ABC's bias in its debate coverage: Obama gets 5x more ink than Edwards, thrice as much as Clinton

[draft_mario_cuomo]

If you came from Mars and read this article you would think Obama was at 70% in the polls and the others were also rans...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/Story?id=3498084&page=1

Words devoted to covering:

Obama 397 (35%)
Richardson 206 (18%)
Kucinich 134 (12%)
Clinton 125 (11%)
Dodd 94 (8%)
Edwards 77 (7%)
Biden 75 (7%)
Gravel 16 (1%)

[Colobo]

1. Nice!

[Skip Intro]

2. a little unfair, isn't it?

[Colobo]

5. I'm just joking... playing with dmc.

[Skip Intro]

6. ah...ok

backing away slowly...

[Colobo]

7. No; my response was inspired on the poster, not on his observation,

He always attacks Obama, so I fire back in a friendly manner.

[Skip Intro]

10. right, I know

my reply seemed funny to me at the time

was just joking, badly

[Kagemusha]

3. ...You want word distribution assigned by poll rating?

Free press, anyone?

[AtomicKitten]

4. Maybe he's more interesting.

[Divine Discontent]

9. yes...

because "interesting" is a great way for deciding who gets press, and therefore, who gets to be the president of the USA. wonder who's got in the last two times because he was more "interesting" than the other guy....

[AtomicKitten]

14. Don't blame the candidates for what the Media Heathers do.

I thank you.

[Divine Discontent]

69. both points are valid n/t

[ripple]

8. He won the debate today.

And as an Obama supporter, that's the first time I've made such a claim.

Not to mention, he was attacked right off the bat and came back swiftly and smartly. :hi:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. This is the first time I have done this because the pro-Obama shilling by ABC was too blatant

I think this is a good way to measure media bias. I will do this after future debates as well, particularly regarding articles from the organization who sponsored the debate. Perhaps this was an anomaly due to Obama actually winning, or at least successfully hitting the pitch Stephnoplous (SP? lol) gave him right down the middle from the beginning.

[alteredstate]

28. "Pro-Obama shilling"?

I don't think so.

[TeamJordan23]

12. Where are you getting those figures? Also,

wouldn't you think the debate winner would get the most press coverage. Or the candidate that got attacked in the debate?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. It was ABC that set the attack up. Coincidence?

ABC sets up an easy attack that Obama was well-prepared for and then shills for Obama?

I got the figures from reading the article. You can do the same and post your figures. Some of them were judgment calls but the overall slant of the article would not be changed by a sentence of two being classified as neutral.

[alteredstate]

18. An "easy attack"?

You didn't answer my questions in yet another of your unceasing Obama-bashing threads.

Why do you hate Barack Obama?

And why are you obsessed with him?

***edited to add a link to my unanswered questions***:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3458713&mesg_id=3460383

[Tellurian]

19. a no brainer, Rove probably slipped him the Q's in advance..

seeing he shills for the GOP on occasion.

[Ethelk2044]

79. George was in Bill's Administration. Now supposedly have Rove

send him something. The pure logic of some posts.

:shrug:

[JTFrog]

95. Not only was he in Bill's administration,

but without the Clintons, he would have never made it to where he is today. He was the youngest spokesperson for the whitehouse ever. Thinking this guy would do a set-up for Obama is hilarious. I pretty much saw it as a huge swing and miss for ol' George and Hillary. With all the crap in the media on his experience, you know he had to be ready to hit that one out of the park.

[Colobo]

22. Bro, you REALLY dislike Obama! LOL! How come the inexperience thing

is an "easy attack"? How come ABC set it up so that Obama could shine? You REFUSE to give Obama any credit for anything.

[alteredstate]

42. I think you're right

about DMC's allegiance to Hillary.

[Colobo]

49. He is a dissapointed Edwarite who is now backing Hillary.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. Simple: he has been fighting back against that for weeks

He already had a canned response to it, the whole "new approach to things" mantra he has been using ever since the Youtube debate. ABC teed it up, Obama hit it out the park.

I don't think ABC set it up for him to help him. I just think it could be argued that way and would if a similar thing happened to HRC. I think ABC was simply looking to cause some fireworks but Clinton, Biden, and Dodd all punted.

