Study shows:McCain gets more negative press than Obama

[kjetjl]

I am not a big follower of all things political. I learn about the candidates on the television (no cable or satellite) and the newspaper and if an issue or a story really struck me either positively or negatively, I would do the research until I felt satisfied with my decision.

This political season has been different as I have started reading the CB. I have learned things about the candidates that I don't see on tv or the traditional paper. (But I must say that most of the things learned are about Obama/Biden because most of what is on here about McCain/Palin is in the mainstream media. ) Then I go search. I have spent way too much time on the internet reading politics lately.

Most people I know don't know Ayers, Rezko (sp?) or anything like that. But they have heard about Palin and her wardrobe, Palin and the rumors about her baby not being hers, etc. I ask them about Biden's comments about Obama being tested in his first 6 months and they don't have any clue as to what I am talking about. ok, I must say that I know people who are voting for McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden.

But what has been bugging me the last month or so is presented in this article much more eloquently than I could express.
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6099188

I have read the arguments that McCain gets negative press because he is negative but I have come to the conclusion that Obama/Biden don't need to run negative ads because the press is doing that for them.

I know who I will vote for. I admire both men and I am not afraid of either of them being president. I think all running for public office endure way too much personal scrutiny. Everyone makes mistakes. But they chose to run for office and they all have to have tough skins. But in this election I just wish both sides of the story were covered and that the people who will be casting a vote on Tuesday could hear ALL the stories and decide for themselves what is important to them instead of the press determining that for them.

I wanted to thank all the DISers on the CB political threads on both sides for their perspectives. I don't post on the CB (maybe 3-4 times) but I do read everyday so I hope I am not considered a TROLL for posting but I just had to say it somewhere and thought this the best place as any.

 

[djm99]

McCain should get negative press. He's running a negative campaign. Although he stated he wouldn't take the 'low road' to the White House. I sure can't tell. I live in Missouri and 100% of McCain ads are about Obama. NOT ONE is about McCain and what he will do for this country. What's funny is his latest ad has Obama praising McCain and Liberman for some kind of policy. Like that made Obama look bad. It actually shows how Obama has NO problem reaching across the isle and giving credit when it is do (regardless of party affiliation). Country First - yeah right.

 

[lindalinda]

Its a conundrum. Talking about McCains negative ads is considered negative press. Most of the ads are negative. The speeches are negative. Therefore the press covering these stories is considered negative.

 

[bsnyder]

Its a conundrum. Talking about McCains negative ads is considered negative press. Most of the ads are negative. The speeches are negative. Therefore the press covering these stories is considered negative.

Are all press stories about ads and campaign speeches?

 

[lindalinda]

Are all press stories about ads and campaign speeches?

No. and not all press about McCain is negative.

 

[ZuZugal]

There is absolutely negative campaigning on BOTH sides, not just the McCain side.

I personally would LOVE to see a campaign run it's course by promoting the candidates' platform alone; no talk about the "other guy", just what he/she can do for the country and why. We'd get LOTS more questions answered and get a real feel for the candidate and his/her true objectives for running the country.

 

[heatherleigh]

Thank you for sharing the article, Kje. It was very well-written and informative.

 

[bsnyder]

No. and not all press about McCain is negative.

What percentage is about ads and speeches? And what percentage about McCain is negative?

 

[GeorgeG]

Uh, Obama carrying on about how we need to change everything, implying everything is bad and needs changing, seems a little negative to me.

Anyhow, we're in a pitiful situation where the media is deciding who should be president instead of reporting without bias so we can make an informed decision ourselves.

 

[LuvDuke]

Negativity generates negative press. If McCain hadn't gone 100% negative, there might've been something positive to report on.

 

[kjetjl]

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.


This is copied from the article. The part which I bolded is the point I find the most interesting.

 

[lindalinda]

What percentage is about ads and speeches? And what percentage about McCain is negative?

Lots and some.

 

[WDWMom]

And Obama hasn't been negative? You are seeing the world through rose colored glasses. The degree of negativism is one that never goes away duing campaign seasons. But don't try to pass off for a second that Obama has taken the high road.

And to get to te point of the thread, yes this writer does state the problem very eloquently. It isn't that I object to the press playing hardball with Mccain/ Palin. It is the overt effort to under report, invstigate, or even analyze anything to do with Barrack Obama.

