Did press bias in favor of Obama constitute a major media failure? Did it matter

[Lunar]

Stole this question from Politico's Arena:
http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/98.html

My answer to this is that yes, the press was biased towards Obama, he was what people wanted to hear about.  The press is biased towards whomever people are more interested in (positive and negative).  I will acknowledge that some of the bias probably occurred due to Obama's appeal to intellectual academics, and the McCain campaign's increasingly populist tones (Palin then Ayers and some "teaching sex to infants" ads) turned off the media.  I think overall this "failure" of the media was due to the failure of the McCain communications team and the success of Obama's.  Obama's campaign was simply better at manipulating the media, god forbid.

But, if one views the job of the press to be something philosophical or ethical and not business-related, I could understand opposing views.  I imagine any press agency that tried to simply wright about what the people "ought to know" rather than what they "want to know" would quickly go out of business.

[Person Man]

Well, even if there was a positive Obama bias, it doesn't mean that the media itself is biased or that it really matters. Republicans have until recently dominated America's political structure. So, even if there has been long standing bias for Democrats, it has not been able to influence the way people vote. Furthermore, any type of complaint against media bias could, in the future, erode the Freedom of Speech by increasing demand for the return of the Fairness Docutrine, and quite possibly bandwidth rationing on the internet. Sure, maybe the media is biased, but it hasn't mattered and its not worth the trouble of trying to remedy. In fact, Republicans have created stimulating programing for Republicans through the many outlets of News Corp and Clear Channel Radio.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The press is biased towards whomever people are more interested in (positive and negative).

A dangerous myth. Private media generally shares the biases of whoever (or whatever) controls its purse-strings.

[Lunar]

The press is biased towards whomever people are more interested in (positive and negative).

A dangerous myth. Private media generally shares the biases of whoever (or whatever) controls its purse-strings.

True, but news is a relatively competitive industry (CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX, etc.) and if someone talks about who people don't want to hear about, then they lose money. While the news media could be argued to be leaning oligarchic, one also has to substitute in the ease of switching channels.  If you don't like the product (the TV show), then it's a lot easier to flip over to the story you're more interested in than to, say, go to the store or whatever.  If you function as a propaganda piece and that turns people off, then your impact is diminished because people flip one channel up.

[DanielX]

The press is biased towards whomever people are more interested in (positive and negative).

A dangerous myth. Private media generally shares the biases of whoever (or whatever) controls its purse-strings.

This.

[ChrisFromNJ]

I thought the media had a vested interest in seeing Palin get elected in the last month of the election.

[Lief 🗽]

Oh, boohoo. The Democrats get an election where the media doesn't constantly paint them as boring or unpatriotic. Major news networks and institutions are still by and large center-right.

[Lunar]

Oh, boohoo. The Democrats get an election where the media doesn't constantly paint them as boring or unpatriotic. Major news networks and institutions are still by and large center-right.

Democrats are usually pretty damn boring, I don't see what's wrong with labeling Kerry or Gore with that.  If they're bored with a candidate they'll label them boring.  God forbid.

Which one of those two, boring or unpatriotic, was Clinton?

[Lief 🗽]

Oh, boohoo. The Democrats get an election where the media doesn't constantly paint them as boring or unpatriotic. Major news networks and institutions are still by and large center-right.

Democrats are usually pretty damn boring, I don't see what's wrong with labeling Kerry or Gore with that.  If they're bored with a candidate they'll label them boring.  God forbid.

Which one of those two, boring or unpatriotic, was Clinton?

Well, the press liked Clinton, hence his becoming President.

[Lunar]

And they liked Obama.

So is the press the key determinant in presidential success?  They certainly voted Kerry significantly more than Bush but found him dull, thus from an editor's perspective, Bush was probably favored.

I mean, I'm sure one can find a positive correlation between "positive news cycles" divided by "negative news cycles" and winning.  I mean, candidates that do a better job campaigning are gonna end up cranking up that ratio.  And, as I pointed out, Obama had far better press communications team (or whatevsky you calls it) than McCain.  Should the media be held responsible for the McCain campaign's ineptness in handling them?  Should they take the iniative and investigate things about Obama that McCain's campaign doesn't tell them to investigate?  I'm not sure.

I view them as a business.  Obama's positive and negative traits yield far more interest than anything about McCain.  And McCain has a far more exciting biography (minus race) than Obama in all departments.... war hero.. extramarital affairs...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The press is biased towards whomever people are more interested in (positive and negative).

A dangerous myth. Private media generally shares the biases of whoever (or whatever) controls its purse-strings.

