Media Coverage

whistlelock · Oct 22, 2008

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiE-7-7YbMg-msHxLrN2b_g8RF7gD93VQU481

An interesting read about the coverage of the candidates. Two things jump out at me, one I expected to hear:

McCain's poll numbers have been sinking. As a result, many of the stories about him are about why his poll numbers are sinking — and how whatever he says or does is an attempt to stop his poll numbers from sinking,

And, that makes sense to me. As a candidate take a lead there will be more positive press about them and as they fall behind there will be more negative press.

However, the second thing to jump out at me I did not expect to see but had started to notice on my own a few weeks back:

McCain's negative coverage closely tracks the tone of Democrat Al Gore's during the 2000 campaign, he said.A similar thing happened during the latter stages of Hillary Clinton's campaign against Obama,

And, to explain further- I have noticed a similar pattern with McCain and Hillary in their campaign's against Obama. Neither one could settle on a message or slogan to use against his Change banner. Both used Experience as their keystone argument, and both abandoned it quickly to take up Change and then switched to negative attacks as their talking points.

And, both have complained about unfair coverage of the media.

So, my question here is how much do you feel the media reporting that someone is behind or ahead affects those trends?

And, to phrase it a different way in the trend of media coverage: Would John McCain be losing if we weren't being told he was losing?

Don · Oct 23, 2008

I think the reporting has a considerable impact. For every voter out there who votes the issues, there are many who vote emotion, and everybody wants to be on a winning team.

It doesn't convert the issue voters or the diehard party people, but it definately has an impact on the casual voter. Witness the total vote count for any third-party candidate.

wordmonkey · Oct 23, 2008

But is McCain getting negative press because he's running a negative campaign?

If his main thrust is all negative, then that's the tone that seeps into the reporting of his campaign, no?

We have Tivo and general blip through commercials. Do it with even greater ferocity during election season. But occasionally I blip too far and have to rewind. Did that a couple of times and rewound into the last commercial of the break which was an Obama ad. In the ad he was talking about what he would do if elected.

This was so stunning we rewound the ad to the start and it was all like that. "Here's what I stand for."

Now don't get me wrong, I've seen ads knocking McCain and the local ads are so full of bile on both sides it's not even funny. But this ad REALLY stood out.

The ad blipping doesn't happen all the time (we watch live TV as well) and I've seen more political ads than I ever care to see, but not once have I seen a McCain ad where he sits there, looks at the camera and says "This is what I'll do."

2000 McCain would have done that. And I believe 2000 McCain would not have been on the wrong end of negative reporting.

Monkey · Oct 23, 2008

McCain used to be known for allowing the press almost unrestricted access, and was therefore one of their favorite politicians.

During this campaign, he cut off most of that access. He went negative in a big way. When he chose Palin and she was immediately scrutinized (and what VP pick isn't - he should have expected more than the usual amount of scrutiny when he picked an unknown) he lashed out at the press.

Lashing out at the press is not a good idea for a presidental candidate. Not if they want positive coverage.

That said, I've seen two articles on the "Left's MSM" this morning pushing the idea that the Republicans are making a come-back. They were both based on one poll - an outlier - by the AP that showed the race within 1 point, well within the margin of error. Of course, this ignores the electoral college and goes against virtually every other poll out there, but who cares? The AP says that McCain's last debate performance was strong enough that it's reversing the race, and the National Journal's typically Left-leaning Mercurio is wondering how Obama can hold back the latest GOP surge.

That's funny, considering that Real Clear Politics has Obama over 7 points ahead in national polling and over 100 electoral votes ahead of his rival, and the latest Quinnipac polls have Obama leading with double-digits in 9 out of 10 battle ground states.

I wouldn't say that the media has turned completely against McCain...not even the left-leaning dreaded MSM, despite his best efforts.

Joe270 · Oct 23, 2008

Lashing out at the press is not a good idea for a presidental candidate. Not if they want positive coverage.

