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.