[alteredstate]

53. So are you saying that your OP is bullshit? n/t

[alteredstate]

34. Did you count the first 15 minutes of the debate........

when Stephanopoulos asked each candidate to comment on Obama's "lack of experience", as "Obama time"?

[alteredstate]

15. I'd like to provide some background music for this thread

http://frogstar.soylentgeek.com/wav/twilzone.wav

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. For comparative purposes here are the numbers for the Washington Post

I chose the Washington Post over the NYT because HRC is from NY and that likely gives it a more pro-HRC slant than other major media outlets.

Obama 311 (36%)
Clinton 166 (19%)
Edwards 121 (14%)
Richardson 74 (9%)
Biden 71 (8%)
Gravel 50 (6%)
Kucinich 43 (5%)
Dodd 22 (3%)

All percentages were rounded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/19/AR2007081900713_2.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR

[frazzled]

17. The other candidates have made him the centerpiece

Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, and Biden ganging up on Obama these last weeks has been a stupid political tactic (for them)--it has only served to draw all the attention to him, and he's held up well. So of course he's the story. They made him the story.

This was particularly odd for Clinton. When you're ahead, the rule is usually that you don't go drawing attention to lesser candidates by attacking them. The group gang-bang only served to heighten the attention -- something he otherwise might not have gotten, had they done the smart thing and ignored him. "Shrouding" someone is always the smartest tactic: it relegates them to the status of invisible.

But, hey, nobody's paying me to be a political consultant.

Finally, what is this "word count" shit? First we have time counts, then word counts. What next--cost-benefit analyses? This sounds like little whiny baby titty asses stuff (or whatever that expression used to be).

[jenmito]

21. Yup, just like the debate in Illinois...

yet the media still crowned Hillary the winner even though the crowd clearly liked Obama better-the way he held up against attacks from the same 4 or at least 3 of them. FINALLY he gets some positive press and it's as if there's a conspiracy to make him our nominee? I don't think so...it's long overdue.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. That was before his hometown crowd

That is why the audience's reactions did not matter much. Who do you think would get cheered the most in New York, Little Rock, or Charlotte?

==FINALLY he gets some positive press==

He has been getting nearly non-stop positive press for three years during which an obscure politician rose to national superstardom, nearly overnight, second only to Bill Clinton among Democrats in 2006. Notice the date of this issue...



What did he do to merit being on the cover of Newsweek as of January of 2005?

[alteredstate]

27. I was able to get tickets to the the CNN /YouTube debate in Charleston

Obama received more applause than any of the candidates.

So, why do you hate Obama, and why are you obsesssed with him?

[illinoisprogressive]

40. I wonder what your hate for Obama is based on, DMC

I figure you feel he stole Edwards rightful place. But, if it was Edwards to begin with he would be getting all the money and stuff.
You make it hard for those of us who like Edwards to keep supporting him as our #2

[emilyg]

71. Probably same thing your hate of Clinton is based on.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

74. I don't hate Obama. I will enthusiastically support him if he wins the nomination

He just gets a free pass in the CMSM and even the netroots. Clinton and Edwards are routinely scrutinized. I just do my little part on the netroots to put Obama under the microscope as well. One of the biggest mistakes we made in 2004 was not throughly vetting Kerry in the primaries. If we did that we may have discovered he was not as strong a GE candidate as we initially believed he was.

[jenmito]

31. Finally he got some positive press after a debate, where someone did NOT declare Hillary the winner

Obama got to where he is today on his own...not because his wife was a popular president.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. What did he do to make it onto the cover of Newsweek in Jan. of 2005?

He was plucked out of obscurity by the media and transformed into a political superstar nearly overnight, just like Thompson on the Republican side this year. Without the CMSM Obama would remain an obscure rookie senator. He likely would have waited to run until 2012 or 2016 and then faced an uphill battle for the nomination. He would not have begun with an instant base of roughly 25% before he had a platform and few people outside of Illinois knew anything about what he actually believed.

[jenmito]

36. More than Hillary did...

and without being married to a popular ex-president. He gave a rousing speech in '04 where he was dubbed "a rising star" because he was so inspiring. He was against the war from the beginning, while Hillary was praising it (not complaining that Bush didn't exhaust all diplomacy first), and he was a Senator in IL and a new U.S. Senator. Will you vote for him if he's the nominee?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. He made a speech in July of 04' and that made him the biggest story in America in Jan. of 05'?

