Tag Archives: Media Bias

Media Criticized for Reporting Math

And just when you thought the media wasn’t reporting at all on Clinton’s miniscule chances to win the nomination, and instead saying Obama was done for, out comes more criticism of the media for being anti-Clinton and for their “unique push to get a competitive White House hopeful to drop out of the race.”  From Slate.com:

Hillary Clinton and the Drop-Out Chorus

I’d distinguish between “pushing” Clinton to drop out and arguing that she can’t win. We’ve exhausted who knows how much server space detailing the extremely daunting metrics facing her candidacy without explicitly calling for her to exit the race. Of course, there’s the implication that, facing doom, a rational candidate would surrender. But rationality left the building long ago…

If anything, the media has done Clinton a favor in recent weeks: Judging from the way the Rev. Wright scandal has been covered, you could be forgiven for thinking Obama’s candidacy was about to crash and burn.

It’s a good post, and worth a full read.  It’s particularly interesting that people’s perceptions of the race don’t fit with reality.  That’s a big sign that the media isn’t doing its job.



Whether It’s Ineptitude or Bias, the Media is Keeping the Democratic Race Going

Over the past few days I’ve really been asking myself why I continue to post about the Democratic race.  Clearly, Obama has an insurmountable lead in delegates, and it would be nearly impossible for Clinton to overcome him overall even with the Superdelegates killing their party by overturning the pledged delegates.  I’ve even posted here that I was done writing about the Democratic race.

I’ve figured out, however, why I keep writing about it.  It’s not that Clinton has any realistic chance, and it’s not like the truly rational are buying her “Big State,” and “Popular Vote” arguments.  However, with the current state of the media, it’s become nearly impossible to not post.  When it’s a big thing when Clinton wins states she is expected to win and a small thing when Obama wins states he is expected to win; when Obama is criticized as vulnerable because doesn’t win the majority of blue collar voters in a number of states, yet still gets a reasonable portion of such voters in those states and actually has gotten the majority of them in a few states, against a fellow Democrat, while Clinton fails to come even close to win over a lot of other demographics (especially African Americans, younger voters, college educated, independents, Republicans); when “Obama can’t close the deal” matters more than “Obama has an insurmountable lead” or “Clinton can’t win”; when Clinton relentlessly attacks Obama, Obama responds by calling it negative politics, and Obama’s tactics are therefore equal to Clinton’s; when Clinton’s “Popular Vote” and “Big State” arguments are met by the media, not with the derision such nonsense deserves, but with view that there’s a “debate” on these issues (much like there’s a “debate” over evolution, apparently); when lapel pins rather than policies dominate the headlines; when Obama’s vague associations with people who have questionable views matter more than Clinton’s clear ties to people with worse than questionable views;  when the state of politics in the media is as such, there is no choice but to weigh in.

Unless the Superdelegates go to Clinton en masse, which is extremely improbable even ignoring that it would possibly destroy the Democratic Party, Obama will be the nominee.  This is a fact which cannot be ignored, and yet oddly is.  Because of this I would love to ignore further Clinton antics and return my aim to Republicans, but because of the extreme ineptitude of the media (I’m coming this close to finally calling it bias), I cannot.


The Media Are Doing Keg Stands on the Kool-Aid Tap

It started awhile ago, when the math against Clinton became clear and yet the media refused to acknowledge that she was in a dire situation.  The usually reasonable Gary Eichten of MPR actually called the race “virtually tied” on multiple occasions, even ignoring that Clinton just can’t overcome Obama in the popular vote or pledged delegates.


After some time, the media finally did come around to the fact that Clinton can’t win, and in reaction, started exploiting the Wright and “Bitter” “scandals” in order to keep a narrative going.  I’m not saying the media is biased, I’m saying that they’re inept.


And the ineptitude continues.  After Clinton won Pennsylvania, even though there is no significant change in the race, and certainly none in the delegate count, the media continues to pound the message that Obama is in trouble.  He’s in trouble because he can’t win a certain demographic.  Let’s not forget that Clinton can’t win over far more demographics, but that wouldn’t keep the narrative going, would it?  Let’s also not forget that the majority of that demographic would still vote for Obama in the general.  But again, that would mean the story would be over.


At least Obama supporters aren’t the only people who recognize such things.  It’s hard to find any such stories in the media of late, they’re probably afraid of appearing “biased” against Clinton by reporting the truth, as they have been attacked of all election, but they do exist.  Perhaps my favorite of late is from Slate’s Trailhead Blog:


Right now, the Clinton Kool-Aid is on tap, and the media are doing keg stands. The same writers who once said Clinton was doomed are now ignoring the fact that the math is even more oppressive for Clinton. Obama will likely need to convince 25 percent to 35 percent of the about 300 uncommitted superdelegates to support him, and he will reach the 2,024 delegates needed to become the nominee. Put another way, Clinton needs to convince 65 percent to 75 percent of them to vote for her. That’s 200 elected officials and party bigwigs she needs to convince not to support the guy who has the most pledged delegates.

It’s still nearly impossible for Clinton to win without superdelegates, and is completely impossible for her to overcome Obama in voters.  And yet, listening to the media, you’d think that they were “virtually tied.” 




The Media Is Biased (or not) Because The Media Thinks The Media Is Biased (or not)

There has been a lot of which to comment on over the past few days.  The main issue being the media ironically picking up on the false Clinton rhetoric that the media loves Obama.  It’s not that the media is biased, it’s that the media loves a narrative line in which to get behind.  Clinton has been quite good at manipulating the media throughout this nomination process, and it hasn’t shown more so than in the last few days where, apparently, the media hates Clinton and loves Obama. 

Honestly, I haven’t read a pro-Obama story in days (with the exception of what ends this post), but mostly have seen nothing but “Clinton says X” or “The Media Hates Clinton™” articles.  And while all these stories have been rather pro-Clinton, I’m intellectually honest enough so that I can comprehend why some people might support Clinton, even though I disagree with them, without having to conjure up some conspiracy theory.

I don’t blame the bias, I blame the need for narrative.

Anyway, a story that actually covers the story:

Monger Me, Obama!: The mood in Texas

A very good account of the support of Obama.  While it unnecessarily tries to “even-out” the balance, it does succeed in shedding a lot of that “need to balance” in order to cover the story correctly.