WASHINGTON POST FINDS THAT MEDIA IS BIASED FOR OBAMA -- BUT NOT UNTIL 4 DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION

Don't anyone ever say these guys aren't sharp. The Washington Post, 4 days after the election, finally figured out that the mainstream media was biased in favor of Obama. This analysis of election coverage is from the Washington Post itself:

The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors -- like most of the national news media -- found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that.

McCain clinched the GOP nomination on March 4, and Obama won his on June 4. From then to Election Day, the tally was Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both.

Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that from June 9, when Clinton dropped out of the race, until Nov. 2, 66 percent of the campaign stories were about Obama compared with 53 percent for McCain; some stories featured both. The project also calculated that in that time, 57 percent of the stories were about the horse race and 13 percent were about issues.

The Post's biographical pieces, especially the first ones -- McCain by Michael Leahy and Obama by David Maraniss -- were compelling. Maraniss demystified Obama's growing-up years; the piece on his mother and grandparents was a great read. Leahy's first piece on McCain's father and grandfather, both admirals, told me where McCain got his maverick ways as a kid -- right from the two old men.

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

Please don't feel as if you need to extend the Post any credit or forgive them for their shameless bias. This story is nothing other than a CYA move from the Post. I can tell you how this is going to turn out. They'll post a similar story about how they were too lenient on Obama during his first term. But only after he is elected for a second term. Forget it WaPo, you have no credibility. None.

MEDIA BIAS WILL RUIN THE MEDIA

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

This is a long and detailed article that can be read

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.

RUSSIAN OBSERVERS TO MONITOR U.S. ELECTIONS: RUSSIANS SAYS MAINSTREAM MEDIA BIASED FOR OBAMA

You know it's bad when the Russians see the media bias too. Frankly, I think they should monitor our election. To me, there is far more to this story than just sour grapes by the Russians. They are making it abundantly clear that they are not caught up in all this cult of personality B.S. surrounding Obama and that they have no plans on succumbing to the powers of "the One".

Stung by international criticism of its presidential and congressional elections, Russia is striking back by sending a team of observers to monitor the U. S. presidential poll on Nov. 4.

Andrei Nesterenko, a spokesman with Russia's Foreign Ministry, says Moscow will have eight election observers attached to a monitoring mission conducted by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

The OSCE, which has infuriated the Kremlin in the past by criticizing elections in Russia and other post-communist states, is sending 62 election observers to the United States.

In addition to visiting polling stations on Nov. 4, they will study the election campaign, media coverage and issues of voter registration, identification and voters rights.

A preliminary report prepared by the group, after studying U. S. media coverage on the NBC, CBS and ABC television networks since September, has concluded Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, has a "hidden advantage."

A preliminary report obtained by the Russian daily online newspaper Kommersant concludes the U. S. television networks devoted more time to Republican candidate John McCain, but "the material that makes up that time difference can be assessed as negative."

The Russian study also said Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential pick, has been subjected to more criticism than her Democratic counterpart, Senator Joe Biden.

It adds that when the presidential candidates' platforms are described, Mr. Obama's is described last, to make it look better, and when platforms are compared, "Obama's is presented preferable."

THE PEASANTS ARE REVOLTING

From American Thinker:

The national press corps is beginning to get a taste of the anger they have created among a large percentage of the American public over their treatment of Sarah Palin. It will take some longer than others to grasp the magnitude of the disaster they have created for their failing industry.

Joe Curl of the Washington Times reports that angry crowds vigorously booed the media in Cedarbug, WI:

Hundreds of angry people in this small town outside Milwaukee taunted reporters and TV crews traveling with Sen. John McCain on Friday, chanting "Be fair!" and pointing fingers at a pack of journalists as they booed loudly.

Baltimore Sun columnist Susan Reimer is not happy at the amount of attention her incredibly snide, error filled September 1 column A woman - but why this woman? has garnered.

A handful of people wrote to say that I had captured exactly their reaction to the Palin nomination. But the rest of the responses were vehement or venomous... And more than 316,000 people viewed the column on The Baltimore Sun Web site. That number -- more than 100 times the attention I normally receive -- actually frightened me.

Newsbusters' Warner Todd Huston notes

She was "actually frightened," you people! Give me a break. What? Is she crying? There's no crying in journalism.

He then dissects Reimer's original bit of feminist snark before taking her and her colleagues to task over the clueless bubble they seem to occupy.

