The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Media Notes

Study: Coverage of McCain Much More Negative Than That of Obama

By Howard Kurtz
Media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama, a new study says.

Fifty-seven percent of the print and broadcast stories about the Republican nominee were decidedly negative, the Project for Excellence in Journalism says in a report out today, while 14 percent were positive. The McCain campaign has repeatedly complained that the mainstream media are biased toward the senator from Illinois.

Obama's coverage was more balanced during the six-week period from Sept. 8 through last Thursday, with 36 percent of the stories clearly positive, 35 percent neutral or mixed and 29 percent negative.

McCain has struggled during this period and slipped in the polls, which is one of the reasons for the more negative assessments by the 48 news outlets studied by the Washington-based group. But the imbalance is striking nonetheless.

Sarah Palin's coverage ricocheted from quite positive to very negative to more mixed, the study says. Overall, 39 percent of the Palin stories were negative, 28 percent were positive and 33 percent neutral. Only 5 percent of the coverage was about her personal life. But McCain's running mate remains a media magnet, drawing three times as much coverage as the Democrats' VP nominee, Joe Biden. He was "nearly the invisible man," the group says, and his coverage was far more negative than Palin's. That may be because Biden tends to make news primarily when he commits gaffes.

The project says McCain's coverage started out positive after the GOP convention but nosedived with his frequently changing reaction to the financial crisis. McCain's character attacks against Obama hurt the Democrat but yielded even more negative coverage for the senator from Arizona.

Obama's coverage since the conventions represents a fall to earth from the early primaries of 2008, when the project found that, horse-race stories aside, positive narratives about Obama were twice as frequent as negative ones, 69 percent to 31 percent.

The Wall Street meltdown appears to have been a turning point for both candidates. Thirty-four percent of the stories about Obama's reaction to the crisis were positive, while 18 percent were negative. McCain's coverage, though, went into a free fall after he initially declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." By the following week, more than half the stories about McCain were negative and only 11 percent positive, just as Obama's coverage was turning positive by a margin of more than 5 to 1.

The most negative element of the Palin coverage involved scrutiny of her record as Alaska governor, with 64 percent of the stories carrying a negative tone and just 7 percent positive. The coverage of her interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson was a wash, but stories about her subsequent sitdown with CBS's Katie Couric were 57 percent negative and 14 percent positive.

While some will seize on these findings as evidence that the media are pro-Obama, the study says they actually contain "a strong suggestion that winning in politics begets winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls ... Obama's numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago, and McCain's numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore."

Posted at 2:05 PM ET on Oct 22, 2008  | Category:  Media Notes
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Obama: Biden Prone to 'Rhetorical Flourishes' | Next: Obama Talks to Joe the Plumber -- and About Him


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



No one should be surprised by this study! It is a theory that many, many people have that the press are propelling Obama, for the simple reason that they want to write the headline story about the first black American president.

The media have pushed Obama along like a bag of hot air - or - a stuffed shirt. There are no in-depth stories about Obama. There is no follow-up of his flip-flopping, or monstrous gaffes. . . the media want to tell us the same thing that Obama is alluding to and that is the sky is going to open and angels will fly down!

The truth is - OBAMA crafted a trail of lies and deception and with the help of Axlerod he plans to buy the President's job. . without the qualifications to hold a real job . . . plain and simple.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | October 23, 2008 9:58 PM

We are not reading about Obama's failure to ever produce his ORIGINAL birth certificate. He has not even produced a copy of his ORIGINAL birth certificate. Americans are voting for a person and they don't even know if he is the person he says he is!

"Hawaii Five 0" is on the trail of Obama right now. Have any of you read about a news conference in Hawaii today about Obama? During the news conference, it was stated that after a long international investigation, it was discovered that Obama is really the son of Frank Marshall Davis!

As Ricky Ricardo used to tell Lucy, "You gotta lot 'splaining to do!" Obama has a lot of explaining to do to the American people over this one! Not only about this one but about many other things he has hidden in his closet.

Posted by: sonnychiba72 | October 23, 2008 9:19 PM

Last night MSNBC's political page showed 11 headlines................7 of them were negative McCain/Pallin stories...........so much for being balanced, fair and impartial with the reporting???

Posted by: thgirbla | October 23, 2008 8:40 PM

It seems odd that Pew would begin their study since the Republican convention, and not at the start of the campaign. Starting a scientific study midstream at an arbitrary date raises questions about the methodology and motives of those conducting a study. It's not as if the data isn't available to study the media coverage of the campaign from the beginning, so why Pew would leave themselves open for such criticism is beyond me. The question also needs to be asked why Pew felt compelled to release this study two weeks before the election. Again, if the data of the study is what Pew is primarily interested in, then it seems odd that they wouldn't conduct the study from start to finish of the campaign.

Maybe the results would be the same, but it's doubtful. If memory serves me right, it seems that there was a time when the media narrative was entirely focused on how everything was somehow a problem for Barack Obama. I also recall that the media coverage overwhelmingly focused on Obama and Hillary Clinton, and most of that coverage was not fuzzy feel-good stories. At the same time, Republicans were largely ignored or given a pass from media scrutiny.

It should also be considered that prior to the Republican convention, most of the media coverage of John McCain never went beyond the maverick narrative. When there wasn't much beyond McCain's POW status to claim his maverickness, the media spin of his legend became obvious.

Also, Sarah Palin was a virtual unknown, and it didn't help matters when the campaign spin about Palin didn't match with reality. Everything the campaign said about Palin was a misrepresentation. They presented her as someone she is not, so it was predictable that stories unmasking her would come across as negative as they revealed that the spin was a lie.

If the media didn't focus more on Barack Obama following the convention, perhaps it could be that the media worked every possible angle of his being a celebrity and an elitist, and everyone in Obama's entire life history had been throughly scrutinized throughout the primary. Such stories had become old news following the conventions.


Posted by: kaneblues | October 23, 2008 8:18 PM

jimcummings,

You are disturbed. I just checked the story on the girl who was robbed and mutilated by an Obama fanatic.

As for proof..., if you'd stop making stuff up to promote your anointed One, you might have time to look at the overwhelming evidence showing 1) Obama's complicity in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle; 2) Obama's ties to Ayers; 3) Obama's curious refusal to make available his personal information (Occidental College records, Columbia Univ. records, Harvard Law admission records, and his mysteriously funded international travels as a poor undergraduate); and 4) Obama's verifiable Leftist voting record. Do your own homework. The facts are available for all to see, even if the media refuses to report on 'em.


Posted by: Thrasybulos | October 23, 2008 8:07 PM

I hope the story is not true - AP is reporting it as true, but to be honest, I saw a picture of the woman, and the B looks like it was self carved - too perfect - if the B was carved by the assailant, then the loops would point towards her nose, but the pic shows the loops pointing the opposite direction - as if she did it...I hope it's a fraud...if it is, lock her up

Posted by: ihatethepost1 | October 23, 2008 7:56 PM

Thrasybulos: all bluster, but no proof.

Or, as they say in my neck of the woods, all hat and not cattle.

Posted by: jimcummings | October 23, 2008 7:28 PM

"McCain supporter (20 year old woman) was just today beaten and robbed. When the thug found out from a bumper sticker on her car that she was a McCain supporter, this black assailant assaulted her with a knife and barved a "B" into her face."


Ahhh . . . I don't think so. That story has already been proven false. It's just another in a long string of sad lies told by the dishonorable John McCain and his campaign.

Posted by: jimcummings | October 23, 2008 7:22 PM

Add one more to my previous list:

McCain supporter (20 year old woman) was just today beaten and robbed. When the thug found out from a bumper sticker on her car that she was a McCain supporter, this black assailant assaulted her with a knife and barved a "B" into her face.

Expect more of the same from Obama's stormtroopers.

Posted by: ihatethepost1 | October 23, 2008 6:44 PM

Rant, rant, rant... That's all you Obamaniacs seem to be capable of doing.

Do you know what Fascism is? It's SOCIALISM. Socialism is a government wherein the STATE OWNS THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION (Health care, energy, media channels, education, etc.). Look it up! Fascism (and Nazism) is socialism based on national/ethnic/racial identity. Sounds more like a terrifying union between Barack Obama's voting record and Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Afro-centric ideology.

I don't even want to take the time to refute your nonsensical claims. I would encourage everyone who finds your silly ranting even slightly persuasive to do a little bit of research to inform themselves on the Bush/bin Laden family connections. Condi? What are you talking about?

Look, any semi-literate nitwit can see that the current economic problems stem from Democrat duplicity. Barny Frank, Chris Dodd, and Franklin Reins (e.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32845-2005Apr6.html) in particular but not exclusively. The Economy was growing steadily for 7 of 8 Bush years, and this despite 9/11, a two front war, and two major hurricanes. What more can you want? It's Democrat interventionism, and quid pro quo, as well as utterly inept management of the public trust over the bast two years that has broken our economy. While Bush and McCain both urged reform, the Democrats refused, calling such attempts a virtual "ly-nching" of Reins (Barney Frank's words). Now you, following that kook Pelosi try to pin it on the present administration. Puhleeeez! Do your homework, you tool!