On the day he entered the senate he was asked by a reporter what his legacy would be. :wtf: Legacy? He just showed up there, let alone had any accomplishments in Congress. There are a 100 senators yet Obama was "chosen" to become a superstar by the CMSM from the beginning. How many new senators get on the cover of Newsweek before they achieved anything in the senate?

Who dubbed him a "rising star"? The corporate media. :)

If he wins the nomination I will enthusiastically support him.

[ncabot22]

50. He was elected to the Senate

If I am correct, and please feel free to correct me if I'm not, he would have officially taken his seat in January of 2005. He was also the first black senator in 100 years. So I think he was a bit newsworthy.

[alteredstate]

51. Yeah,

I think it's safe to say Obama wasn't "plucked from obscurity"

[draft_mario_cuomo]

54. Many people have been elected to the senate

How many made it onto the cover of Newsweek during their first week? Obama was taking a seat that was held just a few years prior by an African-American. Did she ever get on the cover of Newsweek? Has Deval Patrick, only the second black governor in history? How about Ken Salaazer or Mel Martinez, who are Hispanics who were elected the same year Obama was?

[ncabot22]

56. Well..

Carole Mosley Braun was caught up in a scandal (if memory serves) and Barack Obama was already being spoken about as having a bright future in politics. Newsworthy people garner the headlines and he was/is newsworthy.

With regards to Deval Patrick, I don't think too many state governors make the covers of magazines like Time and Newsweek. Deval Patrick has certainly gained national attention though. How many have heard of him as opposed to the governor of Maine? More know who DP is than the governor of Maine, right?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

58. Braun was caught up in a scandal the week she entered office?

We are talking about the media hype as of Jan. of 2005.

==Barack Obama was already being spoken about as having a bright future in politics.==

Exactly--by the corporate media. By the same people who put him on the cover of Newsweek before he had achieved anything.

Patrick has gotten national attention but he won in a landslide in a significant state. That makes him more newsworthy than the governor of Maine. If Patrick were the governor of Idaho would he have gotten national press? Patrick is more similar to Spitzer or Warner in 2001 than he is to the Obama phenomenon. The politician who is a good analogue for the Obama case in recent times is Fred Thompson.

How about Salazaar and Martinez. They both were elected during the same year Obama was.

Obama was not newsworthy because of his race. He was newsworthy because he has a special combination of traits and the corporate media decided to make him a political superstar.

[ncabot22]

59. I hope you feel the same way about

Bill Clinton, John Edwards, etc.

From you:

Obama was not newsworthy because of his race. He was newsworthy because he has a special combination of traits and the corporate media decided to make him a political superstar.

Yes, Barack Obama has charisma...moreso than a lot of politicians. Bill Clinton had the same charisma and so does John Edwards--that is why they appeal to a lot of people. Don't be bitter. Obama has charisma and charismatic people garner headlines. Why you are complaining specifically about Obama is beyond me. He gets positive headlines after ONE debate and you are whining.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

60. Clinton was a multiple term governor before he got national press

He produced results and then became a national figure. He was one of the youngest governors ever when he was elected in 1978. Was he hyped the same way Obama has been? Edwards also got no national press until he finished 2nd in Iowa, a result he achieved without media promotion of his candidacy.

This isn't about one debate. Obama has been promoted by the CMSM for over three years. Progressives need to ask what the corporate media likes about him. They are not pushing him for fun...

[alteredstate]

57. My gawd ......

Do you have any hobbies, or do you spend all of your time coming up with negative shit about Obama? Do you realize that you could actually do something positive by volunteering for Hillary (or is it Edwards)?

[DURHAM D]

65. Well - that might come as a surprise to

Carol Moseley Braun and Edward Brooke.

[ncabot22]

67. Thanks for the correction!

I'm not American--I like American politics, though. I thought I'd heard Barack Obama was the first black man in 100 years to serve in the Senate.

As for Edward Brooke, I didn't realize he was a republican...that's weird.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

68. He was a liberal Republican. The Republicans were not totally racist yet at the time

Just out of curiosity, which country are you from?

