Media bias and the election

Liberal Media Bias
Got bias? You bet!

The Obama/Biden campaign spent a billion toward its re-election efforts, but that was minuscule when compared to the money and effort spent by the administration’s number-one publicity arm — the mainstream media.

Rich Noyes, writing for Fox News, lists five ways in which the media assured that the Obamas’ lease at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. would be renewed for another four years.

1. Emphasis upon Romney gaffes: Noyes begins his analysis by pointing out that the media hammered Romney each time he made even the slightest gaffe while ignoring the president’s verbal missteps:

The media unfairly jumped on  inconsequential mistakes — or even invented controversies — from Romney and hyped them in to multi-day media “earthquakes.” Case in point: the GOP candidate’s trip to Europe and Israel in late July. A Media Research Center analysis of all 21 ABC, CBS and NBC evening news stories about Romney’s trip found that virtually all of them (18, or 86%) emphasized “diplomatic blunders,” “gaffes” or “missteps.”

2. Unfair and slanted fact-checking: As Noyes points out,

There’s nothing wrong with holding politicians accountable for the honesty of their TV ads and stump speeches, but this year the self-appointed media fact-checkers attacked Republicans as liars for statements that were accurate.

3. Debate moderators — Got bias?: It’s one thing to debate your opponent; it’s another thing entirely when you also have to debate the monitor.

Upset liberals scorned PBS’s Jim Lehrer for taking a hands-off approach in the first debate on October 3, with MSNBC analyst Howard Fineman slamming him as “practically useless” for not jumping into the debate on behalf of President Obama.

Such criticism may have encouraged the activist approach taken by ABC’s Martha Raddatz in the vice presidential debate October 11, and by CNN’s Candy Crowley in the October 16 town hall debate, as both of those journalists repeatedly interrupted the Republican candidate and larded the discussion with a predominantly liberal agenda.

4. Benghazi — Ben who?: The mainstream media avoided this subject like the plague, to the point where many otherwise intelligent, well-informed people had never heard of it. According to Noyes:

Right after the September 11 attack in Libya, the networks proclaimed that the events would bolster President Obama — “reminding voters of his power as commander-in-chief,” as NBC’s Peter Alexander stated on the September 14 edition of “Today.” But as a cascade of leaked information erased the portrait of Obama as a heroic commander, the broadcast networks shunted the Benghazi story to the sidelines.

5. The economy is fine, nothing to see here: The media succeeded in fitting rose-colored glasses on the unsuspecting public with respect to the dismal economy.

Pundits agreed that Obama’s weakness was the failure of the US economy to revive after his expensive stimulus and four years of $1 trillion deficits. But the major networks failed to offer the sustained, aggressive coverage of the economy that incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush faced in 1992, or even that George W. Bush faced in 2004 — both years when the national economy was in better shape than it is now

Ii’s been said that in order for a coup to be successful, one first has to take over the radio stations. The president had an entire multi-billion dollar communications industry in his pocket on this one.

Read the full analysis at FoxNews.com.

Powered by Topple

Comments

Latest Articles