From the moment Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens denied the allegations against him, I didn't believe him. And today, my reaction was validated both as accurate and knee-jerk.
So why the double validation?
First, since I begun writing on politics in the mid-1990's, there has been so many examples of politicians betraying the public trust, I simply don't even give them the benefit-off-the-doubt.
And why should I? Here's just a partial list:
Mark Foley
James Traficant
Bill Clinton
Gary Condit
John Edwards
Tim Mahoney
Vito J. Fossella
Eliot L. Spitzer
David Vitter
Larry Craig
Ted Stevens
Mike Nifong
But it doesn't stop with politicians, there have been a number of media scandals. Of the past few years, the most egregious were perpetrated by Jayson Blair and Dan Rather. Blair was found to have been making stories out-of-whole-cloth and Rather used forged documents in Memogate.
Sometimes, media bias and scandal is revealed by content or by favor (the NYT gave a sweetheart rate to Moveon.org for an ad). Other times, the media is caught in deception as Michelle Kosinski proved in a video report in Wayne, NJ on the Today Show (she was in a canoe paddling in supposed deep flood waters when two men walk by and reveal the water only to be inches deep).
Just days ago, the Pew Research Center released it's findings on Obama/McCain media coverage, and to no surprise, the democrat candidate faired far better than the republican. Thirty-six percent of the stories about Obama were positive, and thirty-five percent were neutral or mixed. While McCain negative stories were fifty-seven percent and a lowly fourteen percent were positive.
This is why I do not believe the media hype about a landslide Obama victory. As I have written before, the polls will tighten in these last days of the campaign and tighten they have. As of today, five national tracking polls show a close race:
IBD/TIPP--Obama 47, McCain 44
Obama +3
Diageo/Hotline--Obama 50, McCain 42
Obama +8
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby--Obama 50, McCain 45
Obama +5
Gallup (Traditional)*--Obama 50, McCain 45
Obama +5
Rasmussen Reports--Obama 51, McCain 46
Obama +5
And with the finding of Obama's 2001 interview, in which he clearly promotes wealth redistribution, the polls will tighten further and might even swing to a McCain lead. We the public have been subjected before by the media hype and this surely won't be the last time.
Showing posts with label media bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media bias. Show all posts
Monday, October 27, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
14 Day Election Countdown -- Politicking Strategies
So being that the general election is only 14 days away, the republican, democrat campaigns and the media are all strategizing to win.
On the democrat side, Michelle Obama and (perhaps Joe Biden) have been sequestered because of their inability to wisely choose their words. (One of Biden's latest gaffes was a McCain slam gone awry, "Look, John's [McCain] last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word; jobs. J-O-B-S.")
Both McCain and Obama have staked the economy as the centerpiece of the campaign, which practically every pundit has given the advantage to Obama. And McCain has suffered because national security and foreign policy have been off-the-radar.
But two instances have put Obama on defense on both the economy and national security/foreign policy first was Obama's fumbled answer posed to "Joe the Plumber"; second was Joe Biden's unscripted insertion of national security with his remarks about Obama being tested within the first six-months of their administration. As a result, the polls will tighten and shift toward the republican nominee.
According to Dick Morris, Obama may have picked too soon and most astute political observers would have to conclude or conceed that the Illinios Senator is losing ground in the polls and not because of anything McCain has done in-particular -- as with most of these historical phenominoms, the damage has been self-inflicted (e.g. Dukakis' tank ride, George H.W.Bush's "read my lips, no new taxes", Dole's senate resignation, Al Gore's three distinct debate personalities, Howard Dean's scream-heard-round-the-world, Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it".
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody" and "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama...watch, we're gonna have an international crisis..." these two qoutes have turned the campaign-focus to where Obama is weakest.
What-is-more is that GOP leaners have learned from 2000 and 2004 wherein both elections were close and allegations of voter fraud, mishandled counting and the like. So this year, they are being proactive in putting the so-called voter registration organizations (particularly ACORN) on defense. And now, with the revelation that ACORN has registered Mickey Mouse to vote, the public will be suspicious of Obama's past and present associations.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media is also strategizing for themselves and for the democrat nominee as media bias is now as transparent as could be possible, without being honest. It is plain to see that the network newscasts are and have been favoring Obama.