Posted by: Thrasybulos | October 23, 2008 6:07 PM

Rant, rant, rant... That's all you Obamaniacs seem to capable of doing.

Do you know what Fascism is? It's SOCIALISM. Socialism is a government wherein the STATE OWNS THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION (Health care, energy, media channels, education, etc.). Look it up! Fascism (and Nazism) is socialism based on national/ethnic/racial identity. Sounds more like a terrifying union between Barack Obama's voting record and Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Afro-centric ideology.

I don't even want to take the time to refute your nonsensical claims. I would encourage everyone who finds your silly ranting even slightly persuasive to do a little bit of research to inform themselves on the Bush/bin Laden family connections. Condi? What are you talking about?

Look, any semi-literate nitwit can see that the current economic problems stem from Democrat duplicity. Barny Frank, Chris Dodd, and Franklin Reins (e.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32845-2005Apr6.html) in particular but not exclusively. The Economy was growing steadily for 7 of 8 Bush years, and this despite 9/11, a two front war, and two major hurricanes. What more can you want? It's Democrat interventionism, and quid pro quo, as well as utterly inept management of the public trust over the bast two years that has broken our economy. While Bush and McCain both urged reform, the Democrats refused, calling such attempts a virtual "ly-nching" of Reins (Barney Frank's words). Now you, following that kook Pelosi try to pin it on the present administration. Puhleeeez! Do your homework, you tool!

Posted by: Thrasybulos | October 23, 2008 6:07 PM

Rant, rant, rant... That's all you Obamaniacs seem to be capable of doing.

Do you know what Fascism is? It's SOCIALISM. Socialism is a government wherein the STATE OWNS THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION (Health care, energy, media channels, education, etc.). Look it up! Fascism (and Nazism) is socialism based on national/ethnic/racial identity. Sounds more like a terrifying union between Barack Obama's voting record and Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Afro-centric ideology.

I don't even want to take the time to refute your nonsensical claims. I would encourage everyone who finds your silly ranting even slightly persuasive to do a little bit of research to inform themselves on the Bush/bin Laden family connections. Condi? What are you talking about?

Look, any semi-literate nitwit can see that the current economic problems stem from Democrat duplicity. Barny Frank, Chris Dodd, and Franklin Reins (e.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32845-2005Apr6.html) in particular but not exclusively. The Economy was growing steadily for 7 of 8 Bush years, and this despite 9/11, a two front war, and two major hurricanes. What more can you want? It's Democrat interventionism, and quid pro quo, as well as utterly inept management of the public trust over the bast two years that has broken our economy. While Bush and McCain both urged reform, the Democrats refused, calling such attempts a virtual "ly-nching" of Reins (Barney Frank's words). Now you, following that kook Pelosi try to pin it on the present administration. Puhleeeez! Do your homework, you tool!

Posted by: Thrasybulos | October 23, 2008 6:07 PM

Rant, rant, rant... That's all you Obamaniacs seem to capable of doing.

Do you know what Fascism is? It's SOCIALISM. Socialism is a government wherein the STATE OWNS THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION (Health care, energy, media channels, education, etc.). Look it up! Fascism (and Nazism) is socialism based on national/ethnic/racial identity. Sounds more like a terrifying union between Barack Obama's voting record and Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Afro-centric ideology.

I don't even want to take the time to refute your nonsensical claims. I would encourage everyone who finds your silly ranting even slightly persuasive to do a little bit of research to inform themselves on the Bush/bin Laden family connections. Condi? What are you talking about?

Look, any semi-literate nitwit can see that the current economic problems stem from Democrat duplicity. Barny Frank, Chris Dodd, and Franklin Reins (e.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32845-2005Apr6.html) in particular but not exclusively. The Economy was growing steadily for 7 of 8 Bush years, and this despite 9/11, a two front war, and two major hurricanes. What more can you want? It's Democrat interventionism, and quid pro quo, as well as utterly inept management of the public trust over the bast two years that has broken our economy. While Bush and McCain both urged reform, the Democrats refused, calling such attempts a virtual "ly-nching" of Reins (Barney Frank's words). Now you, following that kook Pelosi try to pin it on the present administration. Puhleeeez! Do your homework, you tool!

Posted by: Thrasybulos | October 23, 2008 6:07 PM

I posted about the incident below for several weeks (actually off and on for 4 years) - and NOT ONE single one of the bashers (LIBS/LEFTISTS, that is you) who are ALL over the place yelling about the "abuse or lies" on the right - has had ANY comment or any thing even CLOSE to comparing....

In 2004 I asked about a MISLEADING ballot (meant to throw out Republican votes!) http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/10/008214.php
As a result I was initially REFUSED the right to vote, later ordered to SHOW ID (which none of the ILLEGAL ACORN VOTERS ever have to show). They FINALLY "LET" me vote with two ARMED GUARDS WATCHING ME VOTE.

When I went to leave one of the BOE guards SHOVED me down the stairs - head first. When I hobbled off to the elevators to get away, I was then attacked/assaulted/Pummeled again by TWO BOE armed guards. I was dragged off to jail - and while *I* was the one covered in BRUISES...I was in jail for 3 days - that put Abu Ghraib to shame.

Trial started in front of VERY PARTISAN judge - who told my atty if I didn't plead guilty she'd give me that max 6 mo in jail. She made us challenge a potential juror who was a LIFELONG friend of one of the guards who BEAT me - and he had an ASSAULT record! Procesutor told my Atty - in front of me - that they "have to convict her of SOMETHING, otherwise she had ONE MOTHER OF A LAWSUIT against us." (city/county/state)

We got BOE records and found about 5 of the jurors registered for the first time for that election. And FOUR jurors were registered 2 to 4 times EACH !!!!

PLEASE address how it is ACCEPTABLE to beat the crap out of people who disagree with SOCIALISM and BIGOTRY? Come on LIBS none you ever have the nerve to even address this VIOLENCE and ABUSE and FRAUD –

ALL of you DEMS – show me ONE case where a R pummeled a D


Posted by: cakask | October 23, 2008 5:49 PM

When you consider the negative campaign the Maverick and The Moose Knuckle are waging you can bet the liberal media is going to give them negative coverage.

You fascists freaks had NO PROBLEM with Bush and Condi doing business with the Bin Ladens with the Carlyle Group and all you can come up with on Obama is association with some dried-up peacenik?

Face it you America haters - YOUR PARTY wrecked this country beyond recognition and now you want to give the keys to some Exxon-Appeasing MILF and a pizzed-off POW with an ax to grind.

Smells like dead elephants to me!!!

I'll take "socialism" over the FASCISM we have endured these past 8 years.

Posted by: RustyTrombone | October 23, 2008 5:03 PM

Cont:
The Question we have to ask about this is how, Barack Obama, having never previously held any serious position, was appointed Chairman of an education reform board, on which two University Presidents also served?

In a similar vein, how was Obama up for tenure at University of Chicago Law School (among America's most prestigious) having never published a word in a peer review journal. This just doesn't happen in academia. How was he similarly elected President of the Harvard Law Review (not the first African American, mind you? that honor goes to Charles Hamilton Huston back in the 1920s) , again without ever having published an article (I don't mean his highly edited student exercise, but a real professional paper with his name as the paper's author) in any law review anywhere, when that distinction is always--always has been-- reserved for especially prolific and brilliant student writers?

How did he get into Harvard? Why won't he release his Occidental College records, or his Columbia records, or disclose how he was funded for travel between his undergrad experiences? Who wrote his letters of rec? We don't need to know what was said (that's rightly confidential), but who his recommenders were should be disclosed. Who did Obama study with at Columbia? Edward Said (anti-Israel, anti-American Prof)? Did he meet Bill Ayers, who was studying at Bank Street College just across the street from Columbia College? What is the relation between Ayers, Rashid Khalidi (a Said disciple, and now Edward Said Professor of Middle East Studies at Columbia Univ.), and Barack Obama, all of whom lived together -- at the same time -- in an affluent Chicago neighborhood? What of Obama's first book, did Ayers help write it, as recent literary comparison shows is likely the case? Ayers did help Khalidi on his book. Google Jack Cashill (Professor of American Studies at Purdue University) for a scholarly analysis of Obama's prose in Dreams of my Father and its highly suspect similarity to Ayers' very fluid and natural writing style, evidenced in all of his books; while in Obama's publicly available writings such mellifluous style appears absent, excepting his first book.

