"Can minority journalists resist applauding Obama?" asks Jesse Washington of the Associated Press. Say what you will about Michelle Malkin, but I'm pretty sure she can resist applauding Obama. Meanwhile, can white journalists resist applauding John McCain? I'm sure a handful of them can, but McCain's received some instances of favorable press coverage over the years and the vast majority of that has come from white journalists.
« Impractical Scheme of the Day | Main | The Kindle »
AP vs. Minority Journalists
27 Jul 2008 09:27 pm
Comments (26)
During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.
McCain has been receiving negative press. Just not nearly as much as Senator Obama has. Not sure how this gauges the innumerable gaffes that the major news outlets conveniently overlooked for Senator McCain.
During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.
McCain has been receiving negative press. Just not nearly as much as Senator Obama has. Not sure how this gauges the innumerable gaffes that the major news outlets conveniently overlooked for Senator McCain.
Bottom line: McCain wins, Obama loses.
This is the plan and they're sticking to it.
Michelle Malkin is a journalist?
Is the gravity still turned on here on planet earth?
It is sort of amazing, the difference between journos' opinions and the demographic we assume they come from. I just listened to part of the Continetti-Cox bloggingheads--which I assume was meant to be a Republic/Dem split--and Cox just could not stop talking about how the press was very unfair to McCain and how it overpraised Obama. And how unwilling Obama was to admit mistake on the surge, which was evidence of Bush-like arrogance. (Unmentioned, of course, were McCain's all-but explicitly neoconservative FP and his unwillingness to admit mistake on the invasion, about which there is greater public consensus.) And I think it was entirely unconscious on her part.
And, yet, I think that among women her age and with her educational background, the split breaks heavily in Obama's favor. Even more so among those who self-report Blue (which I'm assuming she did or does, because I'm assuming that BH.tv intended "balance"). I assume this is a function of the difference between DC media consensus and the consensus of her nominal peers. Or maybe press interest in a horse race. Or interest in some sort of emotional balance to the story. I don't really know.
It was kind of shocking. Not even bad, or anger inducing because disingenuous, but just really, really surprising. And really eye-opening. I think people should expect uglier and uglier coverage from at least the DC press as we get closer and closer to election day. I have no real explanation for it.
For the record, I'm very disappointed that Matt's Shame Economics post seems to have been deleted. It was a pretty decent takedown of McCain's economic cluelessness, this time regarding his gas tax holiday proposal.
The post itself lasted less than 10 minutes before getting yanked. May it rest in peace.
Oh wait, going back, I just realized that the Shame Economics post actually carries a date/time stamp of 28 Jul 2008 10:25 am!
Now that I officially know the freaken future, I'm off to play the lotto.
What Other Mike said.
Also, this is exactly the type of inane, trivial pundit question that grates like nails on a chalkboard.
There are plenty of great, important stories happening now -- all of which should be relevant to this campaign. Minority reporters' stances on Obama simply is not one of them, and it never will be.
I'm sure if you threw Armstrong Williams a few bucks, he'd write any article about Obama you wanted.
Is that Michelle "educated in a Republican madrasa" Malkin?
Clearly the negroes are out to get whitey.
I think the better question is, "can white journalists resist attending McCain's BBQs, fetching him his favorite doughnuts (with sprinkles!), and editing his interviews to cover up his gaffes?"
(Also, isn't it just a wee bit racist to assume that all minority journalists love Obama?)
McCain has been receiving negative press. Just not nearly as much as Senator Obama has. Not sure how this gauges the innumerable gaffes that the major news outlets conveniently overlooked for Senator McCain.
It looks like it doesn't gauge it.
In other words, McCain has a lot more mistakes and dirt out there about him, but the media covers him more favorably than they cover Obama-- and they say a few bad things about McCain to make it look like they're not prejudiced in his favor to people who don't look at a lot of news.
So it's pro-McCain dishonesty, it's just minimally well-done and sophisticated pro-McCain dishonesty.
Bottom line: McCain wins, Obama loses.
This is the plan and they're sticking to it.
It's more like they're going to try to get McCain to win, but only if they can do so without any really obvious and really outrageous rule-breaking.
If they have to do something that people are going to notice and get pissed at Republicans about to win, then they won't, and Obama may win just based on popularity and advertising.
Obama is so much more appealing, popular and less gaffetastic than McCain that this is not an easy road for the Republicans. But I think that they're intimidating Obama and telling him what to say (something I speculate happens to a lot of prominent Democrats), so they may get him to produce a few bad gaffes before the election.
