Jul 22 2008
Is the media in love with Barack Obama?
Barack Obama has been accompanied by hundreds of journalists on his trip overseas. Even the big three network anchors are tagging along for exclusive interviews with the Democratic Presidential candidate.
When John McCain arrived in New Hampshire last night for a campaign visit, one member of the media was there. One.
That prompted this ad by the McCain campaign:
Funny huh? What do you think?
(5 votes, average: 4.8 out of 5)
Loading ...
More disturbing than funny. I prefer the JibJab video of Obama leaping through the forest and the doctored videos of Make McCain Exciting on Colbert’s show–now *those* are funny!
McCain needs to stop ridiculing the media and stop whining that the NY Times rejected his op-ed (which was mainly a rant about Obama) and stop reminding people how much he’s like Bush (voted with him 95% of the time according to http://www.factcheck.org). That only one person was there to meet him at a campaign stop is the fault of McCain and his PR team. McCain isn’t saying anything new. He has to make news to be on the news, and being the presumptive nominee for the Republican party is not sufficient. A lot of people are very enthusiastic about Obama including, apparently, many in the media, although some of the comments seemed unprofessional and over the top. In a recent poll, only 9% of people were excited about McCain’s campaign. That’s pathetic. This week, with Obama in the M.E. and Europe, the only way McCain could get the media to pay attention was to leak the possibility of announcing a running mate to Novak, who now thinks he was used.
Politics, unfortunately, is a lot about packaging. If McCain has a worthwhile platform, he needs to figure out how to get his message out and get people passionate about campaigning for him. He seems, by turns, unmotivated and short-tempered (he isn’t called Senator Hothead for nothing). One person on a blog wrote that he is like a grumpy grandpa who doesn’t want to eat his applesauce.
McCain is a war hero. He has many years of public service. He’s a family man who opened his heart to a little girl who needed to be adopted and given a home. He has worked for veterans’ rights and–used to, but not recently–go against Bush for what he thought was right, such as opposing torture. He can work with people on both sides of the aisle and cooperated with them to pass important legislation. No one should be calling him a grumpy old man, but that is the image he is projecting. He also seems to be averse to working on many weekends. That makes him look old *and* tired.
McCain could win this race, but he has a lot of work to do. He can start by not doing what everyone else is doing–paying an inordinate amount of attention to Obama–and turning the spotlight on himself.
Lynn, we could get into a debate over the NY Times rejection of his op-ed, but you will lose. There was no excuse for it, when you compare it side-by-side with Obama’s. Each man has his own opinion, and if you are going to give one a full page editorial, you should give the other the same. Obama’s criticism has been just as stark as McCain’s. The only difference is Obama makes it sound more like poetry. The NY Times proves its worthlessness once again.
As far as the other things you have said about McCain, you are mostly right. Even with all of this attention, Obama’s lead is still within the margin of error in nearly every poll I’m seeing. This is a year in which the Democrat candidate should be up by 10-15%. Why isn’t Obama there? Because no one really knows where he stands, and because people are concerned about his lack of experience. No question about it, this campaign is a referendum on Obama.
So now any op-ed has to be accepted as is? Publications have no say over what gets printed and what doesn’t? You’re in the journalism business. Does KXLY have any say about what goes on the air or on its site? It must, because all posts have to be approved before they are allowed on the site.
Does any publication or station you know of allow anything at all, with no limits? Does a reporter’s story go on air as is with no editing and no revisions? Does that happen in any publication? Are you saying since McCain might be president, he can write whatever he wants, however he wants, and therefore they *have to* accept and print it? What I would like to know, though, is how many revisions Obama’s had to go through. And if they’ve published, as they’ve stated, op-eds by McCain before, is this the first time they’ve asked for a rewrite? Those would be interesting to know and then a fair judgment can be made as to whether this is SOP or unique, and if Obama was shown favoritism.
The NY Times asked McCain to be specific about what victory was. He is unable–Bush is unable, Gates is unable, Rice is unable, _______________ (fill in the blank) is unable–why is everyone so stymied by this question? He wants to be POTUS, but he can’t answer the question most people want to know, that much of the election is hinged on, and has been a large part of the low approval ratings for Congress and the president? I think it’s a fair question for someone who wants to be the most powerful leader in the world. I’m no fan of the NYT, but why can’t McCain write a response to the question? Why is that such a monumental challege for him?
And how about the TV stations that refuse to run ads contrary to their political preference? Do they have that right or should they run anything, as long as it can be paid for?
Okay, that one got the trifecta, Chris. Obama’s op-ed sounds like “poetry”?!?! Seriously? It sounds like you, along with too many others, want this to be all about Obama. Why? McCain needs to not try to make himself sound good in comparison to Obama, but on his own.
Many people are not happy with the choices we’ve been given. Go on any political message board and see how many people who usually vote R or D–and have for years–are not sure what they want to do. I’m one of them. This is as much about McCain as Obama, and it’s also about how seriously dissatisfied so many voters still are. Why would you think the D candidate would be so far ahead? Voters are angry at *both* parties. Whoever is POTUS not only has to repair relationships abroad, but here at home as well.
The corporate media has been pushing the propaganda of the Bush administration since before the 2nd gulf war. Its about time the media begins to cover another side to this country. I would like to see ZERO coverage of McCain except when he enters a nursing home.
Lynn, as far as the Op-Ed piece, have you read both of the candidates Op-Ed pieces? There’s a difference in KXLY approving the average Joe’s emails on topics of the day, and letting both presidential candidates submit an editorial on their views of the Iraq war. You should know that. McCain has a very different view than Obama on Iraq. It appears the NY Times didn’t like his view, so they blocked it.
As far as the ‘victory’ you’re asking about, I’ve heard McCain answer the question. He has said victory is when the Iraqi government can stand on its own and we can come home- without just pulling out and saying the heck with the consequences. Yesterday, Senator Obama said nearly the same exact thing, and he was praised for it in many circles. In fact, Obama has been saying a lot of the same exact things that McCain and Bush have said, again though, its the way he is saying it.
Today, he said ‘all options’ are on the table with Iran. Earlier this year, he said Iran was a tiny country that posed no serious threat. Is the NY Times going to ask him to write another editorial to help “explain” his views on Iran?
The problem is, Lynn, this is all about Obama. The reason? Because every indicator- EVERY SINGLE ONE- shows the country is favoring the Democratic party right now. That means the Democrat should win and win big. That still may happen, but Obama has to prove he’s ready… because that’s still a big question.
Obama, needs to learn to put “mind in gear before putting mouth in motion”.
McCain, has been there, he’s knows what war is about.
But when it comes right down to the election, I’ll write in a candidate which will be H. Clinton.
On the report I heard, the NYT asked McCain for a rebuttal to Obama’s op-ed. He didn’t do that, and a rewrite was requested. Instead, he published it elsewhere. If I take a class and am assigned a paper and write about something else, my professor will tell me to rewrite it or I won’t get credit for it. This is an easy concept to understand.
Yes, I have read both of them. How many times in Obama’s piece is McCain’s name used? How many times in McCain’s piece is Obama’s name used? They’ve published McCain’s writings before, so I don’t think he can claim they’re blocking his viewpoint.
Actually, McCain has previously said that if Iraq wants us to leave, regardless of the conditions, we have to leave. Now he changed his mind again.
I have no idea if the NYT will ask Obama to write an explanation but if they don’t, some reporters should pick up on it, and do their job and ask. That’s one reason we’re in such a mess in Iraq now–reporters gave politicans a pass and didn’t question persistently enough. This seems to be a problem with reporters recently. A bit off the topic, but that jerk Michael Savage says 99% of diagnoses of autism are just “brats”. Did anyone question that and make him prove it? Nope. Reporters these days let way too many things slide. I want Savage’s feet held to the fire about that, just as I want Obama’s and McCain’s feet held to the fire about anything they say, but I doubt it will happen.
Yeah, Obama is getting the attention because he’s making the news. McCain complains about what Obama is doing, but what is *he* doing? He needs to start generating some enthusiasm, or he will lose. It’s almost as if he doesn’t really care. One thread on a recent message board was “Is McCain trying to lose?” It’s a fair question. It’s his job to tell us what he will do and create the kind of campaign and platform people want to support.
He needs to look at it like a business. Take your station. It’s got an interactive web site with your Sound Off and other blogs with opportunities for viewers to comment. It’s got the 5 o’clock messaging with the anchors. It’s got the Extreme Team. It’s got the special features like Wednesday’s Child with Robyn Nance and Free Friday with Mark Peterson and Creature Feature and Lukens at Large–and I’m sure I’m forgetting something because KXLY has so many of them–and why does KXLY have all those features? For fun? No. It’s to build viewership loyalty. Those are all smart, profitable business decisions. McCain need to do something similar.