The CAC connection is but one of many links (and this doesn't exhaust the list) between Obama and Bill Ayers. And to point out that Annenberg was a Republican is to skirt the issue at best. And at bottom, it is merely a ploy to deceive the electorate. Obama is lying his way into the White House, and journalists are turning a blind eye; or worse, they're complicit in the deception

Posted by: Thrasybulos | October 23, 2008 4:55 PM

Let's get something clear here about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), the charitable foundation, one the board of which, Barack Obama and William Ayers served jointly. It was indeed funded by the media magnate Walter Annenberg, who was in fact an ambassador under Nixon and Regan, and was a conservative in the Regan mould. There were other Republicans serving on the board as well. That said, the CAC was highjacked by Leftist leaders and abused the trust of Annenberg's generosity. The Republicans who served had far, far, far less influence than both Obama and Ayers, both of whom were key policy makers for the 5 million dollar endowment. They squandered the money on frivolous identity politics such as Afro-centric school curriculum, diverting moneys away from useful areas where the dollars might have been well spent. The result was NO IMPROVEMENT what so ever in the educations of the children the money intended to help. Walter Annenberg was in his late 80s when the CAC was created in 1995, and he died at age 94 in 2002 less than a year after the CAC came to an ignominious end. Obama and Ayers sought to "reform" education in a manifestly Leftist/socialist/ethnocentric mode. Many -- though not all -- of the Republicans on the board (who can account for every kind of opportunistic political creature?), Walter Annenberg especially would have been appalled at the result of the CAC.

The Question we have to ask about this is how, Barack Obama, having never previously held any serious position, was appointed Chairman of an education reform board, on which two University Presidents also served?

The CAC connection is but one of many links (and this doesn't exhaust the list) between Obama and Bill Ayers. And to point out that Annenberg was a Republican is to skirt the issue at best. And at bottom, it is merely a ploy to deceive the electorate. Obama is lying his way into the White House, and journalists are turning a blind eye; or worse, they're complicit in the deception.

Posted by: Thrasybulos | October 23, 2008 4:52 PM

Anyone that buys everything that the mainstream press shovels at this point is a bone deep fool. Do your own homework people. If you hear or read something nasty about either candidate, get up off your duff and look it up on google-educate yourselves.

Posted by: thebink | October 23, 2008 4:02 PM

I really do hope Americans win every seat in every election this november... but, in the event not, and the dems get all despotic and let them eat cake and worse- like mugabe - or if we do win, and the insaniacs go all riotous- the Americans will not fail to remember just how complicit in the situation the 'pretend journalists' are. We will see them "just reporting" on the mess they singlehandedly created, and the Americans will say- no, not so fast guilty wretch!! Hands up!......
(got an imagination? fill it in from here) but, like I said- I sure hope the people have not been fooled by all the lies and distortions and twisting of truths, and all the Americans on the ballots win!!

Posted by: starvingactor | October 23, 2008 4:00 PM

In Communist China & Russia the media acts in this exact way....Its your actions that should be judged, not the lies or denials that will be told in an attempt to refute this article. Or better yet, just absolute silence - like they have been entirely on 1/2 of the presidential candidates.

Posted by: Sari2 | October 23, 2008 3:56 PM

I feel many of the questions that are being asked of Obama need to be answered. The facts are he lied about his
Ayers relationship. He has purchased property from a criminal for a greatly discounted price. That he just happened to help get housing contracts. He sat in a church and I use that term very loosely that preached hate for america and the white race. I attended all black churches for years. And they were nothing like this. He has a great deal of money that is coming from overseas. But won't publish there names like McCain has even under 200 dollars. He still hasn't provided a real birth certificate. So he may not even be a legally able to be president. I have a real problem with this one. Why can't he supply this. I got mine in Texas from ILL. in 4 days with an appastyle which makes it legal in other countries. He dienies having Franklin Riegns as part of his advisory team. He won't supply his college records. He lied about public financing for his run for president. The list goes on and on. If McCain or Palin had half this list the media would have destroyed them with ink. The worst they could come up with is Palin should have more sternly told her husband not to make an issue about a policeman that tazered a 11 or 12 year old was caught drinking in a patrol car, or how she is dressed please give me a brake. Every question that has been brought up about Obama is baised on information the media should have demanded of Obama but refused to. So now they blaim McCain for going negitive. The truth is the media will fabricate a story about McCain and Palin just like the one about her being stupid a lier incompitent etc. Again a big misrepresentation of the facts. The person they said they quoted was on live tv today and provided quoted exactly what he said which had a completely different meaning. McCain would love to run a positive election but the media refuses to do there job and vet Obama with the same scrutiny as McCain or Palin. These are the facts. Obama says he has a more postitve campaign. The media does his negitive work for him. Plus if you look at the dollars he has spent on negitive adds it is more them McCain has spent in total. It does not bother me that others have a different oppinion then me. They have a constitutional right to have this. What does bother me is they don't even want to know the truth and are voting for a person they have no understanding what they will do or what there past record shows. They bring up the Keating 5 and McCain said yes he made mistake in Judgement then and has never denied it. Obama will not admit or even discuss any of these questions. I can deal with a person who makes mistakes and admits them but to trust somebody that refuses to be honest and open about who he is. Please wake up before you put a person in office that will undermine what so many have died to give us. FREEDOM. Socialism destroyed Russia and now we are headed down the same path. Putin is laughing at us.

Posted by: larrymarbs | October 23, 2008 3:39 PM

I wonder if the Washington Post would have the guts to run the story by DEMOCRAT Orson Scott Card on journalistic integrity with regards to these two candidates. The link is at Drudge Report under 'last honest reporter' or a version is available directly here.http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
It should be about reporting facts not swaying the vote. I am tired of being insulted by most media outlets.

Posted by: tim77 | October 23, 2008 3:07 PM

Lordy, I had french onion soup last night and today I have an absolutely RIGHTEOUS wind at my back. For some reason, every time I think of Obama and his minions, the wind really starts to kick up, both in strength and in temperature.. There must be some correlation.

Posted by: fraccle | October 23, 2008 2:53 PM

TO ELLINORAINE PART 2: I am astonished anyone wouldn't care about the Obama/Ayers relationship which provides a glimpse into who Obama really is and what it says about his ideological temperment being cultivated by an admitted Marxist radical like Ayers, but as a voter you shouldn't be so blind, undiscerning and careless as that in making your voting judgments. I bet you would care if McCain were friends with an abortion clinic bomber--and you'd be right to care.

Also, you claim the media is justified coming after McCain for his ads, but what of Obama's really ugly ads like attacking McCain for his inability to use a computer, which isn't because he's "dumb" or "old," but because his war injuries prevent him from holding his arms in the proper position to use a keyboard. In fact he does use a computer, but with an aides's help or his wife's. Where was the media, or you, to call Obama on that really low brow ad?

And you claim the media has been "soft" on Palin after the kind of invective from various media commentators? Here are just a few: "Republican blow-up doll," "idiot," "Christian Stepford wife," "Jesus freak," "Caribou Barbie," "a dope," "a fatal cancer to the Republican Party," "liar," "a national disgrace" and "her pretense that she is a woman."

And the "bipartisan" commission you speak of wasn't really "bipartisan" and they refused to endorse their own findings, findings that had no basis in law which is why the media was embarrassed to even report it. Palin fired NO ONE. She moved her public safety officer to a different position with no change in pay or power. He chose to quit. And Palin inquiring about a rogue cop who threatened her father with death, who tasered her 10 year old nephew and drank while driving is an "abuse of power?" Sorry, but this was a case of the public safety commissioner, a police union stooge, playing the "Good old boys" protection game. If anything, Palin should have fired him for not doing his job in canning a thuggish, out of control police officer. Didn't you guys use to complain about abusive cops, esp. when Rudy Guiliani was mayor of New York City?

Posted by: malex130 | October 23, 2008 2:42 PM

TO ELLINORAINE: You call McCain's ads false but provide no specifics. I can only conclude you mean the Ayers ads since you proceed to talk about Ayers.

Obama WAS friends with William Ayers, the unrepentent terrorist, (and probably will be again) and it is Obama's campaign that has continually had to revisit their claims about the relationship first saying merely that they were neighbors, then admitting it was a much more involved relationship. When the New York Times and CNN reported the Obama/Ayers friendship was more than Obama is admitting, the campaign changed its spin. They were also caught lying when they first claimed Obama had not written a blurb for Ayers's book.

And you are not accurate saying Ayers' education charity was run by a Reagan Republican. The Annaberg Foundation distributed money to education charities that applied, which Ayers' group was one of many of. They in no way ran it. William Ayers did. And he appointed Obama to chair 2 of these boards, the stated goals of which were to radicalize students with far left wing politics. You are sucking down the Obama spin/lies claiming Annenberg's foundation did anything other than cut them a check without knowing what they were really about--as they cut checks for thousands of other charities.

(More in my next post)

Posted by: malex130 | October 23, 2008 2:39 PM

TO HANS: You say Palin is popular because of the annual checks Alaska residents get. They've been getting those for decades, so how does that benefit her, esp. when the last governor was highly unpopular?

And by your logic, are the "refundable tax credits" which are actually going to be little more than government checks to people who pay no taxes, that's what the "refundable" part means, how Obama has maintained his popularity? Has he bought this election with his loads of campaign cash and promises of government largess for all but the people who actually take the biggest risk and pay the most taxes?

