Treated The Same
I think Greg Sargent's got completely the wrong take on that poll he cited.
Give or take a few percentage points here and there (the 48% number isn't that much different from the 43% number), most people in that poll think Obama and Clinton are being treated about the same.
Once again, the thing that bloggers need to remember is that, unlike the vast majority of people in this country, they sit in front of a computer and read the minutia of politics all day long. In additional, bloggers are completely caught up and invested (over-invested, perhaps...) in their candidate.
Most people just aren't like that. It's not a bad thing; in fact, it's great that people are so enthused about politics.
But it can also create a mismatch between the view from the blog and the view from the rest of the populous. And it's the latter that really matters when it comes down to the election.
Give or take a few percentage points here and there (the 48% number isn't that much different from the 43% number), most people in that poll think Obama and Clinton are being treated about the same.
Once again, the thing that bloggers need to remember is that, unlike the vast majority of people in this country, they sit in front of a computer and read the minutia of politics all day long. In additional, bloggers are completely caught up and invested (over-invested, perhaps...) in their candidate.
Most people just aren't like that. It's not a bad thing; in fact, it's great that people are so enthused about politics.
But it can also create a mismatch between the view from the blog and the view from the rest of the populous. And it's the latter that really matters when it comes down to the election.
Advertisement
And I would just add that (as Greg pointed out), the critical question is whether the public thinks that the media has been unfair.
March 2, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
People used to mostly accept reporting until the Nixon antimedia campaign. Now they simply assume their own issue is unfairly covered but everything else is OK.
I think coverage is no worse than usual, with some by-now-habitual caution regarding GOP. Once bitten, etc.
March 2, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nixon was certainly constantly claiming left-wing bias on the media.
What people forget is that even if the reporters are left-wing, the editors and owners of the media are definitely right-of-center in general (corporations, after all!)
The problem with television news is that until the mid-60s, it was considered a public trust. Slowly, however, it had to pay for itself -- and that's the problem, you are now having to go for ratings. Remember the news magazine shows which were scandalized by faulty reporting?
CNN in its early days, especially in light of the Gulf War, went back to that public trust model. Seizing an opportunity, FNC went back for ratings.
Unfortunately for the country, the FNC model was quite successful and diluted the integrity of CNN.
See, for example, http://www.outfoxed.org/ for a video trailer
as well as the actual production at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuorIjt1HG0
Obama's message is a powerful antidote to the frustration that most people intuitively feel after 20 years of barrages like this.
March 2, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't buy the "media bias" argument at any level. I do agree with you, it's a question of political economy. Ratings and profits explain everything; not "bias."
March 2, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I have said repeatedly on TPM, I've yet to find a person who doesn't feel that their candidate is treated fairly by the media. That, in itself, says a lot.
In addition, the bad news about HRC is, in part, because there is bad news about HRC, her campaign, its running, etc. It's like saying "The only news we hear out of Iraq is bad! Surely, there must be some happy news there!"
Or stated another way, "You reap what you sow."
March 2, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't heard anybody complaining about Obama's treatment in the press. Sure, there are complaints about how he's treated by individuals critical of him in public (Clinton surrogates, McCain surrogates, etc.). But I think Obama supporters have got to be pretty happy with his portrayal in the media.
March 2, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) The press making a story of the picture of him in Muslim-looking garb...
2) The press running with the story that he didn't put his hand over his heart during the national anthem...
3) Russert's questions where he tried to link antisemitism to Obama....
4) The press running with the HRC campaign's talk of "empty suit"....
All of these issues have been bones of contention and expressed so around TPM and other places.
March 2, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Compare "Vaginal American", the 2 Washington Post "cleavage stories", "pimping Chelsea", several weeks of "cackle", a front-page 2000-word NYTimes piece on the state of the Clinton marriage, "how do we beat the bitch", "Nurse Ratched" numerous times, "Luca Brassi trying to strangle the Obama campaign in its crib", sleeping with her campaign aide, and on and on.
[And you left out Rush's "Obama the Magic Negro", but that was at least condemned by the left - "pimping Chelsea" was just seen as modern talking to many]
March 3, 2008 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink