How many votes will the media get for Obama this time?

[CJK]

I'd say a conservative estimate would be 30 million, slightly more than in 2008.

[bgwah]

Go away.

[phk]

40 million or so.

[I left.]

All of his votes, obviously.

[Old Europe]

Amazing that people still believe those old communication theories from the 1940ies which were empirically disproven numerous times since then.

People aren't "Obama-friendly" because of "Obama-friendly" media. People who are "Obama-friendly" are choosing to read/watch "Obama-friendly" media in order to get their already existing opinion confirmed. People who are "Obama-hostile" are going to avoid "Obama-friendly" media for the most part. And people who are neutral/undecided are probably aware of the fact that "Obama-friendly" coverage is "Obama-friendly". And if they're fed up with "Obama-friendly" coverage, they're going to look elsewhere (zapping between MSNBC and Fox News, for instance).

The bottom line is: Media coverage can very well be biased. However, the effect of media coverage on voting behavior is at best largely overrated... and at worst a myth. Today this is truer than in any time in history, because of numerous "alternative" forms of communication and information, such as the Internet.

[Χahar]

100 billion

[CJK]

To clarify I'm not one of those hacks who constantly whine about the "liberal media" but I do think that the media's unprecedented protection of Obama on every news outlet except Fox (which I do admit is very anti-Obama) was just as crucial to his victory as the financial meltdown.

Obviously the media can't change the mind of people who are already heavily engaged in politics, like on this forum, but it can persuade many casual voters who pay much less attention to politics to vote for their man.

[Jacobtm]

Amazing that people still believe those old communication theories from the 1940ies which were empirically disproven numerous times since then.

People aren't "Obama-friendly" because of "Obama-friendly" media. People who are "Obama-friendly" are choosing to read/watch "Obama-friendly" media in order to get their already existing opinion confirmed. People who are "Obama-hostile" are going to avoid "Obama-friendly" media for the most part. And people who are neutral/undecided are probably aware of the fact that "Obama-friendly" coverage is "Obama-friendly". And if they're fed up with "Obama-friendly" coverage, they're going to look elsewhere (zapping between MSNBC and Fox News, for instance).

The bottom line is: Media coverage can very well be biased. However, the effect of media coverage on voting behavior is at best largely overrated... and at worst a myth. Today this is truer than in any time in history, because of numerous "alternative" forms of communication and information, such as the Internet.

Though you seem to know more about this than me, let me propose a situation:

Someone lives in a liberal area, but they're largely politics neutral, and Obama neutral. Everyone they know who's into politics says Fox news is Republican propaganda, but doesn't accuse other media of being biased. He sees reports which are clearly Obama biased, but he takes them to be fair reports merely showing that Obama supports things that are generally good wheras Republicans have plans that are inferior or worse.

Are you saying that even in that case media bias doesn't affect voting patterns?

Because, coming from Westchester county, I know ALOT of people who don't give 2 s about politics, don't care to learn anything about politics, are generally cynical about it, aren't crazy Obama freaks, but voted for him without hesitation.

[Jayhawker]

Not much
Liberals watch liberal stations.
Conservatives watch conservative stations.
Everyone else flips back and forth.

[Old Europe]

Amazing that people still believe those old communication theories from the 1940ies which were empirically disproven numerous times since then.

People aren't "Obama-friendly" because of "Obama-friendly" media. People who are "Obama-friendly" are choosing to read/watch "Obama-friendly" media in order to get their already existing opinion confirmed. People who are "Obama-hostile" are going to avoid "Obama-friendly" media for the most part. And people who are neutral/undecided are probably aware of the fact that "Obama-friendly" coverage is "Obama-friendly". And if they're fed up with "Obama-friendly" coverage, they're going to look elsewhere (zapping between MSNBC and Fox News, for instance).

The bottom line is: Media coverage can very well be biased. However, the effect of media coverage on voting behavior is at best largely overrated... and at worst a myth. Today this is truer than in any time in history, because of numerous "alternative" forms of communication and information, such as the Internet.

Though you seem to know more about this than me, let me propose a situation:

Someone lives in a liberal area, but they're largely politics neutral, and Obama neutral. Everyone they know who's into politics says Fox news is Republican propaganda, but doesn't accuse other media of being biased. He sees reports which are clearly Obama biased, but he takes them to be fair reports merely showing that Obama supports things that are generally good wheras Republicans have plans that are inferior or worse.

Are you saying that even in that case media bias doesn't affect voting patterns?

Because, coming from Westchester county, I know ALOT of people who don't give 2 s about politics, don't care to learn anything about politics, are generally cynical about it, aren't crazy Obama freaks, but voted for him without hesitation.

Well, I'd say you already answered your question. In such a case it hasn't that much to do with media coverage or media bias, but with the area they live in and with the people around them. It's true that people's political opinions can be affected by their daily life, their surroundings and their "milieu"... in far greater ways than media coverage could anyway.

It's possible that people who live in a "liberal" neigbourhood are mostly reading/watching "liberal" news. However, this makes the "consumption" of liberal media coverage an effect, not a cause.

[Old Europe]

Obviously the media can't change the mind of people who are already heavily engaged in politics, like on this forum, but it can persuade many casual voters who pay much less attention to politics to vote for their man.

Not in the way you think it does. First of all, people who are only barely interested in politics will only barely follow media coverage of political events, be it pro-Obama or anti-Obama. At best, reports from the presidential campaign trail will cause them the switch channels. And like I just explained to Jacobtm, voters are primarily affected by their daily lifes and the "millieu" they tend to life in.

"Propaganda" only works if you want to believe it. So, pro-Obama propaganda only works with Obama supporters. Its purpose is the solidify the own base.