True, but news is a relatively competitive industry (CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX, etc.) and if someone talks about who people don't want to hear about, then they lose money. While the news media could be argued to be leaning oligarchic, one also has to substitute in the ease of switching channels.  If you don't like the product (the TV show), then it's a lot easier to flip over to the story you're more interested in than to, say, go to the store or whatever.  If you function as a propaganda piece and that turns people off, then your impact is diminished because people flip one channel up.

Broadly speaking (with a few variations here and one major exception, but even then...) American television news basically follows the same political line, which happens (shockingly!!!!!111) to closely match the political views of the people who control purse-strings and to large sections of the political establishment generally. To use an expression about Irish political parties, people are given are basically given a choice between shit and shite. There is no real choice (beyond the mainstream media and a certain openly propagandistic named for a furry animal related to wolves) and no prospect of one.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The press is biased towards whomever people are more interested in (positive and negative).

A dangerous myth. Private media generally shares the biases of whoever (or whatever) controls its purse-strings.

This.

I'm not saying that public-sector media is without its biases (far from it!) it's just that they often (in the West anyway) aren't generally the same, not quite, as the people controlling the purse-strings.

[Lunar]

The press is biased towards whomever people are more interested in (positive and negative).

A dangerous myth. Private media generally shares the biases of whoever (or whatever) controls its purse-strings.

True, but news is a relatively competitive industry (CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX, etc.) and if someone talks about who people don't want to hear about, then they lose money. While the news media could be argued to be leaning oligarchic, one also has to substitute in the ease of switching channels.  If you don't like the product (the TV show), then it's a lot easier to flip over to the story you're more interested in than to, say, go to the store or whatever.  If you function as a propaganda piece and that turns people off, then your impact is diminished because people flip one channel up.

Broadly speaking (with a few variations here and one major exception, but even then...) American television news basically follows the same political line, which happens (shockingly!!!!!111) to closely match the political views of the people who control purse-strings and to large sections of the political establishment generally.

I understand Rupert Murdoch.  But he's hardly exclusively American.

Who are these people?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Who are these people?

People that own media companies, other companies that have adverts in the paper or on the channel in question, and so on. And the bureaucratic structure of the companies themselves, of course. I'm not suggesting a crazed conspiracy theory, I'm just pointing out an obvious truth. And I'm not just thinking about biases as regards to politics.

[Four49]

I think the press has a major impact on elections.  Most people judge politicians, or anybody else in the spotlight, by what they're told about them.  And they're not stupid, just lazy.  People like us, that actually want to be informed and make our own judgements are the true minority in this country.  
  
I agree that there's no liberal or conservative bias (minus MSNBC and FOX).  They just go with what they deem to be the best story.  It's fun to watch each side whine about it when it doesn't work in their favor though.

[Lunar]

Who are these people?

People that own media companies, other companies that have adverts in the paper or on the channel in question, and so on. And the bureaucratic structure of the companies themselves, of course. I'm not suggesting a crazed conspiracy theory, I'm just pointing out an obvious truth. And I'm not just thinking about biases as regards to politics.

If you can't name these people, how do you know that the actual reflection is mirroring their views?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Who are these people?

People that own media companies, other companies that have adverts in the paper or on the channel in question, and so on. And the bureaucratic structure of the companies themselves, of course. I'm not suggesting a crazed conspiracy theory, I'm just pointing out an obvious truth. And I'm not just thinking about biases as regards to politics.

If you can't name these people, how do you know that the actual reflection is mirroring their views?

I cannot name more than a handful of 19th century industrialists, yet I'm pretty sure of their political views, at least in relation to the economic system and to the ordering of society. I can't name more than a handful of Southern slave-owners, yet I'm pretty sure where they stood on the major political issues of the day. And so on and so forth.

Much of what I'm writing here is observably true anyway. Murdoch is the extreme example, of course. But he's only really unusual in that he makes a big thing of putting direct, personal, pressure on the publications that he owns. The media does not shit on its owners.

[Earth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I doubt this media blitz concerning the campaign could be called a "media failure". It worked perfectly. It gave people a show, a sense of solidarity, and their needed "change", and the media probably made a very health profit. There's no way this could've been considered a failure, especially from the media's standpoint. They aid the nominees, give people "infotainment", and in turn, rake in the money.

No on "failure", yes on "mattering".

[Beet]

The media is biased in favor of the present zeitgeist, and in turns works to create that zeitgeist, until events come along to turn things around. In other words, the media's propensity to put out stories that people want to read leads it to put out stories that agree with people's preconceived notions of things. If 80% of people think government is corrupt, more people will read or watch a story about government corruption, then, say, the ethical civil servant who passed up a better paying private sector gig because he was enthused about some public matter. The media will run a story about the corrupt civil servant, and then 85% of people will think government is corrupt.