[ncabot22]

73. Thanks

I'm from Canada (BC). I'm just a political junkie. American political campaigns tend to be a bit nastier than campaigns in Canada--thus a bit more interesting. :) Our system is different than your system.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

75. You're welcome. Cool, good to hear about your interest in our politics

How are things going in Canadian politics now? Is there any hope that the Conservatives will fall soon? Has Harper been the Bush-lite disaster many feared he would be?

[ncabot22]

76. Not really but I still don't trust him

The Conservatives do not have a big majority so they really cannot push too much of their agenda without the support of the other parties, which tend to reign him in a bit. If he tried to push too much of a Conservative agenda, then the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP would push back. The one big issue right now is Canada's role in Afghanistan. We are used to our forces being used as peacekeepers and, unfortunately, too many Canadians are being hurt and killed in Afghanistan. Harper has committed Canada to remain in Afghanistan which isn't too encouraging.

There is always talk about an election being called but who knows when? I hope soon, though. I'm an ardent NDP supporter and am realistic enough to know there is no way the NDP will ever be in control of parliment but I do have hopes we win enough seats to have a louder voice.

When there is an election called, drop by the Canada forum. :)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

82. Thanks for sharing. At least he has not been a disaster like Bush

It is unlikely the NDP will come to power but does it have a decent shot at becoming part of a coalition government? Or will the Liberals be able to muster an outright majority next time?

Thanks. I will be there during the next election. :)

[dsc]

96. No he wasn't

Edward Brooks in 1968 and Carol Mosley Braun in 1992 were both elected to the US Senate.

[alteredstate]

47. Do ya think Obama's incredible speech at the 2004 Democratic convention

might have had something to do with it?

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. He gave a kick-ass convention speech that thrilled Democrats

more than any of our candidates had.

Short memory?

[Dawgs]

84. Why did he need to do anything?

He was a rising star in the Democratic party, and he was gaining popularity at the time. Newsweek recognized these facts and put him on the cover to sell magazines. Are you really that biased that you think Newsweek put him there to help him gain popularity; and not to make money?

[alteredstate]

48. and that's what's eating DMC eom

[jenmito]

91. It sure seems that way...

With all the undue praise HILLARY has gotten after every single debate from the "CMSM" he's complaining about, it sure seems like sny praise for any other candidate eats him up!

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Have No Fear - There Are 200+ Newspapers And A TV Network That Will Make Up For It!!!

And you can take that to the bank!

[Colobo]

24. Exactly.

[wndycty]

23. Waaa Waaa Waaaa

:kick:

[antiimperialist]

26. Chris Dodd's website complained about the unfair time distribution

[Karmadillo]

29. Damn ABC!! All that extra coverage for Clinton. The corp media wants to cram her down our throat. It

makes me furious that they refuse to cover things evenhandedly. Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. Blah, Blah, Blah. It makes me sick. I swear. What a bunch of corporate whores. If they would simply cover things fairly, the American people would stop supporting Clinton and---what? The extra coverage wasn't for Hillary? It was for who? Obama? Not Clinton? You're sure? Really? Obama? Three times as much? Whoa! Gobama!!! If the man made an impact, he deserves the extra space! Yes! Journalists are professionals. Let's not try to tell them how to do their job. Remember, it was the media that brought down Nixon and I think we can count on them to tell us who to vote for to bring down the PNAC Empire of Death. Go ABC! Gobama! Go corporate media!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. Post of the day

:applause:

[Colobo]

33. Anything that is against Obama is good for you.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. That post was not against Obama. It pointed out the hypocrisy of some BO fans on media coverage

When the CMSM hypes Clinton it is because they are shoving her down our throat so she can win; when they hype Obama--like they have done for 3 years--it is because he earned it. Yeah. He had achieved so much to warrant being on the cover of Newsweek in Jan. of 2005. :eyes: The reality is both are CMSM favorites, with HRC getting more overall coverage but Obama getting better quality since nearly all CMSM coverage of him is positive.

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. Your CMSM acronym - I've never heard it before.

Could you spell it out once for us dummies?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

64. Corporate mainstream media nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

70. OK. It's late, and I'm a little slow.

Corporate media (my preferred term) merged with MSM.
Thanks.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

72. No problem

:hi:

[illinoisprogressive]

37. quit being jealous. obama uses alot of words and this is what has hampered him before now

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. What does that have to do with ABC News shilling for him? nt

[illinoisprogressive]

43. Your jealous is eating you alive. If the 2nd spot was Edwards to begin with

he would still be there. obama stole nothing from him.