That he’s so entwined with Bush doesn’t help. McCain used to be a maverick, but he has moved closer and closer to Bush in recent years. Not smart. One reason Obama is generating so much excitement is he is diametrically opposite of Bush. At least that’s how he portrayed himself to get the nomination. Now he’s moving more toward the center, but most politicians do that. If McCain has any chance of winning, he needs to distance himself from Bush as artfully as he can.
Bingo! It’s all about Obama. McCain is the one who needs to change that. He is talking so much about Obama, that gives Obama even more attention *and* fires up his supporters. McCain needs to ignore Obama, unless asked to respond to a reporter’s question about something Obama has said. He needs to push his agenda and make a few publicity splashes. Instead, he spends too much of his time criticizing and making himself look weak. He has put himself in Obama’s shadown, which is astounding when you think about what McCain has done in comparison to Obama. He needs to step out and show his confidence and ability to lead–because right now he’s letting Obama lead him.
I think we have lost focus of the original question. Is the media in love with Obama? I believe it is obvious several main stream news organizations are.
For example, take a look at the timing of the CNN report “Black in America”. If that wasn’t intentionally released just months before the election, and intentionally written to ignite black americans to vote and make a change and vote for Obama, I will eat my hat.
McCain is not getting fair press time. Obama goes to the gym and it gets on the nightly news. Obama may be doing things to get press but are they the right things? Should a presidential candidate go on a world tour, or should he stay in the US and do his campaigning here? I believe it is inappropriate for Obama to be going and meeting with foreign leaders when it is not his job yet to do so. He is acting like he is a rock star, not a candidate for the presidency.
Back to the question. Look at CNN, look at NBC, look at the NY Times, anyone with have a brain can just read the front page of their local paper or read the online web sites and see who is getting the press and who is getting no press. The agenda is clear. The major media outlets want Obama because he is not a Republican and because he is a black american. They want something sensational to report. Unfortunatley, being a solid candidate who actually has a game plan and doesn’t just stump and spout rhetoric about Iraq is not news worthy anymore. I hope the average Jack and Jill see through the media’s Obama blitz and make an informed decision based on actual plans for the future and not how excited the media is for another media darling.
Lynn, you really need to read this analysis if you think the NY Times did the right thing in not printing McCain’s rebuttal.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/no_journalistic_reason_to_spik.html
No Good Reason to Spike McCain’s Op-Ed
By Dennis Byrne
As an ink-strained wretch who has labored for decades for three of America’s largest newspapers, I truly had hoped that liberal bias did not explain why the New York Times refused to publish an op-ed column from John McCain.
Sadly, though, the accusation is correct. By journalistic standards, the paper should have run the piece, just as Barack Obama’s was run earlier. David Shipley, the Times’ op-ed editor, his boss (in a later justification of the refusal) and by extension the newspaper blew this one, big, and now deserve the criticism heaped on them.
Although I have never worked for the Times, I hope that I’m still entitled to some thoughts about its conduct. My labors at three Chicago papers have included membership on an editorial board (Chicago Sun-Times), op-ed columnist (Sun-Times) and op-ed contributing columnist (Chicago Tribune), and sometimes included the selection of op-eds, letters-to-the-editor and forum pieces. At the iconic Chicago Daily News, I filled in on the editorial page under the wise tutelage of Pulitzer Prize-winning Lois Wille, who also later directed the editorial pages of the Sun-Times and Tribune.
So, let’s take a look:
Shipley, the op-ed editor, in his response to McCain’s submission said: “…I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft.”
It’s true that op-eds sometimes are turned down because they need to be rewritten for reasons such as improved clarity, organization or style. This, however, is rarely the case when they are ghostwritten by professional writers, as Obama’s and McCain’s certainly were. The fact is that the piece was asked to be rewritten because Shipley didn’t like its content.
Wrote Shipley: “The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.”
New information? Here’s what Obama said in his piece:
“But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true.” And this: “As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in.” Even Obama says what he is offering isn’t new. It is formerly articulated rhetoric–the very reason why McCain’s piece was rejected. The only thing I can find that is remotely new in the piece is this snippet: “As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan.” I’m not sure what Shipley was referencing when he said he wanted new stuff from McCain, and he may have honestly thought that Obama’s piece articulated a new, detailed plan.