Who would push around a powerful Democrat? Someone the Democrat thinks that they can't expose or strike back at, and have it be worth it-- in other words, someone the victim thinks perhaps can and will do some damage to the victim's reputation (or other interest) that the victim thinks is not worth the risk of trying to stand up against. That's what would explain no one speaking out, and us not hearing about it. It would be a very well-thought-out job, perhaps by people who have built up a lot of know-how, perhaps with a psychologist's input, on blackmail, and have a very tight scheme orchestrated to use on personalities they are confident will submit to it.
Swan: See, this is why an Iran war is certain. If they can keep Obama down to 4-10 points lead over McCain - and apparently this isn't that hard based on the situation to date - all they need is some little ten point bounce for McCain in late October before the elections - and he wins.
Add in a little vote fraud in Ohio, Florida, or wherever, which is the habit now, and Obama simply has no chance.
I'm telling you people - Obama is going to lose. It doesn't matter HOW fucked up McCain is compared to Obama in any rational sense - he's going to win.
I don't think they're intimidating Obama any more than they can intimidate most politicians - and that's probably considerable, but not enough to prevent Obama from campaigning for President. I think Obama simply doesn't understand that he's already lost. He's like a lot of the posters here - he assumes he's so much better than McCain that his winning is a certainty against a buffoon like McCain.
And it isn't. It's going to come as a shock to Obama and the posters here when he goes down in November.
..., but not enough to prevent Obama from campaigning for President.
While they might like Obama to drop out, if the alternative was Hillary, they wouldn't like it (their first goal was to keep her from winning the nomination, and now they're the primary reason Obama isn't going to pick her to be his VP). Also, they might feel that if they push too hard, which is what openly asking Obama to drop out might be, he might not go along with it, and might push back, and then it might ruin their whole plan to mess with him. If, on the other hand, they just claim that there is some kind of national security interest served by Obama wearing different colored suits than he normally would, or talking about how bad black fathers are on Fathers Day, or giving a much more evasive-sounding, ambiguous and hesitating response to a question than he normally would, Obama might just submit to their demands while trying to fool himself that the rationale he is being fed is true, and that he's not being steered into making subtle gaffes or trumpeting propaganda.
And it isn't. It's going to come as a shock to Obama and the posters here when he goes down in November.
I think you're wrong-- it's the conservatives who have no hope.
European odds are currently 3/1 on Obama (i.e. bet $3 to win $1) and 2/1 against McCain (i.e. bet $1 to win $2). If RSH lacks a British or Irish contact to serve as a proxy, I'm sure one can easily be found.
"It is sort of amazing, the difference between journos' opinions and the demographic we assume they come from. "
It's not all that amazing, when you look at their donations, which are running very heavily towards Obama even at Fox.
I haven't been following the Presidential race all that closely this year, not having a dog in that fight, but it's my casual impression that, whatever the nature of the coverage McCain is getting, he's getting damned little of it. Not much out there to remind me there's somebody besides Obama running.
Obama's already on the list, but maybe it should really be John McCain on the "Stuff White People Like" site.
To answer the original question, "Can minority journalists resist applauding Barack Obama?" well, so far Juan Williams has done a heck of a job resisting applause. He still swoons at the mention of George W. Bush, though.
This might be the dumbest thing ever written for the AP. Right-wing Cubans in Florida, for example, aren't exactly a pro-Obama demographic.
"(Also, isn't it just a wee bit racist to assume that all minority journalists love Obama?)
Posted by Darius | July 27, 2008 11:45 PM"
Yep.
As Ray notes, when the AP meets with McCain they worry about getting the right kind of sprinkles for his donuts; speculating that (all of the?) brown journalists must be agog for Obama takes a lack of introspection to a whole new level, for which I applaud them, expect that they're the press and supposed to have some vague grasp of objective reporting.
Can soldiers resist voting for McCain?
Reporters or Diebold are not going to swing this election for Magoo. Maybe, it'll be close - who knows at this point? I can even see Obama doing better with the over 65 crowd than expected. That picture of Magoo holding hands with the Dalai Lama told it all: he's desperate, he's clueless, and he's going down. The CW is that the election will be a referendum on Obama. Au contraire. It'll be a rejection of McCain.
The piece isn't about Cubans in Florida or "all the brown journalists." It's about a specific conference for minority journalists, and how the journalists there have, both this year and four years ago, adopted the highly unprofessional habit of applauding their favored candidated. Journalists shouldn't applaud politicians. Doesn't matter if they're working at the moment or not.
Comments closed August 10, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
When John McCain meets with AP reporters, they have his favorite donuts waiting. After the AP sold off some stocks to Murdoch, they've been definitively more McCain.
Posted by Ray | July 27, 2008 9:40 PM