What is the reason for the media favoring particular candidates?

[kitty44]

I think we all know what I'm talking about.

A friend of mine says that it is because individual reporters simply find some candidates - for example, McCain - personally likable.

I say that the media is doing the bidding of its masters - the corporations.

What do you think?

[Blarch]

1. The reason ?

I think they report on who is doing best.

Hillary and Obama get the most coverage on the dem side, because their numbers are strongest

We all saw how Hucky didn't get any media coverage till after Iowa.

The media is simply playing follow the leader.

[OzarkDem]

2. These days its their corporate masters

or in some cases, its combined with orders from DC.

The news business isn't that profitable, billionaires and multinational corporations invest in it for their own self interest not for profits.

[Blarch]

9. fuck that. explain this...

The last few days has been nothing but negative new stories about Hillary, about how she was in trouble, how she was creating a shakeup, even rumors about her dropping out soon. But this morning the TV is praising her.

Now ask yourself. Did the media change their mind INDEPENDENTLY of the vote last night ? ...or did the vote drive the news ?

The media is the tumble weed blowing in the wind ....they go where the wind blows ...they are not the wind.

[kitty44]

12. Then why no coverage of Kucinich and Ron Paul?

Both have a message that if exposed, would be hugely popular with voters - for very different reasons.

Because the media did not give them any exposure - in the early debates and elsewhere - they were set up to be non-players in the minds of voters.

[Echo In Light]

13. Precisely. Not to mention the insanely long list of scandals and cover ups that the MSM won't touch

[Blarch]

15. Kucinich is polling in Dodd country, thats why.

You might as well ask "Why no Dodd coverage?"

Ron Paul did get coverage when he made news, most recently his massive one day fund raising event, it was reported on everywhere

[Echo In Light]

21. With DK & RP, none of their unconventional views are reported 24/7 like the other messages

[Political Heretic]

19. Source please?

Right.... you don't have one.

The news business is in fact, ridiculously profitable.

[Echo In Light]

22. They sell markets to their advertisers while programming the public mind

[MethuenProgressive]

3. Ratings. The MSM tests the results of what coverage gets more viewers, which mag covers sell better.

The coporate media wants profits.

[robcon]

4. The only reason: RATINGS

If someone is photogenic, is a good public speaker, attracts viewers and has an interesting 'backstory' the media will feature that person until the next one comes along.

[kitty44]

8. Interesting back story?

Edwards came from a poor background to become a millionaire.

That seems like an interesting story.

But you never see it given any attention.

[robcon]

14. The backstory: first AA to have a shot at winning the presidency.

In case you somehow missed that backstory.

Edwards has played his son-of-a-millworker story to the hilt (like Clinton's did in 1992 - i.e., The Man from Hope) but it's not nearly as compelling as the historic backstory for Obama as the first black man to have a good chance of becoming president of the U.S.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. It's a combination of entrenched interests and personality

There are not "corporate masters" giving out marching orders to particular journalists. That's just dumb. What happens is that particular sorts of thinking are filtered out in the long process of becoming a successful journalist and commentator.

The same applies to the humanities in academe. Conservatives swear that there is some kind of leftists conspiracy to stack the humanities with raging commie feminists. Not so. It's simply that the job lends itself to particular personality types and political positions, so you get a clustering effect. As Michael Berube wryly notes in his "What's Liberal about the Liberal Arts," you don't see a lot of Reaganites looking to bust their hump for 6 years for a $50,000 a year job. So, there's a self-selection process that's really a bit like microbes organizing themselves in a petri dish. Of course, sameness promotes sameness as well. It's not a conspiracy. It's a population effect.

The same happens in the media. Certain positions get weeded out in undergraduate and in the ideology of the journalism schools. The filtering process at the first job and subsequent jobs. No doubt, the possibility of "what can be printed" is influenced by media ownership, etc., but it's not EXPLICIT. It's an implicit shaping of perceptions and filtering of viewpoints. It can be affected by external pressure, the same way academe can. But there's no "group of men in smoky rooms" directing the news, any more than there is some radical LGBT-feminist-minority-Third World-commie triumvirate directing the research agendas of English professors. This is just paranoia, and its extremely damaging paranoia because it prevents us from seeing the way the population effects ACTUALLY work.

[kitty44]

16. How can the population effect what they don't know?

When a candidate is blacklisted by the media it means the population doesn't get to hear the candidate's message.

An excellent example of this is Kucinich - a champion for getting out of Iraq, and for universal health care - both issues most people support.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. You misunderstand me

I didn't say "the population Affects" the media. I said the media bias is A population effect. It's a clustering of similar attitudes within the media as a result of environment, etc.

The term is

POPULATION EFFECT.

I'm not talking about the US population or viewers. I'm talking about how groups cluster and form.

