Obamamania

by Maria Fisher
mf283705@ohio.edu

The topic of media bias in Obama’s favor is argued for by history, and I don’t feel like going into it, because I feel like it was obvious. And if by now you still don’t think the media was in the tank for him, I quite frankly have no interest trying to persuade you because you must not be interested in actual facts. But just as a re-cap here are some random tidbits to help you on your way:

1. According to this study of media coverage of both Obama and McCain after both conventions had finished, which was conducted by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, Obama received 35% positive coverage. McCain received 14% positive. Obama received 29% ‘negative’ coverage (still would like to see their definition of ‘negative’) and McCain received 57% negative.

2. This is a bit obscure, but still true; and quite telling. The media, only days after it was announced that Sarah Palin was John McCain’s running mate, gorged itself on old divorce records of people Palin had allegedly “fired” from her administration, and, finding nothing, subsequently published heresay that never came to any fruition. (FYI – she fired this guy not because of what you’re supposed to assume – that she was abusing power to ‘stick up’ for her friend – but because the “soon-to-be ex-wife” the guy was dating worked in their office as well. It was an inappropriate inter-office relationship.) In June, 2008, however, Joe Biden’s son and brother were accused of hedge fund fraud. Is that not news? If Sarah Palin firing someone is, this definitely is. The media decided it wasn’t. Do you remember hearing about it? Me either.

3. At the Republican National Convention, Jodie Evans, founder of the grassroots group “Code Pink” and her friend Medea Benjamin, who were each major contributors to the Obama campaign (they pledged about $50,000) stood up and began shrieking loudly at Governor Palin during her inaugural address to the nation. (Evans and Benjamin also happened to be wearing dresses they had spray-painted with the words “Palin is not a woman’s choice.” That is soooo 5 minutes ago.)

Is this news? I’d say so. Two major Obama contributors rushed the stage and publicly disrupted a speech, like 8-year-olds, at the RNC. Do you think this would have received media coverage if two McCain supporters did the same at the DNC? You can bet your life on it. But here’s who covered this story: The Post Register of Idaho Falls and the Twin Cities’ Pioneer Press. Out of every paper in the United States, only those two covered the incident. And no, I haven’t heard of those papers either.

And by the way – the women later claimed that they had been given illegal credentials to get into the convention by people in the media. We don’t know if that’s true, but it’s still believable; and that should at least tell us something.

All that aside, here’s an interesting video. Shepard Smith does not to deny that the media was slanted largely in Obama’s favor during the election season. His argument, however, is incredible: “We were merely reflecting the movement of the country.” This is the first time in HISTORY that the mainstream media has ever - in its own defense, no less – used that argument: “well, we were just interested in giving the most coverage to what the majority was saying.”

Whatever happened to “speaking truth to power” and “giving a voice to the little man”?? I suppose the media only cares about “voices of dissent” when that minority consists of people they agree with? I wonder what the brilliant Amy Goodman would have to say about that?! Very telling, Mr. Smith.