Posted by: malex130 | October 23, 2008 2:37 PM

Sarah Palin ~ “Mayor” of Alaska…

Ok, let’s put Sarah Palin’s “governing” of Alaska in perspective …
Alaska’s population is 670,000 people… ( Much less than many lower 48 cities )

Her “popularity” as Governor comes from people who:

Never experience traffic jams..

Alaskans are awarded $2000 per year ( Oil revenue ) for just being residents of Alaska…

It’s legal in Alaska to own up to an ounce of Marijuana, for “personal use” which makes a certain portion of the population very happy…

I happen to live in Seattle, a town with a population of 570,000 – If the Mayor of Seattle were able to give each and every Seattleite $2000 per year – he/she would be mayor for life!

Posted by: hansanderson | October 23, 2008 2:27 PM

Check out a funny "Nobama" parody song at: www.myspace.com/rogerweber

Posted by: Roger9 | October 23, 2008 2:26 PM

Obama is winning the game here, that's the issue. McCain began running unfair and completely false ads, Obama jumped on that and pushed this meme to the MSM. They picked up on it.

The reason why they get negative coverage is because their campaign has become so very negative.

As for Ayers, there is nothing there. Ayers was on the board of a non profit run by a Regan Republican! Please, it's a dead end. The media knows they would come out looking like idiots covering this for anything but it is, a smear campaign.

And Palin has gotten it easy from the media, Troopergate? Not much as a whisper when the bi-partisan group found that she had indeed abused her power as Governor.

Posted by: ellinorianne | October 23, 2008 1:41 PM

The sad and scary part is that Americans as a whole are so short of critical thinking skills that they've largely swallowed the media's orders to vote for Obama.

Posted by: MarkCarlton | October 23, 2008 1:15 PM

Reminds me of a joke from years ago on the Daily Show, when Republicans were complaining that the media coverage of the Iraq War, etc., was "biased" against Bush and Republican policies.

Stephen Colbert acknowledged the problem and rhetorically asked "Yes Jon, but what can you do when the facts are biased?"

Posted by: jonstewart1 | October 23, 2008 1:13 PM

Fact-checker claims that adding "just" to the Obama quote distorted the meaning. Funny, I heard the quote and the "just" is necessary to convey the TONE of Obama's comment. Sarcasm doesn't translate well to print.

Posted by: RobbyS | October 23, 2008 1:12 PM

To quote Mgochs:

Can you believe that with all that the Community Organizer, with the help of the Democratic party, did to clean up Chicago, improve education and decrease crime, there are STILL people who do not want him in charge of this country? I know, it is hard to believe isn't it? The One has accomplished nothing in his life but self promotion but you would think based upon the stories in the press that his accomplishments are legendary.

Thought that bore repeating. kudos, bro.

Posted by: RobbyS | October 23, 2008 1:08 PM

adamrussell1 wrote:

"I find this ironic. After so many years of saying that the high rates of black arrests are not due to bias but that blacks commit more crimes, now here are the republicans complaining of bias against McCain. Could the explanation be that there are more negative stories about McCain because there are more negative things to report about McCain?"

Say what??? How can you seriously draw a logical connection between these two examples? Is there no possible story in the Ayers connection? Does the ACORN fraud not deserve coverage day and night? Aren't Obama's associations with Franklin Raines and Fannie - not to mention the Dem (Frank, Dodd, Schumer, etal) involvement in this crisis - newsworthy? Can you sit there with a straight face and say that if McCain and Ayers had a friendship, this would NEVER have seen the light of day in the MSM?


Please...peddle that garbage elsewhere

Posted by: ihatethepost1 | October 23, 2008 1:07 PM

Amazing: Biden's old brain makes him say stupid things about foreign challenges to "President"Obama, and the press jumps on a story about Palin's wardrobe. Would love to see ole Joe Brainscans.

Posted by: RobbyS | October 23, 2008 1:04 PM

Can you believe that with all that the Community Organizer, with the help of the Democratic party, did to clean up Chicago, improve education and decrease crime, there are STILL people who do not want him in charge of this country? I know, it is hard to believe isn't it? The One has accomplished nothing in his life but self promotion but you would think based upon the stories in the press that his accomplishments are legendary.

Posted by: mgochs | October 23, 2008 12:58 PM

Nostradamus wrote in one of his verses:..."BEWARE OF THE COMING OF THE ANTI-CHRIST:...he will be of Muslim faith...HMMMMM

Posted by: baxter2030 | October 23, 2008 12:53 PM

why does the liberal media cover obama/biden mistakes as if they were slips or misquoted. When obama tell slick Goerge Stephanopolis that his "Muslim' faith is/ good old Geo. says you mean Christian, end of story, end of investigative follow-up question. Or when Biden says that 'Mark my words it will happen , why doesn't some unbias newspaper followup with a in-dept inquiry? I'll tell you why, the MSM is out to influence this election for their agenda. Once the fairness doctrine is applied to the airways then the only news outlet will be the bias papers and magazine . This paper has a hard time even vetting their reporters much less the candidates

Posted by: retsgtsmg | October 23, 2008 12:51 PM

The coverage is only a problem if it’s your ox that’s being gored. Republicans are the biggest crybabies. If you don’t like the coverage then don’t watch or read it. Get your own bias news outlet. Oh, that’s right you already have one Fox News. I watch “Fox and Friends” almost every morning-because I’m a glutton punishment. And every morning the BS gets so thick I’m forced to turn the channel. The last paragraph of the article contains all you need to know about coverage:
“… [W]inning in politics begets winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls ... Obama's numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago, and McCain's numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore."

Samm Carr
Ft worth, Tx

Posted by: sammcarr | October 23, 2008 12:45 PM

This paper is bias towards the Messiah as is the STL Post-Dispatch. The printed news is dictated by advistements revenue generated and the bulk of ads are for items that are becoming more of a luxury. Society in general is being lampooned by the very people they wish to immulate, the elite of the elitists, the entertainment industry and wanna-bes. Hit them where they hurt, their purse strings boycott all until they fold or realize that without the middle class there is NO CLASS

Posted by: retsgtsmg | October 23, 2008 12:40 PM

I find this fascinating, but for a different reason. If the majority of the people were behind Comrade Obama, why is it that the rabid, radical, Marxist media is going bankrupt? Nobody watches NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN or PBS. The print media, including this "august" publication, is a joke. The New York Times is about to close its doors (my parrot will be disappointed!) Talk about hate crimes - fraud, libel, smears, character assasinations, and stark raving lunacy! The tripe that is being passed off as journalism, today, would be rewarded with a bullet to the head in places like Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea, the favorite countries of the media. Eversince he was a teenager, Obama has only associated with Communists, racists, Marxists, terrorists, anarchists, hippies, and the general scum of the earth, intent on the destruction of this country. Meanwhile, the media continues to run cover for him, promote his lies, and squash anyone who dares to question him. If we continue down this road, we may be left with the only choice available to our forefathers in 1776!

Posted by: Gator_Rick | October 23, 2008 12:19 PM

ihatethepost1 - another one for your list:
In 2004 I asked about a MISLEADING ballot (meant to throw out Republican votes!) http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/10/008214.php
As a result I was initially REFUSED the right to vote, later ordered to SHOW ID (which none of the ILLEGAL ACORN VOTERS ever have to show). They FINALLY "LET" me vote with two ARMED GUARDS WATCHING ME VOTE.

When I went to leave one of the BOE guards SHOVED me down the stairs - head first. When I hobbled off to the elevators to get away, I was then attacked/assaulted/Pummeled again by TWO BOE armed guards. I was dragged off to jail - and while *I* was the one covered in BRUISES...I was in jail for 3 days - that put Abu Ghraib to shame.

Trial started in front of VERY PARTISAN judge - who told my atty if I didn't plead guilty she'd give me that max 6 mo in jail. She made us challenge a potential juror who was a LIFELONG friend of one of the guards who BEAT me - and he had an ASSAULT record! Procesutor told my Atty - in front of me - that they "have to convict her of SOMETHING, otherwise she had ONE MOTHER OF A LAWSUIT against us." (city/county/state)

We got BOE records and found about 5 of the jurors registered for the first time for that election. And FOUR jurors were registered 2 to 4 times EACH !!!!

PLEASE address how it is ACCEPTABLE to beat the crap out of people who disagree with SOCIALISM and BIGOTRY? Come on LIBS none you ever have the nerve to even address this VIOLENCE and ABUSE and FRAUD – ALL on the DEMS – show me ONE case where a R pummeled a D

Posted by: cakask | October 23, 2008 11:59 AM

I find this ironic. After so many years of saying that the high rates of black arrests are not due to bias but that blacks commit more crimes, now here are the republicans complaining of bias against McCain. Could the explanation be that there are more negative stories about McCain because there are more negative things to report about McCain?

Posted by: adamrussell1 | October 23, 2008 11:58 AM

This tory was almost not owrth writting as we already know that the media is about as left biased as it can get, is there anybody with a brain that does not know this? If so, then read the article. obama has gotten this nation of idiots so brain-washed that they don't even know it. The damage and horror that this fool will cause to this nation is unimaginable.