In 2001-2005, the media was very pro-Bush and pro-Republican. This was the time when Fox News was gaining and generally dominating. If you tried to go against the wind (Dan Rather at CBS) you were vulnerable. So you didn't go against the wind. In the run-up to the war in Iraq, and during the war itself and its wake, media cheerleading reached a peak. It was really not until 2006, when Bush's popularity had plummetted, that the media slowly changed. But by 2007-08, it had switched around too much. All of a sudden it was biased towards the Dems, and Obama in particular. Obama was the zeitgeist.

The media does not care. They just want to go with the winner. They will praise whomever the winner is, and make him out to be a genius. The media was friendly towards Hillary Clinton all the way up to late 2007, and then they came on like piranhas at the first smell of blood. Had she won they would be praising her genius again. They will not be alone in this; so will most people. Whether Chuck Prince or Ken Lay really is a genius, the media does not care about this. Nor do their investors, as long as the stock price is going up. They don't care if it's a scam. As long as no one has gotten hurt yet, you keep dancing because the music is playing. Everyone thinks they will sell out at the top. The opposite goes for losers. They are villified as poor managers, unethical, disorganized, etc. regardless of the reason for their loss.

If I am a journalist, and I write a story, and I win the Pulitzer, do I care if this story is biased? Do I care if it is even entirely true? Do I care if there is another story out there that I think is even more interesting but which people probably won't be interested in? No. I got the Pultizer.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Most of what Beet posted is true as well, of course

[Four49]

The media is biased in favor of the present zeitgeist, and in turns works to create that zeitgeist, until events come along to turn things around. In other words, the media's propensity to put out stories that people want to read leads it to put out stories that agree with people's preconceived notions of things. If 80% of people think government is corrupt, more people will read or watch a story about government corruption, then, say, the ethical civil servant who passed up a better paying private sector gig because he was enthused about some public matter. The media will run a story about the corrupt civil servant, and then 85% of people will think government is corrupt.

In 2001-2005, the media was very pro-Bush and pro-Republican. This was the time when Fox News was gaining and generally dominating. If you tried to go against the wind (Dan Rather at CBS) you were vulnerable. So you didn't go against the wind. In the run-up to the war in Iraq, and during the war itself and its wake, media cheerleading reached a peak. It was really not until 2006, when Bush's popularity had plummetted, that the media slowly changed. But by 2007-08, it had switched around too much. All of a sudden it was biased towards the Dems, and Obama in particular. Obama was the zeitgeist.

The media does not care. They just want to go with the winner. They will praise whomever the winner is, and make him out to be a genius. The media was friendly towards Hillary Clinton all the way up to late 2007, and then they came on like piranhas at the first smell of blood. Had she won they would be praising her genius again. They will not be alone in this; so will most people. Whether Chuck Prince or Ken Lay really is a genius, the media does not care about this. Nor do their investors, as long as the stock price is going up. They don't care if it's a scam. As long as no one has gotten hurt yet, you keep dancing because the music is playing. Everyone thinks they will sell out at the top. The opposite goes for losers. They are villified as poor managers, unethical, disorganized, etc. regardless of the reason for their loss.

If I am a journalist, and I write a story, and I win the Pulitzer, do I care if this story is biased? Do I care if it is even entirely true? Do I care if there is another story out there that I think is even more interesting but which people probably won't be interested in? No. I got the Pultizer.

Well put.  It is really is a vicious circle.  But I think the media has become more enertainment than journalism, which leads them to shape stories more than just report facts.  Like at the end of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance...

When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

I think now they print the legend before it becomes fact and it therefore becomes fact.

[Eleanor Martins]

Rubbish. Vilifying the media is a cheap thrill and it has no basis whatsoever in reality - they are a mirror rather than a cinema projector.

[Lunar]

Rubbish. Vilifying the media is a cheap thrill and it has no basis whatsoever in reality - they are a mirror rather than a cinema projector.

mmm is the Drudge Report also a mirror?

[Four49]

Rubbish. Vilifying the media is a cheap thrill and it has no basis whatsoever in reality - they are a mirror rather than a cinema projector.

I don't get any thrills from it.  That's what bars are for. 

And my views are based not only on reality, but objectivity.  I'm not a member of any political party and don't have any personal feelings, positive or negative, towards people I've never met, i.e. politicians.  So, I observe and come to what I think are logical conclusions.  One of those conclusions being that the media is biased - towards their own ratings and profit margins.