The press has gone off the ethical highway in this election displaying not just a bias, but an actual agenda. I only hope that responsible people everywhere remember this election coverage and how the media threw their ethics, and their credibility into the garbage. When the election is over I will continue to look on the media's coverage of all news and ask if I am getting the facts,or their painted, slanted, biased opinion of what is their opinion? Sorry to color the entire profession with such a wide brush, but that is what they have done to their own profession. I sat down last night with 20 other people from all view points in life and as happens during this time of year our discussion turned to politics. The one thing that we all agreed upon was that the media has done a poor,poor job in this election.

When Obama gives his speech on Tuesday I hope he thanks the media for what will be one of the truly lowest moments in journalistic history. And perhaps, ours as a nation as well.

 

[kjetjl]

But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.


This is another quote from the article. Again, I find this very interesting.

 

[IWantMickey]

Kjetjl, Thanks for the link to the article. If only we had more journalists like Michael Malone...His comments about screaming at the TV and seeing opinion pieces seep into what should be objective reporting of the news is dead on. I've been saying this to my DH for months.

 

[corndog]

I wasn't aware that anyone was disputing that Obama has run the most negative campaign in the television era.

 

[rentayenta]

McCain should get negative press. He's running a negative campaign. Although he stated he wouldn't take the 'low road' to the White House. I sure can't tell. I live in Missouri and 100% of McCain ads are about Obama. NOT ONE is about McCain and what he will do for this country. What's funny is his latest ad has Obama praising McCain and Liberman for some kind of policy. Like that made Obama look bad. It actually shows how Obama has NO problem reaching across the isle and giving credit when it is do (regardless of party affiliation). Country First - yeah right.

Exactly!



Could it be that's he's more um, let's say.......negative? Like begets like and McCain is negative.

 

[bicker]

You reap what you sow. McCain is reaping what he's sown.

 

[nataliesdaddy]

I am not a big follower of all things political. I learn about the candidates on the television (no cable or satellite) and the newspaper and if an issue or a story really struck me either positively or negatively, I would do the research until I felt satisfied with my decision.

This political season has been different as I have started reading the CB. I have learned things about the candidates that I don't see on tv or the traditional paper. (But I must say that most of the things learned are about Obama/Biden because most of what is on here about McCain/Palin is in the mainstream media. ) Then I go search. I have spent way too much time on the internet reading politics lately.

Most people I know don't know Ayers, Rezko (sp?) or anything like that. But they have heard about Palin and her wardrobe, Palin and the rumors about her baby not being hers, etc. I ask them about Biden's comments about Obama being tested in his first 6 months and they don't have any clue as to what I am talking about. ok, I must say that I know people who are voting for McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden.

But what has been bugging me the last month or so is presented in this article much more eloquently than I could express.
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6099188

I have read the arguments that McCain gets negative press because he is negative but I have come to the conclusion that Obama/Biden don't need to run negative ads because the press is doing that for them.

I know who I will vote for. I admire both men and I am not afraid of either of them being president. I think all running for public office endure way too much personal scrutiny. Everyone makes mistakes. But they chose to run for office and they all have to have tough skins. But in this election I just wish both sides of the story were covered and that the people who will be casting a vote on Tuesday could hear ALL the stories and decide for themselves what is important to them instead of the press determining that for them.

I wanted to thank all the DISers on the CB political threads on both sides for their perspectives. I don't post on the CB (maybe 3-4 times) but I do read everyday so I hope I am not considered a TROLL for posting but I just had to say it somewhere and thought this the best place as any.

I am not sure why media bias should come as much of any surprise - the 4th estate has been going down the tubes for years (no pun intended). It dioesn't matter if you are right or left - the lack or inability of the press to just report the simple news should be something people look out for. I mean, they might as well change the name of the news hour to the "nightly opinion report", I noticed that over 20 years ago.

 

[Purrrrfecta]

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.


This is copied from the article. The part which I bolded is the point I find the most interesting.

Well, I look at it like this. I listen to AM talk radio EVERY DAY! I can not tell you when I have heard ANYTHING positive about Obama or Biden!!

You have: Medevd, Moortz,Hannity, Limbaugh, Bennett, Ingraham, Savage, Chris Baker,Gallagher, and the list goes on. You have pro-right host on the air 24 hours a day 7 days a week spitting out the negative words or Wright, and anyone else they can talk about to influence voters.


Question: How many millions of listeners are there on AM radio?