Posted by: stodolaj1 | October 23, 2008 11:56 AM

of course the media is bias towards nobama and negative towards MCCAin. I hope the media goes to you know where! Obama, is a socialists and cannot be trusted. He is managed by over 300 advisors. They are molding him towards their world view. In fact I believe they are using him, because they feel he is the only one, because of his smooth talk, can sway the American peopl. It was said, that America would be brought down to her knees, not by Russia, but by the media within, because they are the ones who feel, they make the news, they just don't report it. They Make it! especially CNN, who is such a dirty station, that they spin the new like a top. But I feel the American people are smarter then they, The American people are hard to sway. Because America is the land of the Free and the Brave. not just for some politicians, who want to have their way.

Posted by: cecimo1 | October 23, 2008 11:39 AM

The study only measures the time when McCain clearly sucked the worse, which skews the findings and you can't measure tone with a dipstick, so it's a pretty arbitrary value. But if McCain wanted more positive coverage he could have run a campaign that didn't roll around in the mud.

Posted by: nitpicker | October 23, 2008 11:29 AM

- Acorn volunteers strong arming workers to meet registration quotas, forcing them to register the dead and the make believe
- Woman in New York attacked for displaying McCains by Obama supporter
- RNC manager in North Carolina gets his house shot up for his McCain displays
- Sarah Palin's personal life torn asunder by a savage media under the thumb of Obama
-Joe the Plumber's personal life exposed for simply asking Der Fuhrer the wrong question
- a 12 year old girl in Florida is threatened/called out as a racist for wearing a McCain shirt to school
- celebrities bashing Republicans day and night on television and in print, calling them idiots, scary, inarticulate, terrorists
- a McCain supporter's car is vandalized with the words "KKK" - especially rich, since Dems have elected a Grand Wizard of the KKK in the Senate for decades


...and McCain is running a negative campaign? Obama has not gone out of his way to reign in his stormtroopers..he is liable for their behavior if he does nothing to reign them in. He has not desire to reign them in. he turns a blind eye and stays above the fray, all while his ground troops destroy the opposition.

All Hail the Fuhrer Obama!!

Posted by: ihatethepost1 | October 23, 2008 11:16 AM

Why's anyone surprised, that when McCain and Palin run a negative campaign... they get negative press?

These two candidates - Obama and McCain - aren't equal and should not be treated as such.

Posted by: wolfi101 | October 23, 2008 11:02 AM

You are right on target, ihatethepost! The economy is the Democratic Party's Reichstag Fire, too.
The National Socialist Party in Germany burned the Reichstag in 1933 and blamed it on the Communists. The Democrats, under Clinton, began the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco and they are blaming it on the Republicans. Alan Greenspan warned them years ago about the consequence. The Democrats in Congress blocked all regulations.

Americans should be angry for being lied to. A snow job by the liberal media and Obama has blinded many Americans.

Obama has benefited from Fannie Mae. Then, there is the illegal donations from foreigners. All this is going to come back to haunt Obama and it is coming soon. His crisis will be before November 4 not after his fantasised presidency.

Posted by: sonnychiba72 | October 23, 2008 10:33 AM

ALL THESE COMPARISONS BETWEEN MCCAIN AND BUSH-HOW ABOUT A BLOG ON-IS OBAMA THE 2ND COMING OF CARTER? (when you include Ebayers, Obama's 2% of small businesses make over 250k comment is valid - when you consider small businesses that EMPLOY PEOPLE it is far OFF! So, get your resume in order!)

Ralph Reilan- IBD Today-

Obama gets to his reassuring 98% figure by lumping firms with no employees, the majority of small businesses, with small businesses that have 50 or 100 employees. Census data show that 79% of all American companies, counting both large and small firms, have no employees.

Similarly, the SBA's Office of Advocacy reports that 52% of small businesses in the U.S. economy are home-based — that is, not exactly the heavy-hitters when it comes to job creation.

As the New York Times reported regarding the makeup of the nation's 27 million small businesses: "According to figures compiled by the Small Business Administration, there are fewer than six million small businesses that actually have employees. The rest are so-called non-employer firms that report income from hobbies or freelance work done by their registered owners, earning as little as $1,000 a year."

By treating a lemonade stand the same as a home builder with 100 employees, Obama can get away with saying that 98% of small businesses in America won't be hit by his proposed increases in income taxes.

He's telling the 59 million employees in the small-business sector there's almost no chance, specifically a 2% chance, that their jobs or incomes will be negatively affected by his proposed tax hikes and policies to "spread the wealth around." In fact, Obama's proposed tax hike on incomes over $250,000 is precisely aimed at the small businesses that are generating the highest revenues and hiring the most workers.

"Two-thirds of small business profits are earned in households making more than $250,000 per year," reports Americans for Tax Reform. "In 2006, $473 billion of the $706 billion of small business profits was earned in households Obama has said he would raise taxes on."

Obama's proposed increases in income taxes and Social Security taxes would shift the bulk of the profits in the small-business sector to the federal coffers, reports Americans for Tax Reform:

"The tax rate on the lion's share of small business income could reach 54.9% under a President Obama. The individual top rate will climb from 35% to 39.6% and the Social Security/Medicare tax rate could climb from 2.9% to 15.3%. Put those together and you get 54.9%."

By increasing costs, Obama's higher business taxes would have the direct effect of increasing layoffs and raising prices. His proposed 54.9% tax rate would be the highest since the Carter administration, when the nation's unemployment and inflation rates peaked, respectively, at 7.6% and 13.5%.

Posted by: thecannula | October 23, 2008 10:25 AM

If both parties were running equally good campaigns, then it would be reasonable to expect equally favorable coverage. We don't expect that voters should give 50% of votes to each candidate, and it's silly to expect that the press can see less than the electorate. I personally favor freedom of the press, whether I agree or disagree with any particular stance put forward by any writer, journalist, paper or organization.

Posted by: kmtlv | October 23, 2008 10:08 AM

Goebbels...he would be proud (and jealous) of the media today. You are the militant propaganda arm of the new National Socialist Party in America - the Democrats. This article is an obvious and transparent attempt at lending the appearance of self critique, but we all know better. There has never been - nor will there ever be - any serious effort on the part of the media to close the partiality gap. The article is replete with justifications; much like the abusive husband, who apologizes for beating his wife and kids, then justifies his behavior by talking about the tremendous pressures he faces daily. This is one of the main reasons your businesses are imploding. Don't worry though - your experience as shills for the Dems will provide much needed substance to your resumes, particularly when Obama hires you to join his new civilian (SS) corps. All hail the new Fuhrer Obama!!

Posted by: ihatethepost1 | October 23, 2008 9:58 AM

Why should we expect equal negative coverage when the campaigns have differnt strategies and tactics. Obama chose a known VP candidate and McCain chose an unknown VP candidate. That decision would have differnt implications for coverage. McCain and his VP calls Obama a terrorist, socialist, unamerica, unpatriotic, etc. These allegations will invite differences in coverage.

To expect equal negative coverage is to be mechanical and robotic in a game of strategy.

Posted by: kwakuazar | October 23, 2008 9:52 AM

This election was probably the last chance for professional journalism to possibly reverse the growth of biased, agenda-driven news coverage and reporting that is slowly making it irrelevant. National surveys by Pew and others show that an increasing majority of Americans think journalists are "biased and not credible." Look for this majority to continue to grow.

Posted by: BobAmerican | October 23, 2008 9:47 AM

How is that the press went to Alaska and couldn't seem to find anyone who liked the most popular governor in the country?

Posted by: pkhenry | October 23, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse
------------------------------------------
It called screening the moron before the interview, MORON!

Posted by: kendeb | October 23, 2008 9:39 AM

Mr. McCain is fighting a two front battle, one against the press, the other against his opponent: Barack Obama. It's amazing the race is as close as it is, given the obsequious attitudes among print and TV media sources. Sad...!

Check out the YouTube video of McCain being interviewed in prison, 'round about the time O's friend Ayers was blowing holes in the US Capitol Building and the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvcuEqGUwmc

Yes, you should be embarrassed.

Posted by: Thrasybulos | October 23, 2008 9:36 AM

How is that the press went to Alaska and couldn't seem to find anyone who liked the most popular governor in the country?

Posted by: pkhenry | October 23, 2008 9:33 AM

I'd love to see s Political Scientist, or Sociologist, or Social Psychologist conduct a study on this. I'd be willing to bet that the disparity between coverage of Obama and McCain could be shown to be overwhelming, intentional, and enought to effect the outcome of this election. The media has stolen this election for Obama...he doesn't even need ACORN to do this for him!

Posted by: davenp35 | October 23, 2008 9:24 AM

brgeorgi,

Thanks for the excellent article, I copied and pasted it to send it to my friends, to bad the libs don't have enough guts to read it!!!

