Press coverage negative on McCain?

If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”

That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.

We’re just getting started.Bill Whittle, today

Well, slap my ass and call me Sally; a study finds the press coverage of John McCain has been substantially more negative than of Obama.

Well. Duh. How can there be negative press on Obama, when the press won’t report on Obama anything that does not suit their narrative?

Look at this graph:

The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one, according to a new study of the media since the two national political conventions ended.

Press treatment of Obama has been somewhat more positive than negative, but not markedly so.

Of course. Think about what you’ve known about McCain and what you have learned about him, his wife and family, the background of his veep choice over the past few months. Where McCain is concerned, the press has a whole canvas of a life – up to today – to verify, revisit, report on and yes, spin and re-frame. This is also true about his veep choice.

Think about what you’ve known about Barack Obama and what -absent alternative media – you have learned about him, his wife and family, the background of his veep choice, etc. Where Obama is concerned, the press has a very limited and narrow canvas, indeed. Since Obama’s ascendancy – which was helped along by a press eager to tell his all-but-tied primary opponent, Hillary Clinton to sit down, because they’d deemed her the loser – what we have “learned” about Obama via the mainstream press is almost nothing.

The press that wondered (however briefly) about John McCain’s birth certificate, wondered not at all about Barack Obama’s when Obama would not release it. The press that wants to see a GOP Veep Nominee’s full medical records did not insist on seeing any of Barack Obama’s (a letter from a doctor saying Obama was A-OK would suffice). The press that sent lawyers and investigators to Alaska to look through trash cans did not ask to see Obama’s grad school transcripts. The press that looks into every known association of candidates on the right has no curiosity about who Obama worked for or with, who he shared offices with, for years. The press that looked into the churchgoing practices of McCain/Palin is not interested in how or where Obama worshipped for 20 years, and what sort of theology he embraced. The press who goes out of its way to investigate Cindy McCain and Todd Palin, follows orders and finds nothing interesting or substantive to report on Michelle Obama, beyond naming her a “new fashion icon.” The press given no access to Obama, bitches about access to Palin. Think about how the press gave Obama a pass when he flip-flopped on public campaign financing; gave him another pass when he said he’d debate McCain “anytime, anywhere” then turned down a series of proposed townhall-style debates. Think about how the press, seeing their favorite rendered vulnerable by a bit of videotaped truthtelling on Obama’s part, did not bother to ask the candidate, “hey, let’s talk about ‘spreading the wealth around’ and what that means,” but immediately shifted into “destroy the private citizen” mode. Think about the press going out of its way not to admit how closely Obama worked (and works) with ACORN.

Think about the fact that this 2001 audio of Obama discussing – among other things – Obama’s problems with the U.S. Constitution is all over the internet today, but not being discussed in the mainstream press.

Of course Obama’s coverage can be called “neutral.” When you’re trashing the opposition every day, you don’t have to say much at all about your favorite. You just put those positive images you’re allowed to have out on a continuous loop, and then bury all the “unmentionables” by the end of every news cycle.

But coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable—and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three to one—the most unfavorable of all four candidates—according to the study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.

For McCain, by comparison, nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two in ten (14%) were positive.

This particular article is actually trying to suggest that the press exhibits no bias here, that the “tone” of reportage reflects politics and polling. So, the study is flawed. All of the studies will be flawed, because none of them take into account the very simple fact that when the press refuses to report stories that may negatively impact their candidate, they are starting from a place of such profound dishonesty that every study, every poll will be dishonest, as well. And the press…admits it does not “know” Obama but is not even curious about what that may be.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air: on the latest Obama audio to be ignored by the press:

The government does not exist to determine the acceptable level of wealth of its individual citizens. For government to assume that role, it would have to end private property rights and assume all property belonged to the State. That is classic Marxism, and as Barbara West of WFTV noted, it runs in Marx’s classic philosophy of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. That economic direction has been an abject failure everywhere it has been tried, and in many cases resulted in famines that killed millions of people.

The RNC and the McCain campaign has to get these quotes out to the American public in the final week of this election.

I say good luck with that. The press still has the biggest microphone and the most ink. They still cue the daily narrative, and if they don’t want to discuss this, it ain’t going to get discussed. And Obama – if he wins – is going to name probably 3 SCOTUS judges and countless federal ones.

Socialism only works when it is voluntary, not forced.

Wheat and Weeds has a note-worthy round up

Protein Wisdom: Obama’s America, achieve “social justice” through “redistributive change.”

US News: Obama Theoretically OK for courts to redistribute wealth.
Wizbang: The Constitution; Obama’s obstacle
Jennifer Rubin: this should come as no surprise
Wizbang: Gaza phones ringing American voters for Obama
Melanie Phillips: Is America Really Going to Do This?
And btw: What’s at stake; human life

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!