To close my discussion with you, Reimer, I have to ask: don't you see the hatred that you expressed for this woman? Don't you see that your snide comments about her Down Syndrome child and your abhorrence with every American that votes Republican -- which is half the electorate, by the way -- just might raise a bit of ire out there? Can you really be so shocked that your spittle specked rage was met with a bit of resistance?

If not, well, you really aren't as smart as you might like to imagine.

OBAMA MEDIA GOONS SINK STRAIGHT TO THE SEWER

Incredible! Just Incredible!



Here was AJ Strata's take:

I just watched the most amazing bit of TV in decades - I cannot wait to see the YouTube version of it. Wolf Ditzer (aka Blitzer) was hosting Gloria Berger, Bill Bennet, Donna Brazille an John King (I believe) on The Situation Room and were discussing young Bristol Palin’s (Governor Palin’s oldest daughter) pregnancy and her plans to have the baby and marry the father. At the center of this discussion was Barack Obama’s call to keep the families (and these personal decisions) off limits. But what does CNN do? They air a woman reporter who ran to Alaska questioning the entire abstinence position of Governor Palin in light of her daughter’s pregnancy. It was pathetic.

Besides the Duh factor that abstinence works every time it is tried (pregnancies being proof of the opposite) Bill Bennet was rightfully outraged at CNN and Blitzer for bringing the Palin family’s personal issues into the debate like this. Bennett was hammering Blitzer who did not want to concede CNN crossed the line.

John King was looking just stunned and as if he was going to get sick. He wanted nothing to do with the muck raking by CNN. And Gloria Berger basically agreed with Bennett and said Bristol Palin should be off limits - and then just sneered at Blitzer and looked apologetically to the camera.

Blitzer ‘the ditz’ was stunned to silence. Only Brazille, the Democrat attack dawg, tried to make some connection. CNN could not keep itself out of the gutter, and fell into the sewer with that one.

THREE MAJOR NEWS ANCHORS SET TO HELP PIMP OBAMA ON OVERSEAS TREK

Shameless bias. I mean, come on, how many of these goobers went with McCain to Iraq?

The three network anchors will travel to Europe and the Middle East next week for Barack Obama's trip, adding their high-wattage spotlight to what is already shaping up as a major media extravaganza.

Lured by an offer of interviews with the Democratic presidential candidate, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric will make the overseas trek, meaning that the NBC, ABC and CBS evening newscasts will originate from stops along the route and undoubtedly give it big play.

John McCain has taken three foreign trips in the past four months, all unaccompanied by a single network anchor.

When McCain visited Britain, France and Israel in March and met with their leaders, no network anchors tagged along. NBC and ABC sent correspondents; CBS did not. None of the evening newscasts covered his trip to Canada last month. And McCain's swing through Colombia and Mexico two weeks ago was barely covered, although NBC and ABC sent correspondents.

Nah. There's no media bias in America people.

MOST AMERICANS BELIEVE MEDIA IS IN THE TANK FOR OBAMA

I'm actually surprised by these poll numbers. I didn't think enough Americans were paying attention.

Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of election campaigns. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that four times as many—68%--believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win.

The perception that reporters are advocates rather than observers is held by 82% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats, and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party. The skepticism about reporters cuts across income, racial, gender, and age barriers.

Ideologically, political liberals give the least pessimistic assessment of reporters, but even 50% of those on the political left see bias. Thirty-three percent (33%) of liberals believe most reporters try to be objective. Moderates, by a 65% to 17% margin, see reporters as advocates, not scribes. Among political conservatives, only 7% see reporters as objective while 83% believe they are biased.

Given these results, it’s not surprising that 76% of voters believe the media has too much power and influence over elections. Just 3% believe the Fourth Estate has too little influence while 16% say the balance is about right.

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Republicans believe the media has too much influence along with 80% of unaffiliated voters and 65% of Democrats.

Voters have little doubt as to who is benefitting from the media coverage this year—Barack Obama. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Obama has gotten the best coverage so far. Twenty-two percent (22%) say McCain has received the most favorable coverage while 14% say that Hillary got the best treatment.
At the other extreme, 43% say Clinton received the worst treatment from the media. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say the media was roughest on McCain and only 15% thought the media coverage was most unfair to Obama.

It makes me wonder what those whose who don't see the Obama bias are looking at.