I seriously doubt McCain could have done anything to get the media behind him. Obama has enjoyed a long honeymoon with the media since the outset.

In my local paper, Obama gets front page stories almost daily, McCain's are back around page 15. The only front page stuff is Palin bashing stuff.

Even the silly crap about the GOP spending a bundle on Palin's make-over. In all fairness, shouldn't they put out how much Obama spends on his clothing, make up, and hairstyling? We already know that Edwards spent a bundle on his haircuts. Palin's make-over made the friggin' front page, with comments that 'such frivolous spending offers insight into her fiscal responsibility'. What a crock.

There is no doubt that the media is trying it's absolute best to sway the voters during this election.

Don · Oct 23, 2008

Not all the papers are liberal, though, particularly the smaller ones.

The local paper here had an 'analysis' of the amendments on the Florida ballot.

There's a same-sex marriage amendment proposed. Their analysis ended something like this. (paraphrased) If you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, vote yes. If you believe government should not be involved in issues like same-sex marriage, drug prevention, and gambling, vote no.

Notice how 'cleverly' they brought ALL victimless crimes under a broad umbrella there? I'm surprised they didn't include kiddie porn.

johnnysannie · Oct 23, 2008

Joe270 said:
Even the silly crap about the GOP spending a bundle on Palin's make-over. In all fairness, shouldn't they put out how much Obama spends on his clothing, make up, and hairstyling? We already know that Edwards spent a bundle on his haircuts. Palin's make-over made the friggin' front page, with comments that 'such frivolous spending offers insight into her fiscal responsibility'. What a crock.

.

The difference is that Obama buys his own clothing but Ms. Palin had $150,000 of new things purchased by the RNC, an organization that has been accepting political donations to help McCain win, not dress Caribou Barbie.

The fact that the money came from the Republican National Committee is the point just as much as what it was spent buying.

If anything new were to underline how much Palin is just a Barbie doll to draw voters to McCain's failing ticket, it would be buying Barbie an all-new, expensive wardrobe on money that Republican voters donated to the cause.

Monkey · Oct 23, 2008

Funny, I'm in South Texas, and here I see lots of Pro-McCain headlines.

Could it be that the media plays to its base?

wordmonkey · Oct 23, 2008

Joe270 said:
Even the silly crap about the GOP spending a bundle on Palin's make-over. In all fairness, shouldn't they put out how much Obama spends on his clothing, make up, and hairstyling? We already know that Edwards spent a bundle on his haircuts. Palin's make-over made the friggin' front page, with comments that 'such frivolous spending offers insight into her fiscal responsibility'. What a crock.

Could it also illustrate a disconnect with Joe (insert trade or beverage delivery quota here)? How can someone who has that amount of money JUST for clothes, lavished (and I think that word is appropriate here) on her, claim to be just like me? I'd be willing to bet I haven't spent that much money on clothes for me, my wife and all three kids, on all our lives - let alone two months.

Williebee · Oct 23, 2008

Could it be that the media plays to its base?

Almost always. It is a highly refined, scientifically identified process:

Media plays to its base.
Base watches media.
Media sells ads.
Media plays ads.
Base goes to the fridge.

astonwest · Oct 24, 2008

It's utterly amazing that no one has yet brought this up...
*snicker*

donroc · Oct 24, 2008

I always knew which side the newspapers were on in San Franciso from the time I was a conscious child, especially Hearst's Examiner and his afternoon paper the Call Bulletin, and Time under its founder Henry Luce had its agenda. We used to do the positive/negative searches in high school for the photos Time used without reading the articles first to guess if they were positive or negative.

Of course with the accelerated dumbing of our school curricula, especially in the area of critical thinking, the damage biased news posing as objective journalism can do to a candidate may be terminal.

Don · Oct 24, 2008

donroc said:
Of course with the accelerated dumbing of our school curricula, especially in the area of critical thinking, the damage biased news posing as objective journalism can do to a candidate may be terminal.