See, for example, http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_5.htm

[sam sarrha]

6. the people that get air time by the media go up in th polls, they are stealing this election in the

primaries.. they want obama because he will be the easiest to destroy and fodder to take over the congress the following election.. rove and Gingrich support him... wake up people

edwards got dissappeared by the media because he would be the most effective president.. his vision 'starts' with the people.. it doesnt trickle down

[Joyce78]

7. I agree

with you completely. I usually listen to MSNBC throughout the day until 4:00 EST and then switch to CNN and listen to "The Situation Room" with Wolf and Jack (Jeez, Mary and Holy St. Joe ... aren't those two a joke). I've had it with all of them ... I don't want to hear opinions from any of them ... I want to listen to NEWS. I've had it with Russert and Matthews (Mr. & Mrs. PotatoHead), Mika B, Mourning Joe Scar, etc. These idiots refer to themselves as journalists ... lol ... the whole lot of them are nothing but gossip columnists (aka corporate whores).

[Annces]

10. I think they try to influence

However when things get out of hand, they go along for a while, and keep trying to influence it again, keep trying to mold. Like Russert today trying to say that voters voted for Obama and Clinton to keep the debates going. I think they won because people are ready to move forward, and not thinking like a politician, in keeping debates open. People voted with their heart and minds.

And I for one think DU really is out of the loop with what is going on with the wins. No one is predicting Obama or Clinton, and no one is excited either.

[Echo In Light]

11. Kitty, your friend is 100% wrong on this

Unfortunately this perception prevails.

Reporters don't play any determining role in what gets covered, how and why. Remember back when the rightists were really using the "liberal" media myth to better rig the propaganda game? A study that fundies and rightists sourced constantly was one that apparently showed how many journalists had voted for Clinton. That's the exact type of meaningless sound bite that is echoed and repeated until it gains a foothold within the public mind. What the sound bite left out was that the same report also revealed how those journalists were still far more conservative than the average American citizen. Anyway, your postulation is right: it's corporate control.

[Political Heretic]

17. It's not a big conspiracy. It's simply media looking for ratings stories.

They are trained and bred to look for the most sensational, sexy story they can find and drive that into the ground.

The bottom line for individual show producers is: what will get us the most ratings and the most profit? That's it. The bottom line for CEOs behind the networks of these programs is that they are fine with any republican candidate running and fine with either of the two democratic front runners. None of them will do anything to seriously impact or jeopardize their profit. So it boils down to:

Clinton = the "inevitability" story isn't sexy, doesn't translate into ratings, because its not exciting.

Obama after Iowa = CHA-CHING! Holy money money money batman! That's a story that can jack up ratings, so the media trumps it right up. Obama is the second coming of Christ! You are all watching something truly historic (something pundits said like 5 billion times that night) so STAY TUNED AND CHECK OUT THESE ADS FROM OUR SPONSORS!

Edwards = yes, he's not corporations first choice, but mainly to the media he's old news. He ran before and placed second and third, blah blah, yawn. Not a story.

Now, watch the change after New Hampshire: Clinton now has "underdog" status with the media, which makes her a compelling story, and the media will eat up a close two way race because the can say things like "OMG I HAVENT SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS IN MY LIFETIME THIS IS HUGH!!! YOUD BETTER NOT SHUT OFF YOUR TEEVEE U NEED TO KEEP WATCHING AND SUCKING IN ADS TO BUY SHIT INTO YOUR BRAINZ!!!"

[zalinda]

20. I think everyone is a little right and a little wrong on this

Yes, journalists write their pieces, but editors get the final say. Editors can re-cut a piece to make it out totally opposite of what it was supposed to say. Everyone wants to be on top of the flavor of the day, these are just lazy journalists. The true journalists look for the interesting, unusual stories that make a difference. But, even then an editor can hack the piece up so it looks like nothing it was supposed to resemble. So, it's quite possible that an editor's view point can swing an entire publication or show. If corporate likes the way the editor is running things then it's a life time job. If the editor is not doing well according to the corporation, the editor could be called in to temper his view points. Then if failing that the editor could be fired. We tend to forget that the journalist is not the stand alone voice, he once may have been.

zalinda

[Echo In Light]

23. If it's all about $ and ratings, explain this: Top 25 Censored Stories of 2008

http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2008/index.htm

[Sydnie]

24. Very simple -

Reporters merely report the facts as they see them, statistics, historical reference, and all that.

It's the talking heads that do the spinning and they do it for one reason only - they want a horse race to talk about. A walk on, with a guaranteed outcome is boring for them to cover day after day. If they interject some controversy, manufactured or otherwise, then they have something to discuss every day on their shows.

Make no mistake - reporters get a few minutes to make their reports, short enough to pass the info but rarely long enough to stir the pot with any force. Pundits get whole programs to discuss their opinions and they do get to enough face time to cause a wave in the discussion.

I remember hearing Tweety and Buchanan discussing this race last year, and they let their guard down long enough to actually articulate this point several times. They want enough controversy to be able to compete with Britney and the topic du jour whatever that may be, but it has to be hot enough to fill their air until something real happens to take it's place.