I’m going to ask you to do something very difficult: put your opinions of the candidates away for a moment and look at this election from another angle. I think I've got it figured out now, it's not pretty, and I hope I’m wrong.
When the network and cable news see either of the candidates gaining a sizable lead, they seem to concentrate on the underdog until his poll numbers are close to equal to his opponent's.
It’s obvious (to me, anyway) that news organizations need viewer numbers; ad revenue is the name of the game. After all, who's going to watch every developing news flash if McCain or Obama is so far ahead that the election is a foregone conclusion? I’m beginning to suspect that the heads of those news and print media organizations go out of their way to do everything possible in the tone of their reporting to make sure the candidates are as "separated at birth" as they possibly can get them. That means right up to the day of the election, the TV and print media absolutely need as much suspense as they can create. It sells magazines and newspapers, and awards top ratings that add up to big ad revenue bucks.
Last year Senator Hillary Clinton, for all intents and purposes, had a lock on the Democratic nomination. She even had more votes than Obama, so by how much and how did she lose the nomination? Was it only my perception that the news media suddenly hung on every word out of Senator Obama’s mouth, to the point of practically ignoring her… and for that matter, McCain ?
Last year, it looked like Rudy Giuliani had a lock on the Republican nomination, but what happened? The press concentrated on every fault and scandal in his history, to give the other candidates - mainly McCain - a chance to catch up to him. By the way, McCain was nearly dead in the water a year ago, but suddenly he’s the “comeback kid.”
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - dee
The media in this country is a joke... and yes they make shit up, why??? for $$$$$$$$$$$$ and ratings of course... keeping the race close means more ratings and more ratings mean more advertising money... it basic business... the media, like our reps in congress, are more concerned with money then being objective and reporting the facts or in congress's case doing what's right for the american people... also the media is controlled by a couple of companies that are run by republican business men... the media is pure propaganda and used to keep the american people off of what's important and like good little morons most do not see the reality... the system is broken and it needs to be torn down... this country is doomed with this media monopoly and with our current fake money hungry leaders...
2 - Joanne Huspek
Dee is right about the media. They're in it for $$$$, nothing else. And despite what they claim, they DO have a slant. You have an option. Turn it OFF. Look for the truth and not for glossy facades. Make an informed decision without the news.
It can be done.
3 - Jet
As much as I agree with you Dee, your first statement is false-The media is no joke.
thanks for contributing
Jet
4 - Daniel Miller
Jet, re Comment #3. And I disagree with you. I think that the media are are joke, often in poor taste and not very funny. The best way to deal with a not very funny joke is either to ignore it or to ridicule it. Perhaps a new version of the Gong Show might help.
Dan(Miller)
5 - dee
the media becomes a joke when it fails to be objective and makes moves not to gather the truth but to improve ratings and increase advertising dollars... the media has been comprimised by money... and that is a joke in an open, free and democratic society (if that even exists in this country anymore)...
6 - Jet
Fair enough, Dan
7 - Jet
No Dee, the media becomes a THREAT when it fails to be objective.
8 - Baronius
Jet, you're not wrong. The constant leveling does keep the story interesting, and that's part of the press's thinking. But their misunderstanding of objectivity is also a problem.
You want the press to report as-is. That would be objective. The press thinks that tearing down the leader and not discounting the trailing candidates is objectivity. A good example is the typical debate, where all sixteen candidates pack the stage. If you only invite the top four, well then you're playing favorites. So you treat all the candidates as equals, leveling the playing field.
9 - Jet
Thanks Baronius-absofuckinlootly!
10 - Cindy D
An example of the rare use of the "interfix" in English--as in infuckingcredible and absofuckinglutely (spelling corrected).
11 - troll
...didn't you mean the even more rare "interfux" - ?
(btw Cindy - I have searched my old notes unsuccessfully for the source of my reference way back when to that tribe with no verb 'to lie'..it was in the same series of studies that found forest tribes who's members couldn't perceive right angles
apologies and I withdraw the claim...now if I could remember what thread that was)
12 - Lisa Solod Warren
Y'all should read the posts on the Journalistic Bias thread and not re-invent the wheel.
13 - Jet
Abso-fuckin-Lootly is from the movie Fame.
