dThe numbers from the Center for Media and Public Affairs regarding the bias shown by the electronic news media during the election cycle released today didn't even include the two biggest offenders; CNN and MSNBC.
"President-elect Barack Obama received 68% positive evaluations on the network evening news shows during the general election. His treatment was twice as favorable as John McCain’s 33% positive and Sarah Palin’s 34% positive evaluations."
How can we believe what we hear/see on the network news if they're willing to "manage" their newscasts to fit their political agendas? It's simple. We can't.
Tougher still, is to get this message out when the perpetrators of the crime control the means of communications to the masses.
3 comments:
Yes, it was clear that Obama received kinder, gentler treatment from the media...but, as for quantifying the bias scientifically, isn't it evident that Obama ran a smoother campaign (with fewer newsworthy blunders) than McCain? So the fact that Obama had more positive coverage partly reflected the reality that he was a shrewder candidate and, sadly, McCain was not as savvy?
I have to agree with the Quietman. Sarah Palin, though very appealing on many levels, gave the media what they were looking for -- the rope to hang her.
Newsworthy blunders may include missteps by Palin who was hounded by the press with 700 lawyers and media sent to dig up dirt on her and her family. I would say blunders were rare on McCain's part aside from the suspending of the campaign ruse. Even a few percentage of difference in media coverage counts for an awful lot of votes. And I think we're talking about a great deal of difference.
Post a Comment