It already has been terminal. There was one Republican primary candidate stressing in every debate that the economy was the real issue, and that foreign adventurism was going to bankrupt us.

He was painted from day one as a kook who was out of step with reality and smeared with a racist brush based on writings by someone else that appeared in a newsletter he wasn't editing and had apologized for years before.

robeiae · Oct 24, 2008

astonwest said:
It's utterly amazing that no one has yet brought this up...
*snicker*

That's not relevant.

Anyway, I get a kick out of this "McCain's running a negative campaign" bullshit. I hear Obama campaign ads constantly on the radio and have seen plenty on TV (ETA: and I've gotten recorded phone calls from the Obama campaign basically every day). And they're all negative, all attacks on McCain--or else attacks on McCain via attacks on Bush, which is funny since it's that "guilt by association" thing that has so many Obama sycophants all a-twitter. It's a funny thing, perception.

Of course, Obama is outspending McCain now by leaps and bounds.

That said, McCain's attacks are also mostly negative. But the idea that he is doing what Obama is not is absolutely ridiculous.

blacbird · Oct 24, 2008

johnnysannie said:
If anything new were to underline how much Palin is just a Barbie doll to draw voters to McCain's failing ticket, it would be buying Barbie an all-new, expensive wardrobe on money that Republican voters donated to the cause.

Plus it shows under bright klieg lights just how destitute of strategy, focus and direction the RNC is right now. Because I'm a Democrat, I'm just amused. If I were a Republican, I'd be furious with these idiots.

caw

kuwisdelu · Oct 24, 2008

robeiae said:
Anyway, I get a kick out of this "McCain's running a negative campaign" bullshit. I hear Obama campaign ads constantly on the radio and have seen plenty on TV (ETA: and I've gotten recorded phone calls from the Obama campaign basically every day). And they're all negative, all attacks on McCain--or else attacks on McCain via attacks on Bush, which is funny since it's that "guilt by association" thing that has so many Obama sycophants all a-twitter. It's a funny thing, perception.

I'm in Indiana, which never gets covered by the media, but has a narrow chance of going blue for the first time since LBJ. We get ads from both sides; there are more Obama ads, of course, and many of them are negative ads attacking McCain's fiscal policies, but he's also had some great positive ads about education and jobs and his character. McCain's have been 100% negative--seriously, not a single positive one. I can't remember any.

robeiae · Oct 24, 2008

kuwisdelu said:
I'm in Indiana, which never gets covered by the media, but has a narrow chance of going blue for the first time since LBJ. We get ads from both sides; there are more Obama ads, of course, and many of them are negative ads attacking McCain's fiscal policies, but he's also had some great positive ads about education and jobs and his character. McCain's have been 100% negative--seriously, not a single positive one. I can't remember any.

I'm in Florida. And I've yet to hear an Obama ad that doesn't take a shot at McCain. Including ads on education and jobs, which included positive stuff about Obama.

The stuff on the phone has all been negative. All of it. And it's not just one or two recordings. It's different every day.

rugcat · Oct 24, 2008

robeiae said:
I'm in Florida. And I've yet to hear an Obama ad that doesn't take a shot at McCain. Including ads on education and jobs, which included positive stuff about Obama.

The stuff on the phone has all been negative. All of it. And it's not just one or two recordings. It's different every day.

I think there is a difference. Fair or no, Obama's ads attack McCain's policies -- making the case that it's more of the same stuff and McCain will lead the country into ruin.

McCain has some of the same ads, but he also has a lot of ads that attack Obama personally -- the how can you trust our country to a man who pals around with terrorists variety. That really is qualitatively different.

donroc · Oct 24, 2008

Et Palina delenda est. The media

mscelina · Oct 24, 2008

Every ad playing in Ohio right now is negative. As a matter of fact, if I see that stupid "voted with Bush 99% of the time" ad again I may just projectile vomit. Interestingly enough, today I did see an ad just about Sarah Palin for the first time today--I thought that was an interesting quirk.