[rufus dog]

41. I Think DMC must have been lit up by Obama

when Obama was playing ball for Occidental College.

[illinoisprogressive]

44. DMC has this thing that Obama stole Edwards rightful place in the race.

[illinoisprogressive]

46. As for shilling. All the media is too busy gushing over Hillary to shill for anyone else.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

55. So how do you explain ABC and the Washington Post's coverage of this?

Why don't BO fans look at other major media outlets. Where are these HRC shills? I bet if you looked at those outlets you would find they also go to bat for Obama quite often as well. ;)

[Colobo]

45. LOL!

[calteacherguy]

63. What ridiculous logic in the OP.

"If you came from Mars and read this article you would think Obama was at 70% in the polls and the others were also rans..."

By that logic, candidates should get an amount of press coverage relative to their standing in the polls. At least, I guess that's the logic in the OP. Actually, I'm not sure what logic there is in the OP!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

66. You favor the CMSM selecting our candidates?

That is the problem in the OP. If Obama had already all but sewn up the nomination, like Kerry in February of 2004, that would be a completely different thing. The article--written by the organization that sponsored today's debate--gave Obama that kind of coverage. To shove a candidate down our throats this early is simply the CMSM trying to choose our nominee.

[calteacherguy]

78. Uh...so what exactly do you want?

Equal coverage for Gavel, Kucinch, and all the rest? Do you think it's unfair Edwards got more coverage than poor Gravel? :eyes:

I think you should quit while you are ahead, having a supporter act like you are acting does not put Edwards in a good light.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

81. This coming from someone who does nothing but attack Democratic candidates at Democraticunderground

And advocates the most right-wing positions possible to remain at DU... You declared your support for Obama, a few days later apparently forgot that you "supported" him and then a week or two later posted a thread attacking him. Do you think people aren't figuring out your little game? ;)

[calteacherguy]

92. That's right, attack the messenger. You couldn't have made a more inaccurate, pathetic attempt

even at that.

[TeamJordan23]

77. Time for a new research study: How many Anti-Obama posts are started by DMC?

And in comparison to anti-Hillary, anti-Richardson, etc.. posts started by DMC.

[Colobo]

83. LOL!

[killbotfactory]

80. I guess the other candidates won't try and dogpile on him next time

[venable]

87. this is a thin-skinned, entitled POV, and doesn't ring true

what piling on?

come on, now.

[jmp]

85. This is obviously a Rovian/MSM conspiracy ...

To provoke a pro-Hillary backlash ... because that is who the MSM and the GOP want the Dems to nominate.

It's as plain as the nose on your face.

[venable]

86. Not a single post has refuted the OP, they just weakly mock it.

Try acknowledging that ABC is all hot and bothered for Obama (and Clinton, I wd argue), and they are leaving, for instance, the man with the lead in the first primary state out of the talk (Edwards- 7%).

Please don't say it's cuz he was piled on - that's almost sad, such an explanation/defense of ABC - and either come up with something more convincing, or acknowledge the favorable treatment.

It's up to Edwards to change this dynamic, not ABC or a group of anonymous posters on DU, bit I think it's pathetic that most of the posts on this thread address nothing, but instead are derisive mocking of a good, consistent, intelligent poster (DMC), who makes a profound and well-researched point.

[paulk]

88. the media wants a horse race

Clinton was getting too far ahead in the polls.

What the MSM has wanted all along is to set up a primary race between a white woman and a black man. It's their ultimate ratings fantasy. They win either way when it comes to the general election. First black man/first white woman.

[L84TEA]

89. they just made me a Kucinich supporter

Not just me... but several of my friends and family.


We can't be BOUGHT anymore... we already paid the price for commercialism.

[Doctor_J]

90. Maybe ABC (All Bush Channel) wants Obama to be our nominee

Surely if HRC got the most, we'd be hearing that it's because the GOP (and ABC in particular) want her to be the nominee.

:eyes:

[sampsonblk]

93. That's the only thing keeping him in the race

[Hippo_Tron]

94. Damn liberal media bias