[Smash255]

To clarify I'm not one of those hacks who constantly whine about the "liberal media" but I do think that the media's unprecedented protection of Obama on every news outlet except Fox (which I do admit is very anti-Obama) was just as crucial to his victory as the financial meltdown.

Obviously the media can't change the mind of people who are already heavily engaged in politics, like on this forum, but it can persuade many casual voters who pay much less attention to politics to vote for their man.

You start a thread as asinine as this and then suggest your ot one of those hacks.....

[Vepres]

Amazing that people still believe those old communication theories from the 1940ies which were empirically disproven numerous times since then.

People aren't "Obama-friendly" because of "Obama-friendly" media. People who are "Obama-friendly" are choosing to read/watch "Obama-friendly" media in order to get their already existing opinion confirmed. People who are "Obama-hostile" are going to avoid "Obama-friendly" media for the most part. And people who are neutral/undecided are probably aware of the fact that "Obama-friendly" coverage is "Obama-friendly". And if they're fed up with "Obama-friendly" coverage, they're going to look elsewhere (zapping between MSNBC and Fox News, for instance).

The bottom line is: Media coverage can very well be biased. However, the effect of media coverage on voting behavior is at best largely overrated... and at worst a myth. Today this is truer than in any time in history, because of numerous "alternative" forms of communication and information, such as the Internet.

Did you see the Pew study where Obama's coverage was twice as positive during his first 100 days then either Bush or Clinton. Not only that, but many focused on his leadership and personal qualities, instead of policy.

I know many people who receive news from sources different than their ideology. And what of moderates and independents?

[pbrower2a]

To clarify I'm not one of those hacks who constantly whine about the "liberal media" but I do think that the media's unprecedented protection of Obama on every news outlet except Fox (which I do admit is very anti-Obama) was just as crucial to his victory as the financial meltdown.

You just contradicted yourself in two clauses in one sentence. You get slight credit for recognizing the obvious: that FoX "News" is biased against anything or anyone  liberal (and not only Obama) unless to spread dissent among liberals.

Obviously the media can't change the mind of people who are already heavily engaged in politics, like on this forum, but it can persuade many casual voters who pay much less attention to politics to vote for their man.

Not since at least Ronald Reagan have we had a politician at so high a level so adept at  leading the media in the direction that he wants. I remember back in the 1990s when he was a State legislator (!) that Tom Brokaw said to the effect "watch this guy; he is about as slick a politician as there is."

People don't let the media direct them ; they choose media that they find comforting to their core beliefs.

[CJK]

The center--lets say 20%--have no core beliefs other than kicking the bums out when times are tough and letting them stay when times are good.

I'm sorry, but I just can't imagine this guy getting elected and perhaps even re-elected without the media serving as his campaign arm. And its not just me. A Pew poll showed that 44% believed media coverage of the McCain campaign was unfair, for comparison 35% thought this for the first Bush and Dole. A similar percentage say the media has too much influence on the election.

[I left.]

The center--lets say 20%--have no core beliefs other than kicking the bums out when times are tough and letting them stay when times are good.

I'm sorry, but I just can't imagine this guy getting elected and perhaps even re-elected without the media serving as his campaign arm. And its not just me. A Pew poll showed that 44% believed media coverage of the McCain campaign was unfair, for comparison 35% thought this for the first Bush and Dole. A similar percentage say the media has too much influence on the election.

lol, so you believe that McCain should have won by default?

[CJK]

The center--lets say 20%--have no core beliefs other than kicking the bums out when times are tough and letting them stay when times are good.

I'm sorry, but I just can't imagine this guy getting elected and perhaps even re-elected without the media serving as his campaign arm. And its not just me. A Pew poll showed that 44% believed media coverage of the McCain campaign was unfair, for comparison 35% thought this for the first Bush and Dole. A similar percentage say the media has too much influence on the election.

lol, so you believe that McCain should have won by default?

Um... no. That's not what I said.

[I left.]

It's exactly what you said.

"I can't imagine this guy getting elected without the media".

That means you assume that McCain would have won if there hadn't been media coverage.

[You kip if you want to...]

I *facepalm*'d the second I saw the title of this thread.

[CJK]

It's exactly what you said.

"I can't imagine this guy getting elected without the media".

That means you assume that McCain would have won if there hadn't been media coverage.

He probably would have won if there was fair media coverage. But I'm also referring to the Hillary/Obama match.

[I left.]

It's exactly what you said.

"I can't imagine this guy getting elected without the media".

That means you assume that McCain would have won if there hadn't been media coverage.

He probably would have won if there was fair media coverage. But I'm also referring to the Hillary/Obama match.

so how is my claim false?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Can anyone with a straight face claim that the media didn't help John McCain quite a bit?

[CJK]

Can anyone with a straight face claim that the media didn't help John McCain quite a bit?

Maybe in the primaries before Romney conceded. Not nearly as much as Obama, though.

[Communists For McCain]

Can anyone with a straight face claim that the media didn't help John McCain quite a bit?

lol yeah, what about that newschick who asked Biden if Obama was a socialist? (facepalm)
I think it's a little bit of both actually: Mega liberal media is masturbating over posters of Obama while mega conservative media is taking a shit on posters of Obama. There's never been a better time to be a political hack (if you're Democrat or Republican), and the rest of us have to suffer through another 4 years (at least) of partisan bitching. God I hate the American two party system.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The single fact that the media covered Sarah Palin as if she was a serious candidate makes them pro-McCain in my book.
If they had a shred of intelectual and profesional honesty they ought to declare, in no uncertain terms, what a joke her presence on the ticket was.