On the democrat side, Michelle Obama and (perhaps Joe Biden) have been sequestered because of their inability to wisely choose their words. (One of Biden's latest gaffes was a McCain slam gone awry, "Look, John's [McCain] last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word; jobs. J-O-B-S.")
Both McCain and Obama have staked the economy as the centerpiece of the campaign, which practically every pundit has given the advantage to Obama. And McCain has suffered because national security and foreign policy have been off-the-radar.
But two instances have put Obama on defense on both the economy and national security/foreign policy first was Obama's fumbled answer posed to "Joe the Plumber"; second was Joe Biden's unscripted insertion of national security with his remarks about Obama being tested within the first six-months of their administration. As a result, the polls will tighten and shift toward the republican nominee.
According to Dick Morris, Obama may have picked too soon and most astute political observers would have to conclude or conceed that the Illinios Senator is losing ground in the polls and not because of anything McCain has done in-particular -- as with most of these historical phenominoms, the damage has been self-inflicted (e.g. Dukakis' tank ride, George H.W.Bush's "read my lips, no new taxes", Dole's senate resignation, Al Gore's three distinct debate personalities, Howard Dean's scream-heard-round-the-world, Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it".
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody" and "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama...watch, we're gonna have an international crisis..." these two qoutes have turned the campaign-focus to where Obama is weakest.
What-is-more is that GOP leaners have learned from 2000 and 2004 wherein both elections were close and allegations of voter fraud, mishandled counting and the like. So this year, they are being proactive in putting the so-called voter registration organizations (particularly ACORN) on defense. And now, with the revelation that ACORN has registered Mickey Mouse to vote, the public will be suspicious of Obama's past and present associations.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media is also strategizing for themselves and for the democrat nominee as media bias is now as transparent as could be possible, without being honest. It is plain to see that the network newscasts are and have been favoring Obama.
No matter, every year the mainstream press features stories about the coming dismal retail sales and every year, sales are higher than forecast. And every presidential election, the mainstream press predicts a race too-close-to-call...well, they've been right at least once.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Veep Critique and the Latest (Stacked) Polls
Last night's vice-presidential debate was a big television draw, garnering more viewers than the lack-luster presidential between Obama and McCain...congratulations to Sarah Palin and Joe Biden for delivering solid and interesting performances.
Governor Palin shined brightly and spoke directly to the American people, connecting through the airwaves straight into "Joe six-pack's" living room. Senator Biden was astute and showed the priming of a well-seasoned politician.
Both managed their time and answers well, but in the end, Palin scored on style with plenty of substance to reignite the McCain campaign and score political amnesty from the Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric "gotcha" interviews. Gwen Ifill moderated well enough, and wasn't overtly biased.
Yet even with Sarah Palin's stellar performance, the national tracking polls still show an Obama lead. (Remember a rule of polling is that something has to occur to move the polls.) Perhaps the polling is still reflective of the bailout debacle, but with the Senate passing the bill yesterday and the House just passing it this afternoon, Wall Street is reacting, and so should the polls.
In examining today's tracking polls, the forecast until the week of October 27th is an Obama lead. And the reason for this conclusion is simple: the weighting samples are stacked with democrats and 2004 independent leaning Kerry voters.
And so it is for nearly every tracking poll, whether state-by-state or national, the pollsters are stacking their samples with a greater percentage of likely-voter democrats than republicans and then releasing their numbers that reflect an Obama lead...just as was done in the last two presidential elections.
This should come as no surprise with the blantant bias the media personalities have exhibited, from Katie Couric's interview and hack-editing of Sarah Palin, to Charlie Gibson's pomposity, to Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman's demotions for unbridled partisan editorializing.
The fix is in and the mainstream media is in the tank for the Illinois Senator but they'll maintain their facade of objectivity, at least until November 5th.
Governor Palin shined brightly and spoke directly to the American people, connecting through the airwaves straight into "Joe six-pack's" living room. Senator Biden was astute and showed the priming of a well-seasoned politician.
Both managed their time and answers well, but in the end, Palin scored on style with plenty of substance to reignite the McCain campaign and score political amnesty from the Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric "gotcha" interviews. Gwen Ifill moderated well enough, and wasn't overtly biased.
Yet even with Sarah Palin's stellar performance, the national tracking polls still show an Obama lead. (Remember a rule of polling is that something has to occur to move the polls.) Perhaps the polling is still reflective of the bailout debacle, but with the Senate passing the bill yesterday and the House just passing it this afternoon, Wall Street is reacting, and so should the polls.
