It’s already been pointed out that if he had lost 10 states in a row he’d be out on the street, plenty time on his hand to attend the Tavis Smiley summit. Conversely, when you lose 10 states in a row, you know what? The H is O (glenn fry reference, thanks Diablo). Your campaign might get scrutiny when you keep losing. Anyway tables are turned now so maybe the whining Clintonians can beg off of this one finally. Obama addresses the issue pretty accurately and also compares the Clinton camp to the reason why we hate the NBA now:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/obama-press-bought-into-clinton-line-on-bias/

You are right about media bias. The media suck up to Obama for the same reason they remained silent during Bush’s march to war in Iraq. They are afraid of losing favor with those in power (or likely to be). But mostly, they are afraid of losing favor with their audience.

So when 70 percent or so of Americans supported the march to war, the media went along. When everyone seemed to want to love Barack without conditions, the media reflected that unconditional love. Now that it’s clear just as many people are behind Hillary, if not more, the media are likely to start to notice Barack’s warts too.

The problem is that the media in the U.S. largely do not lead, they follow. They are beaten down by loss of circulation and loss of influence. They do not want to risk getting out in front and taking unpopular positions. They just want to keep their audiences happy.

I don’t think this is a plan — it’s merely ingrained in the subconscious of reporters and editors. It’s reflexive.

Of course, the media often end up often getting it wrong, which only diminishes their influence further — as with Iraq, and Barack.

Kind regards,
Evan

Reporters want that “tingle up the leg.” Obama gets wonderful coverage because the media, on average, LIKES him. Reporters will vote for him. They want him.

And thus, they see him through rose-colored lenses.

I completely agree with you. However I don’t know if this is necessarily an issue of bias for a specific candidate per se as is implied in several posts above. IMO it’s instead a phenomenon that can be traced to a “news” ecosystem that exists to sell more ads to mass audiences each year. It may manifest as bias for a specific candidate depending upon his/her position in the polls, but it is not necessarily reflective of an anti-Hillary conspiracy (though surely this must exist in certain quarters).

For what’s it worth, I just see her as the big money candidate. That’s why I didn’t vote for her, although you could argue that the significant contributions to Obama from the ethanol lobby are disturbing given that corn-derived ethanol is one of the biggest shams in memory.

The motive is to keep things competitive, favoring the larger-than-life contestants. If the crusty war veteran vs the bossy lady with the interesting marriage vs the young flashy silver-tongued black man does not sound like perfect casting for a Survivor showdown I do not know what does.

So the news media’s campaign coverage facilitates the efforts of those risking elimination to undercut the frontrunner. Back last fall, that involved concentrating on an embattled Rodham Clinton. In the past two weeks or so it has turned to an overhyped Obama. Who knows which of McCain’s negatives will get emphasized if he ever seems to get the lead?

Follow the money, you say. The money is in the ratings. So far Reality Gameshow Journalism has proved much more successful at attracting eyeballs than that old-fashioned Horse Race style.

Why would an anti-Hillary and/or pro-Obama bias exist?

Follow the money. Who would gain and who would lose?

It is true that Rodham Clintton has many opponents among conservative ideologues. The perception of a lack of evenhandedness, so far, in the coverage of the Democratic primary contest derives, in part, from the ferocity of the residual partisan anti-Clintonism from the days of her husband’s administration; in part from the indisputable fact that what was, at first, most newsworthy about the Obama candidacy were undeniably positive and attractive attributes — his oratorical skills, the unprecedented mobilization of the youth vote, his adept use of distributed new media to organize and fundraise, the astonishing size of his crowds at rallies.

Of course, journalists had to report on those phenomena first and foremost. They were news. They happened to make him look good. He earned the positive press.

Since the dominant organizaing principle of Campaign 2008 coverage is Reality Gameshow Journalism, the rules of Survivor or American Idol insist that the eventual winner must first undergo the extreme jeopardy of being on the verge of elimination and that all frontrunners must have an alliance formed against them, or “triangulation” as it is called in politics.