Good day to you!
Ken

Posted by: kendeb | October 23, 2008 9:23 AM

It appears this report is too late. The MSM has completed its role in helping Obama.

Talk radio is about the only place left where conservatives get their news and views. Can't wait for the Fairness Doctrine to 'fix' the radio airwaves. Democrats already control the major news sources (the MSM), hollywood (entertainment), and education. You think they'd at least leave one crumb for conservative viewpoints.

Posted by: SoCal_Mark | October 23, 2008 9:18 AM

It seems to be the nature of the beast! Just as demonstrated here this morning. X is going to confront me about the sports analogy because x knows I am pro McCain! dr is the one who posted the analogy first but because he is pro-Obama, I get confronted! It is the liberal media and the nature of the vicious Obama supporters.

It really raises a red flag about Obama supporters, who are just like Obama himself, because they think we must all think as they do and we don't have a right to voice our opinion or we are idiots. That is the LEFT WING in action.

The old remnants of the Weathermen Underground/Bill Ayers, the SDS, the Black Panthers, the Symbionese Liberation Army and other left wing, anti-American groups from 30 years ago have blended into the mainstream of America. Bill Ayers is a professor and was citizen of the year in Chicago in 1997 his ideology has not changed one iota. He is Barry Obama's friend. They both are connected to ACORN, which we read about today and Obama gave them money in 2008.

If one criticizes McCain and Palin then it is COOL but if one criticizes Obama, the next thing you know, your personal affairs are plastered all over the world, like was done to Joe the Plumber!

An Obama supporter will read my comments and they will bring up Keating 5 but that is old news. We are talking about what Obama is doing right now, in October, 2008! They will try and deflect the issues and put it on McCain or Bush.

John McCain, like him, love him or hate him, is what you get as he is. What you see is what you get. However, with Barry Obama, aka Barack Obama, he is a facade. He is indeed a man behind a mask. He is a chameleon. People do not know all about him or they would not have voted for him to get this far.

Posted by: sonnychiba72 | October 23, 2008 9:14 AM

Wha?? You were doing ok, WaPo, until you justified the unethical journalism of your and other MSM publications by stating it was merely reflective of the voters' leanings (the 'winning begets winning' thing). Those of us who read news aggregates like RealClearPolitics know better. Time after time, you and other MSM outlets have reported outlying polls that favor Obama as opposed to all 7 polls or an average like RCP. This directly contradicts the 'study' you cite. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has modified what papers I buy and what news shows I watch as a result of your coverage of this 'election'.

Posted by: jcmdstep1 | October 23, 2008 9:14 AM

Interesting how you choose to interpret things so as to excuse the mainstream press's bias. You state "McCain has struggled during this period and slipped in the polls, which is one of the reasons for the more negative assessments by the 48 news outlets studied by the Washington-based group."

Isn't it just possible that the mainstream press's repeated "negative assessments" of McCain and especially of Palin (she must really be a threat!) CAUSED some of McCain's slip in the polls?

Posted by: EarleJoey | October 23, 2008 9:11 AM

Donations to the Campaigns....Look at Communications....26 million to Dems, and 9 million to Rep...
What's that tell you?
Take a look at Ideological Issues...17 million to Dems and 9 million to Rep..."Boy those Christians sure push their views...."
Number 1 industry contributing to campaigns...Finance...Pretty much even to both.
Number 2 industry...Lawyers and Lobbyists.


Sector Total To Dems To Repubs
Agribusiness $8,389,409 $3,091,318 $5,276,914
Communications/Electronics $36,292,387 $26,777,064 $9,410,133
Construction $17,782,806 $7,284,453 $10,470,402
Defense $2,317,411 $1,193,265 $1,114,246
Energy & Natural Resources $9,778,621 $3,453,282 $6,317,683
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $117,387,482 $59,793,656 $57,502,139
Health $32,675,851 $19,660,030 $12,944,588
Lawyers & Lobbyists $79,802,773 $59,625,912 $20,129,106
Transportation $6,988,263 $2,323,196 $4,650,844
Misc Business $63,912,241 $36,385,875 $27,398,829
Labor $797,243 $762,648 $33,695
Ideological/Single-Issue $26,722,807 $17,315,221 $9,379,176
Other $131,161,065 $76,518,289 $54,227,493

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2008 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Sunday, October 19, 2008.


Posted by: LSPF | October 23, 2008 9:10 AM

Whose fault is that? The Republicans will blame the "liberal" press, but I suggest it's McCain and Pay-lin's own fault. Come on, if your campaign is filled with hateful rhetoric that only disparages and smears Democrats, and anyone who lives in a big city, you cant help but get a negative vibe. We dont need a cry baby leader who continues to whine and complain. We need vision and answers, not twisting the facts. The other reason is because McCain and Pay-lin continue to use rhetoric that insults the average American. They think we are stupid, and I really hope it comes back to haunt them for years to come. They should be ashamed of themselves. Come on, Pay-lin is an average hockey Mom, but dresses up in designer clothes. What a hypocriate. Or McCain's expensive designer shoes? The press has a right to report what is factual, and all I can say is that the truth hurts the Republicans.

Posted by: chelbe00 | October 23, 2008 9:08 AM

Are we suprised by this?
Just wait until Comrade Obama gets in office.
Fairness Doctrine, repealing the Second Amendment, "Equal Outcome"... what are sane people to do?

Posted by: treadhead | October 23, 2008 9:05 AM

Thank you Washington Post for your honesty (finally!)

I think the biggest injustice the media has committed this election season is not reporting the facts about why the economy is largely in this mess. Those who read and educate themselves know how it all came to be what it is.

But the average American doesn't really understand the whole Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mess. It's irresponsible that the mainstream media and major newspapers haven't placed blame where it belongs.

As I said, read the article, "Would the Last HONEST Reporter, Please Turn On the Lights?"

It's a keeper!

Posted by: brgeorgi | October 23, 2008 8:52 AM

Anyone who is planning to vote in this election should do themselves a huge favor and read an article entitled, "Would the Last Honest Reporter, Please Turn on the Lights?"

It is one of the best written and honest pieces of journalism I have read in a long time. I think every single, so-called journalist in America should be required to read this article.

You can either google the article or click on this link:

http://www.linearpublishing.com/orsonscottcard.html

Posted by: brgeorgi | October 23, 2008 8:47 AM

Here is an example of the news that the Washington Post and the New York Times chose to downplay or ignore:

OBAMA & DEMS COST TAXPAYERS BILLIONS with FANNIE MAE

WHY DID OBAMA GET OVER $100 THOUSAND FROM FANNIE MAE???

Back in 2004, when the Republicans controlled the House, they tried to have a hearing on the threat that the financial mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac presented to the U.S. economy. Here’s the video evidence of the Democrats blocking efforts to hold officials accountable. This problem did not get the publicity it deserved in the liberal media, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. This incredible Congressional video shows Republicans in Congress trying to regulate better Fannie Mae and how the Democrats fought that tooth and nail, even referring to criticism of former chairman Raines as a "lynching".

LOOK AT THE ACTUAL VIDEO:
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/09/it_wasnt_broke.html

Posted by: sagereader | October 23, 2008 8:46 AM

Why are media treating Biden's statement that Obama's election will cause an international crisis as a gaffe? It wasn't a gaffe, but a cry of the heart. Biden will have a nervous breakdown before the election. He knows that Obama is not ready to become commander-in-chief and he knows that the USA will suffer for that.

Posted by: JohnMarshall1 | October 23, 2008 8:45 AM

SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE

The Washington Post, by virtue of which articles and columns it prints, and which it does not print but should, is a leader in this destructive wolfpack. Democracy suffers but the 'elite' Boston to Washington corridor of scribes, from those of the Boston Globe,to the New York Times, to the Washington Post, continue to distort newswothy events while their publications' readership continues to turn elsewhere their news.

DUMB DUMB DUMB

Posted by: sagereader | October 23, 2008 8:41 AM

The most laughable statement of this whole election was when Barack Obama complained because he'd be ahead like 4 or 5 points if it weren't for Fox News!!! That is UNREAL!!!

And if it weren't for CNN, NBC, CNBC, ABC and CBS, McCain would have this election in the bag!!!

But instead the race is still neck and neck despite the extreme media bias, ACORN, and the millions pouring in from God knows where into Obama's pockets!!!

McCain/Palin 08

Posted by: brgeorgi | October 23, 2008 8:41 AM

How to lie with statistics, yet again...

What this article doesn't mention is that the mainstream media has had a field day ripping apart Obama's Chicago network, but hasn't done much reporting at all on McCain's dirty, filthy, "liquor" (and sin) Arizona network. Hensley-Marley-Lansky...

So what if the media runs a lot of little articles critical of McCain, they've spiked the biggest story. Well, Frank Rich and the New York Times did report on it twice, but that's about it...

You WaPo people ought to be ashamed of yourselvs. If something happens to Obama, then you'll have to accept part of the blame. Live with that.

Posted by: jrob822 | October 22, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

------------------------------------------
We can only hope that he does not suffer......much!!!