It did not. Here’s what Obama said last year in a campaign piece, “Turning the page in Iraq:” “…we need to begin to end the [Iraq] war in order to finish the fight in Afghanistan. [Obama] would redeploy at least two combat brigades (7,000 personnel) of rested, trained American troops to Afghanistan to reinforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts to fight the Taliban.”
Further, while the New York Times’ policy may be to demand “news” in its op-eds, it’s not a standard that I’ve seen applied elsewhere, including at the papers where I’ve worked. Op-eds are opinion, commentary or analysis. “News” customarily goes in the “run of the paper,” outside of the editorial page.
But now, Shipley goes off the deep end:
“It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.”
Incredible. McCain has repeatedly said he is opposed to timetables, and whether or not you agree with him, I fail to understand how Shipley can demand that, as a condition for publication, McCain provide a timetable. Does Shipley insist that McCain betray his own beliefs for the sake of appearing in the New York Times? It is nonsense, dare I say unheard of, to send an op-ed back to the author to alter his views.
Perhaps Shipley doesn’t see the irony of his demands. Shipley might well have asked similar questions of Obama: What is your definition of victory in Afghanistan? (One might ask Obama what his definition of victory is in Iraq, but victory there apparently is part of his equation.) Where is your “clear plan” for achieving an Afghan victory, other than a troop surge? What is your plan for ending U.S. engagement in Afghanistan? What measures would you take to compel Afghan cooperation? How would you compel, encourage or even entice Pakistan to cooperate in the hunt of terrorists along the county’s shared border?
(By the way, noticeably missing from Obama’s op-ed was his statement from last year: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” Talk about vague; is he threatening unilateral U.S. military action?)
Would Shipley have refused to run Obama’s op-ed if Shipley had not agreed with the substance of Obama’s answers? Will never know because Obama never provided such answers in his op-ed.
Kate Phillips, on the New York Times politics blog, The Caucus, observed that having worked for Shipley in 2004 she could say it was the paper’s policy then not to publish direct responses to op-eds. “Very rarely would a direct counterpoint to an Op-Ed be published; more often the response would be directed to Letters to the Editor,” she wrote. “But dueling candidate Op-Eds sometimes rise to a different level, when they go beyond back-and-forth or standard talking points that everyone is familiar with.” This is weak, in-house gruel. Yes, standard practice is to print responses to op-eds in the letters to the editor. But, one might think that even “dueling candidate” op-eds would automatically rise to a different level, when the candidates in question are running for president.
The sad part in this is that Phillips, Shipley or perhaps no one else at the Times sees the hypocrisy of rejecting McCain’s op-ed for the very shortcomings that they let Obama get away with.
Perhaps the problem was that Shipley was a special assistant to the president and senior presidential speechwriter in the Clinton White House and, indeed, his political bias is showing. Or perhaps the problem is more innocent: simply flawed journalistic judgment.
In either case, the New York Times has publicly and seriously erred, further contributing to the trashing of what was once an admirable profession.
Dennis Byrne is a Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist.
“The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.
You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.
During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.
Conservatives have been snarling about the grotesque disparity revealed by another study, the online Tyndall Report, which showed Obama receiving more than twice as much network air time as McCain in the last month and a half. Obama got 166 minutes of coverage in the seven weeks after the end of the primary season, compared with 67 minutes for McCain, according to longtime network-news observer Andrew Tyndall….
…the center’s director, RobertLichter, who has won conservative hearts with several of his previous studies, told me the facts were the facts.
“This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage,” he said.
Here’s a bit more on the research, so you’ll understand how the communications professor and his researchers arrived at their conclusions.
The center reviews and “codes” statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama “has problems” with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.
The positive and negative remarks about each candidate are then totaled to calculate the percentages that cut for and against them.
Visual images and other more subjective cues are not assessed. But the tracking applies a measure of analytical rigor to a field rife with seat-of-the-pants fulminations.
The media center’s most recent batch of data covers nightly newscasts beginning June 8, the day after Hillary Rodham Clinton conceded the Democratic nomination, ushering in the start of the general-election campaign. The data ran through Monday, as Obama began his overseas trip.
Most on-air statements during that time could not be classified as positive or negative, Lichter said. The study found, on average, less than two opinion statements per night on the candidates on all three networks combined — not exactly embracing or pummeling Obama or McCain. But when a point of view did emerge, it tended to tilt against Obama.”