Media Upside And Downside

Mickey points out that "Rachel Sklar notes an insufficiently remarked on Obama advantage:  The press is very cautious about going against him."

Well, yes - this Harvard-backed study of media bias which came out last October discovered that almost all of the net leftward tilt in the media could be explained by the shoulder ride they were giving Obama (The press release is a Word file):

Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.

• Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical.

So can it get even better for Obama?  Sure - Every reporter will feel the desire to help make history and redeem three hundred years of American racism.  There may come a point this fall when the press and/or public laugh out loud and wonder why, in the midst of a war, electing a youngster with no apparent relevant experience will actually provide this suddenly-urgent redemptive moment, but that time is not now.

The other tidbit is that, even though they love him deep down, the press was shoveling dirt on McCain's grave last fall.  That implies that his coverage had a huge amount of room to improve.  I have no doubt some of that improvement has already happened, but the McCain tide is sure to keep rising in the press if he gives them any reason at all to keep hope alive after New Hampshire.

Interesting - Obama was not the Nutroots choice, and McCain had serious differences with the Rep base (opposed the Bush tax cuts, McCain-Feingold, immigration, Gitmo, enhanced interrogation, what did I miss?)  Well, I am prepared to embrace my powerlessness...

Comments

[clarice]

It'll just be a bigger challenge for Blumenthal.

[sbw]

An article suggesting revisions to journalism curricula brought to mind an analogy. The recommendations were as if aeronautical engineering and naval architecture dealt with fluid mechanics and structural materials without conveying that the purpose of each was to fly and to sail.

I'm putting the contents of my blog into a spreadsheet to reorder the essays into subjects, one of which is journalism.

From that I'll suggest changes to the journalism curricula and back it up. The purpose of journalism follows the division of labor suggested by Arostotle and Adam Smith, to be a surrogate for the reader, and first and foremost, to help the reader improve the mental map of reality by which one plans the future. Anything less is not journalism, and journalism is neither a profession nor a craft, but an accolade earned fresh each day.

[steveaz]

Tom, I'm with you. I think the media's ability to forge the "progressive" message has finally hit a snag.

Their favored narratives about race-relations, gender-relations, free-market policies, and "republicanism" that they have propagated since LBJ (and that taken in total assist in the election of Democrats) look worn and threadbare in 2008.

As long as the media could continue to collectively "proxy-up" for a united "progressive" movement then they could move like a pack, and the individual media brands felt comfortable in the melee.

But Obama's unexpected ascendency combines with a host of global perturbations to confuse this pack and the result is the mob is disintegrating into disparate patronage-groups.

For example, in 2008 the media who cater to Hispanic "immigrants' rights" groups are now disowning narratives that assist the Gay/Lesbian/Trans movement. Contrast that with 2004, when, according to global media, Soros, Mexico's"Retake the Southwest" Mechistas, UC Berkeley's GLBT's, and the Pelosi-Democrats were all one, big, happy family.

sbw, RE reforming Journalism curricula: the first change I'd order in any JOURN curriculum is the regular practice of humility. There is too much "me" in journalism right now.

Then, in order to put an end to the Chomsky-ite "manufacturing of dissent" that prevails currently, all journalists, old and new, should be forced to re-read George Orwell's essay on political rhetoric every five years - just like a scuba diver or a truck driver must refresh his vocational knowledge every two years or so.

Incidently, a dose of humility and a little more regard for his viewers' literacy might have saved Dan Rather a lot of embarrassment. That is, if he even cared.

[kim]

Yes, saz; add AGW from CO2 to your list; this 'progressive' icon is most dramatically cracking, and the new boss will be albedo. Mira La Nina.
================

[Daddy]

Since Bill was the first Black Prsident, does that mean that if either Hillary or Obama get elected, either one will be the second Black President? Sister Souljah minds want to know.

[sbw]

RE reforming Journalism curricula: the first change I'd order in any JOURN curriculum is the regular practice of humility.

Steveaz, you must have seen my notes. Humility is the insight from which all others follow.