14 - Dave Nalle
I think that the thing about media bias is that at this point people are so conscious of it that it tends to backfire and earn sympathy for their target of the hour. The public has become openly hostile to media manipulation, even if they really don't understand what it is or the motivations behind it.
Dave
15 - Jet
As for reinventing the wheel Lisa, this is about events concerning all the candidates long before Palin was nothing more than a smartass and lying/exagerating governor of a state that U.S. politics had pretty much ignored...
That private jet was NOT sold on e-bay, it was put up on e-bay but not sold there. Her private chef served for two years until she used his dismissal as a ploy for political attention.
16 - Jet
Very true Dave... unfortunately. I started suspecting it before the 2000 election, and was convinced when the democrats won back Congress.
The democrats got the majority, but no power because of the razor thin majority.
Bush must have laughed himself silly.
17 - Jet
However, I'm not talking about bias-I'm talking about manipulation
18 - Jet
Bias is where the media favors one candidate over the other, manipulation is where they're trying to sway voters into a tied vote in order to gain news ratings.
A bored public doesn't hang on every word of the national newscaster. The press loved Obama, until he gained a sizable lead, then the went hell bent for leather the other way to bring up the GOP side until they were tied in the polls.
I suspect that after McCain get a lead, they'll try to sway opinion back to Obama to tighten the race.
The press wants only one party to win this election... the press themselves.
19 - Jet
The press is only "biased" when it doesn't agree with your point of view.
20 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
The press is only "biased" when it doesn't agree with your point of view.
That seems to be the drift of things around here. I've thought the same thing myself Jet. Unfortunately I don't think there's any way to really prove or disprove it.
21 - Jet
Indeed PETI, though I'm thoroughly convinced, I labeled this "opinion"
22 - Baronius
I don't think it's big-picture deliberate though. The press doesn't do it in order to balance the race; they do it to balance the coverage. Consider the following fake news segment:
"Scientists now say that fried food is worse than we thought. A new study shows that even one daily serving of fried food can reduce your life expectency by 4 years. Professor Jackson at USC says, 'We're only beginning to discover the links between fried foods and antioxidants, and the more we learn, the more we realize the harm that fried foods cause.' But we found people at the mall who say that that fried food isn't that bad - 'Aw, ya gotta eat fries. A burger without fries? ****, no way.'"
You've seen stories like that. It's not a matter of politics; the press is afraid to say anything definitively. They can't muster the courage to say that bad food is bad for you. Maybe it's for legal reasons. Maybe it's a stab at being objective.
What it is, is neutral. Neutrality is different from objectivity. Korean War coverage was objective, reporting facts without the diminishment of patriotism. Vietnam War coverage was neutral, refusing to take sides. Going back to Jet's example, an objective reporter would have said that Hillary was getting more votes. A neutral reporter would have said that all the candidates were working hard for the nomination, with pictures of all of them on screen. That's not malice; it's just stupid.
23 - Lisa Solod Warren
Jet, I don't disagree with the ebay or the chef references, you are right.
What I was referring to, Jet, was the many good comment on that other post.... and the much good, intelligent discussion on media manipulation, that people could take a look at before saying the same things... that is re-inventing the wheel.
I don't particularly believe media manipulation is possible if one is intelligent and thoughtful. If one is willing to be manipulated, as I said on the other post, well, yeah, sure. That's easy. Read one source or look at one television station. Believe that, and voila! You're done.
24 - Jet
Baronius, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. An election is a media event nowadays, the more viewers-the more ad revenue. If the race were a foregone conclusion why would anyone watch?
I'm convinced that the networks need to keep the race as close as possible till the wee hours of the morning.
Look at the 2000 race that (unprecedently(sic?)) wasn't decided until the supreme court got it days later. The networks got their first taste of millions/billions in ad revenue from people hanging on the edge or their seats watching every late development.
Like a hunting dog that's tasted raw meat, he's spoiled. They had to have more, and if the candidates themselves couldn't create it, then they would... and did
25 - Jet
Lisa, I was wrong. We used to have a jerk that followed me around accusing me of stealing/plagarizing every idea for my 91 (so far) articles.
It's a very touchy subject and I took your comments the wrong way.
sorry
The most intelligent thing anyone can say is "I'm wrong"... after all the strongest lessons learned are from mistakes...