I just got tickets for a McCain rally here on Sunday and am desperately trying to scrounge some up for an upcoming Obama event as well. Maybe one of them will say something in person that will impact me more than the crap they're running on TV.

astonwest · Oct 24, 2008

rugcat said:
I think there is a difference. Fair or no, Obama's ads attack McCain's policies -- making the case that it's more of the same stuff and McCain will lead the country into ruin.

Strange, the ad I see all the time here is a bunch of Obama campaign lines about McCain accompanied by randomly selected clips (I assume from the debates when he wasn't on direct camera?) of McCain to make him look foolish.

Certainly, all about attacking his policies...

Joe270 · Oct 24, 2008

I'm in Florida. And I've yet to hear an Obama ad that doesn't take a shot at McCain. Including ads on education and jobs, which included positive stuff about Obama.

There is one Obama ad airing in Vegas that isn't negative, but has me scratching my head. In it Obama states he's gonna hire more teachers, raise teacher pay, and start full-time kindergarten.

Hmmm. I didn't know the POTUS ran all the local school districts. I don't see how he can make such a statement.

McCain has some of the same ads, but he also has a lot of ads that attack Obama personally -- the how can you trust our country to a man who pals around with terrorists variety. That really is qualitatively different.

Most of the Obama ads here are the 'voted with Bush, same as Bush, four more years of Bush' crappola, which is similar to the 'paling around with terrorist' ads.

There are some new ones, however, which puts Obama, Pelosi, and Reid together. Those are effective. McCain should have done that a month ago, and this race would be a whole different ball game.

Talk about scary, that's scary.

rugcat · Oct 24, 2008

astonwest said:
Strange, the ad I see all the time here is a bunch of Obama campaign lines about McCain accompanied by randomly selected clips (I assume from the debates when he wasn't on direct camera?) of McCain to make him look foolish.

Certainly, all about attacking his policies...

I'm not sure how showing images of McCain is a personal attack. Honestly, the major thrust of McCain's campaign is not that Obama is stupid, or wrongheaded. It's that he cannot be trusted. And that really is a different thing.

donroc · Oct 24, 2008

More scary if Barney Frank would be added.

robeiae · Oct 24, 2008

rugcat said:
I think there is a difference. Fair or no, Obama's ads attack McCain's policies -- making the case that it's more of the same stuff and McCain will lead the country into ruin.

Ahh, but those aren't McCain's policies when the ads lead with Bush.

And a principle line is that it was Bush that is responsible for the economic mess. And as we all know, there are some boneheads in Congress with big 'D's on their shirts that share some serious blame, especially those that submarined the attempt by McCain and others to fix Fannie and Freddie before they imploded.

McCain has some of the same ads, but he also has a lot of ads that attack Obama personally -- the how can you trust our country to a man who pals around with terrorists variety. That really is qualitatively different.

If you wrongly say "Bush did this," then follow it with "McCain will, too" because...well, just BECAUSE...I'd say that's a little personal. And again, attacking McCain through Bush is qualitatively not all that different than attacking Obama through Ayers.

But you know, so what? It's the same schtick we always get. Every candidate says "I won't go negative," than does. Every candidate says "the other side is MORE negative," as a matter of course.

I say--to dem and repub, alike--get over yourselves. Your guy is nothing special, here. He's trying to win the Presidency and he has no qualms about stretching the truth to get there.

Media Coverage

Whiskey Rebel

All Living is Local

ook

Is me.

All Living is Local

Is me.

ook

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

2 WIP? A glutton for punishment

Historicals and Horror rule

All Living is Local

Touch and go

Revolutionize the World

Touch and go

Lost in the Fog

Historicals and Horror rule

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

2 WIP? A glutton for punishment

Lost in the Fog

Historicals and Horror rule

Touch and go