Posted by: kendeb | October 23, 2008 8:40 AM

Go ahead and elect your big eared black muslim socialist and I hope you have to choke on your tax increases while lazy SOB's enjoy your money along with the illegal aliens. My money is safely tucked away where this piece of Chicago dog squeezin can't get his grubby little hands on it. I worked for hard for mine and if you are stupid enough to hand your money over you are a MORON.

Posted by: kendeb | October 23, 2008 8:31 AM

This article is based on the absurd premise that a 50/50 "balance" in positive/negative press coverage would be a good thing. All politicians do and say some good and some bad things - agreed. But sometimes a candidate is doing and saying more things that justly earn him negative coverage. Should the press forget about that and just focus on the sunny side for "balance" sake? If the press were covering Hitler, would they say, "On the one hand he murdered 6 million Jews, but on the other he really unified the country"? How would that serve the public interest?

Posted by: romaniaco | October 23, 2008 8:15 AM

Why is the most corrupt institution in America, our mostly liberal MSM wolfpack press CONSTANTLY attacking Sarah Palin?

Of course Obama doesn't need attack the McCain / Palin ticket. That's because this new breed of Liberal Fascist's that run our wolfpack press is doing this dirty job for him. And NO ONE can deny that FACT.

The Associated Press, Washington POST, NYTimes, TIME, NEWSWEEK, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the alpha members, are no longer "News Organizations" but instread "special interest" groups for the Democrat Party. These corrupt liberal outlets which are like poison in the bloodstream of this great nation and spread their hate and divide Nazi-like propaganda in every "fictional" story they release and every news cast they show.

At this point we are NOT having any "free or fair" election as long as we have these new "DNC special interest" groups mentioned above lying and misleading the American people. My fellow Americans this wolfpack above is the Democart Party's "power supply". They sustain that party through corrupt reporting of news events and I don't think I've ever seen it this bad or obvious before.

We have corruption Wallstreet and we can fix that. We have corruption in Washington DC and we have ways to fix that. And we have corruption in our "free left-wing" press and there are NO processes to "fix that". When a flaming left-wing paper like the NYTimes can print on their front page (A1) a lying story about McCain having an affair with a lobbyist without any proof and they suffer no accountablitly for their slandering story, then our country is in very bad shape. And they're thousands of more examples like that one.

Who is the GATEKEEPER for an out of control corrupt liberal press? Where's the accountability for printing information that lies and misleads the American people? Shouldn't this be a CRIME? Why isn't it a crime?

Posted by: allenridge | October 23, 2008 7:45 AM

What I find interesting, in this article, is the use of numbers. The numbers most damaging to the "elite In-The-Tank media bias" are not shown in a digit format, while all other numbers referenced in the article are.

"Fifty-seven percent of the print and broadcast stories about the Republican nominee were decidedly negative,"

"Thirty-four percent of the stories about Obama's reaction to the crisis were positive"

"By the following week, more than half the stories about McCain were negative and only 11 percent positive"

This tactic obscures the facts of an article, and is commonly used in reports where someone is trying to do damage control. It also makes it harder to search, and gives power to the author paper to pull articles that "misquote" by putting in the actual numbers as opposed to these text versions.

Good spin, In-The-Tank WaPo!

Posted by: waterloom | October 23, 2008 7:42 AM

grant_x, why didn't you respond to drclifford first about the sports analogy? He is the one who posted it first. He said the BEST NFL teams will get the most coverage, not the one with the most fans. Not the most popular teams.

Who can say that there are more Obama fans than there are McCain fans? That is the media's story of what they want people to believe. This is a one year team, McCain-Palin > Obama-Biden, not a team with a long history like a football or baseball team.

The point is, the media puts the stories out there for us to read.I found all the negatives about Obama on the net with long research and the media is trying to sell Americans the Presidency without telling them all the facts! They are selling Obama. When was the last time you read about the book, Obama: "The Man Behind the Mask." All we read about is OBAMA'S books.

Posted by: sonnychiba72 | October 23, 2008 7:27 AM

The Post might as well have headlined this article "Dog Bites Man." The media are so busy telling us about Palin's tanning bed (purchased with her own money) and shredding Joe the Plumber for daring to ask an inconvenient question of The One that they can't be bothered to investigate Obama with a tenth of the scrutiny.

Posted by: PaulinNJ | October 23, 2008 7:25 AM

Oldgeek143 opines: "When you say and do more negative things than your opponent you get negative press."

Untrue: Obama has personally used the race card on McCain 8 times and didn't get any negative press. How now, far left?

Posted by: PaulinNJ | October 23, 2008 7:23 AM

Imagine that. Negative media from the negative press corps. Oops. I really meant Obama press corps. The liberal media has already decided the election is over but I am voting against them and BO. It is no surprise that they hate Senator McCain since they are carrying their hatred of President Bush to any Republican, but it is the Democrats in congress who have done nothing for four years. It is the Democrats who have continually messed up Social Security. It is the Democrats who are more perverse and yet they think it is OK (although Pelosi promised a pristine and pure group with total integrity - they are NOT!). The media was negative about the surge in Iraq and now that it is working, they refuse to report the achievements. Yes, President Bush and the Republicans have been acting too much like Democrats in many ways. And yes, they all deserve the low approval ratings (9% or less), but until we vote Murtha, Reid, Pelosi and their sort out, we have to blame ourselves for electing these idiots.

Posted by: thinker5 | October 23, 2008 7:09 AM

When you say and do negative things as a politician or celebrity, you get Negative coverage, especially in this day of the Internet and Youtube! If McCain wants positive coverage, than he should start being and acting honest and ethically and watch his coverage change.

Posted by: dsoulplane | October 23, 2008 7:07 AM

sonnychiba, you can't really compare sports coverage to campaign coverage. Sports coverage is for the fans. There are more Yankees, Cowboys, and Indianapolis fans than Tennessee Titans fans...even though the Titans are 6-0 right now. Of course they get more media coverage.

The Presidential race is, according to your logic, a sports story too. It is just obvious to the media and the rest of us real Americans who think critically who is positive and who is negative. Obama is positive, as are most of his supporters. McCain is negative, as are most (including you) of his supporters.

Posted by: Grant_x | October 23, 2008 7:06 AM

Both candidates have not been completely honest in their speeches and in their ads. So, who do we vote for?

Obama is trying to frighten the Senior Citizens of America by running ads that John McCain will cut their Social Secutity and Medicare benefits. This is not true. Go to FactCheck and see for yourselves.

Obama keeps pointing fingers at Bush and McCain about the economy when in fact it was Obama, as a State Senator, and Bill Clinton, among many others, who began pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac about the loans to minorities and low income people, who often could not repay the loans. They were not qualified.

Barry Obama has recreated himself as Barack Obama but Barry still has a track record! All Americans will be reading and hearing about the REAL Barry Obama very soon. Hawaii anyone? The trade winds are blowing in Hawaii and that is why Barry is going there! Can he cover his past? Can he cover his trail?

Posted by: sonnychiba72 | October 23, 2008 7:06 AM

I'm sorry...was anyone surprised by this?
The Media has been in the tank for this empty suit socialist since day one. Hillary said it (and she was right), and so have Conservatives. The media decided long ago to become the enemy of Conservatives, and that's exactly how they should be treated. Personally, I'd like to see every Conservative politician suspend all contact with main stream media outlets. Nothing can ever be gained by talking to these people.

Posted by: websterr1 | October 23, 2008 7:01 AM

The media, in this case, is just calling a spade a spade.

Posted by: Grant_x | October 23, 2008 6:59 AM

When you say and do more negative things than your opponent you get negative press.

What is the surprise and what am I missing?

Posted by: oldgeek143 | October 23, 2008 6:54 AM

McCain's negative coverage started about the time he started his negative campaign.
How can you write a positive story about a negative man? When he claimed Obama supported legislation teaching young children sex education when it really taught them how to recognize sexual predators, he sank to a new low.

Posted by: seemstome | October 23, 2008 6:42 AM

Thank you drclifford for bringing up that analogy about the NFL and I could not disagree with you more.

The New England Patriots get the most ink based on their past and they are not the best team in the NFL this year. The Dallas Cowboys get so much ink, yet they are in 3rd place in their Division. Peyton Manning and the Indianoplis Colts get a lot of write ups and they are 3 games out of first place in their Division.

When was the last time you read about the Tennessee Titans who are 6-0 and have a 3 game lead over the Colts? When was the last time you read about the Arizona Cardinals, who are in first place in their Division? Have you read much about the Buffalo Bills, who are 5-1 and atop their division? In baseball, we are bombarded with the NY Yankees in the media and they weren't good at all this past season. The Tampa Bay Rays are in the World Series but we did not read much about them ALL year!!

Excuse me, drclifford, but Hillary was the FIRST victim of the plot and now it is John McCain's turn. It was not hatched over a grassy knoll but hatched within the back rooms of the Democratic Party heirarchy and in liberal media rooms across the country. The Democratic Party heirarchy did not want Hillary Clinton as their candidate. They made sure she was not elected. Enter ACORN. I think Hillary actually won but was cheated.