The seeming negativity in attitudes towards Rodham Clinton last fall were the result her being the object of triangulation, not its practitioner. The complaint that Obama is facing no negative treatment no longer holds, since he became the clear frontrunner after the Potomac primary.

If Rodham Clinton wins Texas and Ohio tonight, she will have undergone her drama of extreme jeopardy and will be able to play the Comeback Kid card, just as McCain did on Super Tuesday. If so, things between her and Obama will seem Even Stephen.

Yes, you’re correct, Jeff — Bill has faced countless Republican opponents.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s concede that Hillary has “faced” countless Republicans. So, because the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world have attacked Hillary in the past, she’s somehow qualified to be President? Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t view being scarred and bitter as a qualification for the highest post in our country.

It’s also the same media establishment that declared McCain dead in the water — again, before any of the primaries or caucuses took place. The press chased after Romney and Giuliani, at least until the votes started coming in.

Never once in Jarvis’ analysis does he examine the breathless punditry that has so often been wrong from the start. The issue isn’t bias, but the quite-often incorrect analysis in media circles that has been downright embarrassing. (Disclosure, I voted for Obama, but I’m not mindlessly swooning over him.)

The media is chasing what it considers the hot stories: McCain and Obama, who’ve been winning primaries and caucuses. Clinton has lost 11 in a row. Claiming “bias” is a red herring from someone watching his preferred candidate in serious trouble.

For what it’s worth, neither of Clinton’s senate opponents can be considered particularly serious.

Obama is in favor of net neutrality (or at least he is until he’s elected and the status quo cash starts flowing), hardly a favorite cause of the media, which essentially depends on barriers of entry to distribution to make money.

Look, we’re probably going to have something like another Great Depression here. I’d rather have an optimist in the oval office with a fresh perspective who can think of novel approaches to try to solve the country’s economic problems, although having said there’s a little bit of protectionism creeping out of both candidates.

This generation of youngsters are the first never to play outside, they grew up on video games, and they can’t even run without looking awkward….. and, now they are mesmerized. This is not a good sign. The mechanisms of propaganda have been introduced to American politics.

Is it just me… or does OBAMA purposely wear black and white clothes and present his family in a B&W image on his website to subliminally conjure up the thought of JFK? The B&W thing along with the “doing” MLK is his speech patterns, accent, and cadence leaves me disturbed that the youth is so impressionable.

If Edwards “did” JFK he would be laughed off stage.

I do believe American politics is more media driven then ever before, and I do question major medias biases. I cannot remember a time when it was acceptable for news to have an agenda like it has today. As I sit in my living room watching CNN, FOX, MSNBC, as well as PBS and C-SPAN: I cannot help but feel betrayed and lied to and lectured at. I discern as much from the news by what is NOT said as I do by WHAT IS said. What a pitty.

To Steve K. I say it is not a load of B.S. the MSM is a broken system run amock. The disconnect between the media and main stream America is astounding. If you believe there are “millions of independent-thinking Americans” not being adversley affected by the media, just visit any college campus in the country.

My earlier comment came off sounding really snarky, so I apologize for that. I’ve been reading your stuff for a long time, so I know you just want the media to be honest about the biases they have and stop pretending to not be biased, just as you’ve made your (pro-Hillary) bias pretty well-known.

It’s comments like the one from “tonynoboloney” (”The MSM picked this years cantidates simple as that”) that really bother me because I supported Barack Obama before the freaking MSM got on the bandwagon. And I’d say the same is true of millions of independent-thinking Americans. We support Obama because we choose to support Obama — not because the media is making us do it. That’s a load of B.S.

This issue of transparency (raised by Carlos B.) is the one that really concerns me. Hillary keeps stalling on releasing her campaign’s financial records (as Tim Russert pointedly revealed during that debate). What’s up with that? Obama, on the other hand, has campaigned tirelessly on transparency. Over 1 million individual supporters have now donated to his campaign to finance it, instead of special interest groups. (Hillary has yet to refute that claim by the Obama campaign.) That’s revolutionary — a revolution enabled by the Internet you so love and espouse, Jeff. I’d love to know what you think about that. That seems worthy of some discussion, don’t you think?