Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

The proggosphere tries to mau-mau the MSM into even more pro-Obama coverage [Karl]

Media Matters hacks David Brock and Paul Waldman have written a book arguing that the establishment media has always given John McCain a “free ride,” which appears to be a theme that Waldman, ThinkProgress, TPM’s Josh Marshall and others in the proggosphere are carrying into the current campaign, claiming that the establishment media is unfairly favoring McCain over Barack Obama. The Associated Press seems to be the favored target to date, with Marshall recently oh-so-subtly referring to a story as the “latest McCain fluffer.”

The problem with this claim is that — as noted here again and again and again and again (and then some) — Barack Obama has consistently enjoyed a greater volume of coverage and more positive coverage than his rivals throughout the current cycle.

It is perhaps no coincidence that the proggosphere has been in high dudgeon over the media these past few days.  The most recent content analysis posted at Mediachannel (an outlet in no way part of the VRWC) shows that the week leading into the holiday weekend was the first in which Obama clearly got worse media coverage than McCain.  Even so, Obama got twice as much positive coverage from the Fox News Channel as McCain did last week.

If the establishment media seemed tougher on Obama last week, it is largely because Obama intentionally set out to preemptively address anticipated attacks on his patriotism and his faith, thereby raising issues that have not been among his perceived strengths.  More generally, if the coverage has seemed tougher lately, it is by comparison to the 88% positive coverage he got earlier in the campaign.  And those types of figures do not include the Obama cheerleading we got from Chris “thrill up my leg” Matthews, who was a bit much for Keith Olbermann, whose FISA fawning was too much for Glenn Greenwald.  When establishment journalists are openly admitting that their colleagues have neen “not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon,” the proggosphere’s claim of a pro-McCain bias rings hollow.

8 Replies to “The proggosphere tries to mau-mau the MSM into even more pro-Obama coverage [Karl]”

  1. happyfeet says:

    Really smart move on George Soros’ part, this the media is a hotbed of rightwing activism disinformation. The media I think is a perfect metaphor for things that are disingenuous about having a liberal agenda. A perfect metaphor for Baracky, really. If the MSM were to be called out forcefully by Republican candidates, that conversation would I think resonate with observations people could make about Baracky’s campaign. It’s the same dynamic really.

  2. Sdferr says:

    I find myself wondering, what with the obvious decline in the economic strength of most newspapers and particularly the once ‘grand’ ones, the big three network news organizations, the weekly periodicals of the ‘Time’, ‘Newsweek’ sort, whether the genuine resonance of their work-product is all that it’s cracked-up to be. Just how influential are they, really? How large are their audiences? Who’s vote do they in fact sway? I must quickly add I’m not going to be the one to attempt to answer these questions, I’m merely wondering idly.

  3. Ric Locke says:

    The MSM is dying because it has made itself irrelevant.

    There is no particular reason for a rightist to seek out MSM “news”. It contains little that is factual (and therefore useful) and much that is offensive.

    What may not be evident is that there’s no reason for a leftist to go there, either. Again, there is little or nothing that is factual and therefore useful for forming their own opinions or as a base for action; it merely repeats what they already know and reinforces their prejudices. That’s lots of fun, but that sort of thing is available elsewhere for free, so there’s no point in paying for it.

    The remaining audience is consumers of “news” as entertainment, who seek novelty and titillation rather than information. For historical reasons, this is the primary audience the MSM seeks to service. Unfortunately for the business model, such people tend to be passive and weak-minded in other phases of life as well, and as a result have, in the broad main, less money and influence than seekers of information, and thus are less attractive to advertisers. They are also subject to habituation; strong stimuli which are continuously present in the environment become less and less stimulating, as anyone who has had to endure stinks or loud noises for long periods of time can attest. This leads to continual games of “top this”, requiring that “the news” be continually more and more titillating in order to attract the attention of consumers. The effort to conform to this requirement takes more and more resources away from gathering and presenting information, making “the news” less and less useful.

    Positive feedback. I see no way out of the vicious cycle.

    Regards,
    Ric

  4. Rev. Dr. E Buzz Miller says:

    To think the media is not biased towards Barry the Decider would have to be either stupid, which is a possibility in the ranks of Journalism majors, or a dishonest lying piece of shit, which is much more plausible.

  5. physics geek says:

    claiming that the establishment media is unfairly favoring McCain over Barack Obama

    It must be nice to sit next to a window where the pigs are flying by all the time.

  6. Sdferr says:

    Thanks for that, Ric, as it was both entertaining and informative: all the while confirmatory as to my suspicions (and who can resist being confirmed?). To the extent you have it aright, the implication I’ll take away is that the likes of Brock, Waldman, Marshall, Greenwald, Matthews, Olbermann, O’Reilly, Jarvis, et al are barking at one another in an ever smaller echo-chamber. However, that would entail Karl and the likes of us commenting on their doings as well, no? Ah well, it’s still an agreeable way to pass the time and sometimes learn something new on the journey.
    I lived for a time in the ’70s near enough to a pig operation to know what you mean about stinks and could find the occasional trip into town for ice cream and rootbeer at the A&W the highlight of my week.

  7. BJTex says:

    How quickly the media apologists/Obama ass wipers have forgotten this, from that bastion of right wing noise, MSNBC:

    MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

    Yup. nothing to see there, move along… Of course those same reporters could be swallowing their political preferences because of the moneyed jackboot of the fascist media corporations.

    Nah!

Comments are closed.