slows
But He Still Leads Hillary In The Race For Good Press

Media Boost Obama, Bash Billary

Election Study Finds Media Hit Hillary Hardest
Obama, Huckabee Fare Best;
FOX Is Most Balanced (not a typo)

CMPA's overall conclusions on the primaries:

¨ Obama Leads Barack Obama got 3 to 1 positive press page 4
¨ Hillary Lags Senator Clinton’s coverage was about evenly balanced
page 4
¨ Last and Least John McCain got the worst press and least coverage of
the three page 5

Among the major Republican
candidates, Mike Huckabee
received the best press – 58%
positive. The other major
candidates both attracted a
majority of negative comments
– only 46% positive for
McCain and 44% positive for
Romney. McCain’s poor
showing is especially noteworthy
in light of his reputation as
a favorite with reporters, which
was borne out by his more
favorable coverage (62%
positive) during the 2000
primaries.
Overall, Democrats are leading
in the battle for good press,
with 66% positive evaluations
of all candidates combined vs.
44% positive for the Republican
field.

.....

McCain’s fortunes fell much
harder and faster. Prior to New
Hampshire his coverage was
almost unanimously (97%)
favorable, an even better showing
than Obama’s. After his
New Hampshire victory, however,
his proportion of favorable
evaluations sank to only
28% positive, before rebounding
slightly to 42% positive
after Super Tuesday.
Although McCain’s decline
was unusually precipitious, it is
in keeping with the historical
tendency of campaign news to
focus the greatest scrutiny on
frontrunners, which is what
McCain became after New
Hampshire. This makes
Obama’s continuance of mainly
positive coverage, at a time
when the press corps had
already anointed him as the
presumptive Democratic nominee,
seem all the more remarkable.

[vison]

I don't see bias, but interest.

Who do people want to see/hear/read about?

You could, of course, bring in a "fairness" law, where all the media have to devote exactly the same amount of time/ink to each candidate.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Voronwë, I would prefer to read the actual study, which has not yet been posted to the CMPA's website yet.

Fair enough. The other press releases on the site certainly conclusively show that they do not have a pro-Obama bias.