In examining today's tracking polls, the forecast until the week of October 27th is an Obama lead. And the reason for this conclusion is simple: the weighting samples are stacked with democrats and 2004 independent leaning Kerry voters.
And so it is for nearly every tracking poll, whether state-by-state or national, the pollsters are stacking their samples with a greater percentage of likely-voter democrats than republicans and then releasing their numbers that reflect an Obama lead...just as was done in the last two presidential elections.
This should come as no surprise with the blantant bias the media personalities have exhibited, from Katie Couric's interview and hack-editing of Sarah Palin, to Charlie Gibson's pomposity, to Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman's demotions for unbridled partisan editorializing.
The fix is in and the mainstream media is in the tank for the Illinois Senator but they'll maintain their facade of objectivity, at least until November 5th.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Media Oblique
This past week has put on full display for anyone who pays even scant attention the blatant bias of the "mainstream media" (e.g. MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times) vis-a-via the assualt on Sarah Palin and the likewise treatment given to Hillary Clinton during the primaries.
Even Oprah has shown her political bias by not inviting the GOP VP nominee, claiming that she does not want to lend her ratings as a political platform (yet that self-imposed standard was not applicable when Barack Obama appeared twice as a presidential candidate).
The common thread here is not particularly gender bias, but political bias.
Ask the average man on the street if Rush Limbaugh is a conservative or liberal, you're going to get the correct affiliation (perhaps peppered with explicatives). Dittos for Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, the second and third most listened-to radio talk show hosts. The answer maybe correct but the source from which the answer given is likely to be third-party drawn.
But if you actually tune-in to one of these three, they won't claim objectivity, they tell their audiences their political diposition.
When the New York Times, CNN, or MSNBC cite one of these three personalities they routinely qualify the introduction with "conservative talk-show host". While Chris Mattews, Keith Olberman rant against anything Republican or conservative, they claim objectivity.
If you've seen the TV ad for National Review, it boasts its conservative dispatch, but the New York Times TV ad says nothing of its ever more left leanings; instead it highlights its fashion, style, weekend, and et cetera sections.
Remember Rep. Gary Condit?
That's pricely how most ever print publication and TV news crawl labeled the former California congressman. His (D) political affiliation rarely appeared after his name, whereas in 2006, Republican Mark Foley's name was ubiqitous.
This is also explains why so little coverage is given to Biden's public record, but the same outlets are quick to highlight Palin's personal life.
The Matthews/Olberman demotions are proof positive that news consumers know when they're listening to commentary and when they're listening to hard news. The late Tim Russert was a democrat, but you wouldn't know it by his moderating, you'd have to derive that fact from his work-history.
Even Oprah has shown her political bias by not inviting the GOP VP nominee, claiming that she does not want to lend her ratings as a political platform (yet that self-imposed standard was not applicable when Barack Obama appeared twice as a presidential candidate).
The common thread here is not particularly gender bias, but political bias.
Ask the average man on the street if Rush Limbaugh is a conservative or liberal, you're going to get the correct affiliation (perhaps peppered with explicatives). Dittos for Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, the second and third most listened-to radio talk show hosts. The answer maybe correct but the source from which the answer given is likely to be third-party drawn.
But if you actually tune-in to one of these three, they won't claim objectivity, they tell their audiences their political diposition.
When the New York Times, CNN, or MSNBC cite one of these three personalities they routinely qualify the introduction with "conservative talk-show host". While Chris Mattews, Keith Olberman rant against anything Republican or conservative, they claim objectivity.
If you've seen the TV ad for National Review, it boasts its conservative dispatch, but the New York Times TV ad says nothing of its ever more left leanings; instead it highlights its fashion, style, weekend, and et cetera sections.
Remember Rep. Gary Condit?
That's pricely how most ever print publication and TV news crawl labeled the former California congressman. His (D) political affiliation rarely appeared after his name, whereas in 2006, Republican Mark Foley's name was ubiqitous.
This is also explains why so little coverage is given to Biden's public record, but the same outlets are quick to highlight Palin's personal life.
The Matthews/Olberman demotions are proof positive that news consumers know when they're listening to commentary and when they're listening to hard news. The late Tim Russert was a democrat, but you wouldn't know it by his moderating, you'd have to derive that fact from his work-history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