I will not even comment much about Barry Obama's grandmother, who has been secluded in her apartment for ages. Has anyone checked on her lately? Why hasn't she taken any photos with Barry Obama, her grandson, during the past 25 years? Why aren't Barry's wife and children going to visit grandma in Hawaii?

Posted by: sonnychiba72 | October 23, 2008 5:28 AM

Two brief things to say:

* The fact that "winning is seen as better than losing" is not exactly front-page-news. Of course the team in the lead gets more positive ink! The #1 NFL team gets stories about "here's how they excel." The last-place team gets stories about "here's how they blow it, week after week." That's not bias. It's having two eyes and two ears.

* Sonnychiba...excuse me..."Their plot has failed?????" Did they hatch this "plot" over by the grassy knoll? Perhaps Obama's Grandmother is secretly a Princess sent from another planet to destroy Earth? Something along those lines?

Posted by: drclifford | October 23, 2008 4:51 AM

John McCain lost it again today. There is a part of his speech near the end that my producer Kevin calls the "Born To Run" moment. The bit where true believers cheer, clap and BELIEVE.

The bit where John McCain repeats perhaps ten times that he will "Fight... Fight for ..." and then he mentions several things that he will - you've guessed it - fight for.

It's the rousing end, the bit that lifts the crowd, the bit they all love.

The bit that I would have thought John McCain would not be reading, but be feeling. This is his pitch about what he wants to do, what he believes needs to be done for this country.

Today, the autocue went down.

Now yes, John McCain doesn't like the autocue, he's not particularly good at reading from it.

And yes, it is hard to speak flawlessly for 20 minutes or so to a crowd of thousands.

And yes, the campaign trail is grueling, he must be tired, I don't know how he does it.

And yes, he's up against one of the best orators the modern world has seen.

BUT, surely he should be able to walk the end of his speech, the part that he should speak from the heart if the teleprompter goes down?

As the Republican pollster Frank Luntz put it in an interview recently (less charitably than me): "Stevie Wonder reads the teleprompter better than John McCain."

Today John McCain stumbled, repeated phrases, read from the page, then looked up to the screen and re-read them.

Maybe I'm being unfair, but this is a man who is running for the top job in the country, one of the most important jobs in the world.

Does his inability to think on his feet, to go off the page, count against him?

This is his pitch to the US electorate about why they should vote for him. He's less than two weeks from the election. Surely he should be able to deliver it without notes?

Frankly today, I cringed when he stumbled, and felt embarrassed for him.

Posted by: TM303 | October 23, 2008 4:02 AM

It is one thing to offer more coverage of a candidate but it is another to intentionally not report the facts about a candidate and this is what the majority liberal media has been doing. It is a cover-up. The biased media would have Americans believe that the race is over, that Obama has already won but that is far from the truth. It is very far from the truth.

In other times, with such an unpopular President in office, the opposition would have a much larger lead than Obama has. Is it 10, is it 8, is it 5?

Actually the race is still a dead heat. Obama cannot put McCain away no matter how hard he tries. Why? Because everyone does not blindly believe what is being shoved down their throats about Obama. The guy just isn't right. He has too many skeletons in his closet but they are about to be revealed.

Just in time for Halloween, too, and the skeletons will be revealed. Great timing. Obama will be faced with a crisis before the election day, not after being elected, as Biden said. Obama will not be elected. The crisis is at Obama's doorsteps and he can no longer play it off that he is an angel with a halo.

The liberal media, the left wingers, the anti-Americans, and the racists almost pulled off the selling of a President to the American people but it has failed. Their plot has failed.

Posted by: sonnychiba72 | October 23, 2008 3:55 AM

"Coverage of McCain Much More Negative Than That of Obama"

Of course it is. The majority of this country is over these GOP puppets with nothing to offer us. We the people want a real president that will make us proud. McCain/Palin is a joke to all progressive Americans. The best thing he has going for him is pity, and she's a cute face from nowhere to try and capture the female vote.

Please, we're not that stupid.

After Nov 4, you won't need to try and prop him up, because no one will care. This isn't a race, it's a joke. The media is trying to make this interesting, but we all know McCain isn't even close to being electable.

The GOP knows the next president is going to be in a world of hurt, and they don't want to waste a good candidate on the 2008 election. They are wise to give it to the Dems which will fail in the first term under the pressure of economic collapse and unsustainable war with two countries.

The GOP will be back in 2012 with a real candidate.

Enough with the faux drama!

Posted by: Robert_politics2 | October 23, 2008 3:33 AM

Obama has been the darling of the media and the negative things about him, and yes there are many, have been swept under the rug. The media has bastardized McCain and Palin while putting a halo on Obama.

Well, that halo is about to be tarnished. Obama is going to Hawaii. He says it is to visit his ailing grandmother. Is his wife and children going with him? NO! Why is the photo in the newspapers and online of Obama with his granny 30 years old? Why aren't there any recent photos of Obama and his family together with his grandmother?

A part of the REAL Obama will soon be revealed. Obama is going to Hawaii to try to blunt an investigation into his real story! Remember when Obama sent a group of investigative reporters and attorneys to Alaska to try and uncover dirt on Sarah Palin? Now, the tide has turned. Something has come up in Hawaii about Granny and Obama! It is time Americans know the facts and the truth will soon be revealed. By the way, his real name is Barry not Barrack. It is Barry Obama.

Posted by: sonnychiba72 | October 23, 2008 3:30 AM

McCain attacks Obama because the press ignores relevant questions (in fact McCain has been moderate and gentlemanly about it). When the McCain tries to expose Obama's duplicity and his friends, the press attacks Mccain and then dotes over Obama. It's briliant, if you happen to like political propaganda and media manipulation. McCain is fighting a two front battle, one against the press, the other against his opponent. It's amazing the race is as close as it is, given the obsequious attitudes among print and TV media sources. Sad...! Check out the YouTube video of McCain being interviewed in prison, 'round about the time O's friend Ayers was blowing holes in the US Capitol Building and the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvcuEqGUwmc

Yes, you should be embarrassed.

Posted by: Thrasybulos | October 23, 2008 2:30 AM

I hate to disappoint the spewing, vitriolic paid RNC/Palin-McCain troll but I don't belong to any party like they do. There are still some of us who are independents whether they choice to believe it or not.

I do have a great deal of sympathy for moderate Republicans who have had to watch as their party has been hijacked and twisted by these same sorts of divisive, amoral, hateful, cynical people. One of the congressmen (now former) I have the most respect for is a moderate republican and he is ashamed of his party now. I only hope after this election the moderates will take it back. Kick these divisive bums out and banish them to their own corrupt party.

Again, thanks trolls for getting out the vote. You're doing a great job!

Posted by: wes1155 | October 23, 2008 2:13 AM

100% of articles describing the shape of the planet of the Earth state that it is in fact a sphere. There are more articles with a negative tone describing McCain than Obama because more of McCain's words and actions are negative than Obama's. This article is a waste of virtual ink. It is dog bites man.

Posted by: bobscof | October 23, 2008 2:09 AM

Funny that you mention "running a company into the ground". That is something you should be familiar with. After all, your party managed to not only run SEVERAL companies into the ground, but run the entire country into the ground. And they are obviously much better at it than the Republicans could ever be since they managed to benefit from it in large monetary sums throughout the process. Even taking it a step further and recruiting the masterminds behind these efforts to now advise your campaign on the economy. i.e. Franklin Reigns. Perhaps you should reflect to just 2 years ago, just before your precious Democratic Congress took over. Gas around $2/gallon, stock market at the highest levels ever and the economy on a roll. Thats when the Really smart people such as Pelosi, Frank, Reid and Obama took over and decided to build a Housing skyscraper out of lincoln logs. Now they have people like you to thank for helping to treat this nations gaping wounds with pretty little Socialist labeled band-aid. You can now take great pride while you watch this country bleed to death. Congratulations Wes!

Posted by: drew5 | October 23, 2008 1:58 AM

Who do you like for 2012?? Vote for your candidate at http://www.skip08.com Who do you like for 2012?? Vote for your candidate

Posted by: pastor123 | October 23, 2008 1:49 AM

Yes indeed, ignorance IS bliss, the past eight years have been glaring proof of that. Some of us have been saying the emperor was naked for many years before it became fashionable to do so. We warned about a war fought to settle a personal vendetta and a war which despite what McCain believes, is impossible to win. No matter how long we stay, once we are gone Iraq is going to collapse. Oh, but I'll bet you were so patriotic and gung-ho about it. Sure, let's go kick Saddam's butt and find them there WMD's. It didn't matter then what the truth was just as it doesn't matter to you today.

Sure, let's do what Uncle Phil Gramm says, after all he is an E-conomical genius. Who cares about the little guy when we can reap obscene profits for doing nothing more than driving a company into the ground. We're you complaining then? Could you see the truth that was staring you in the face but refused to acknowledge? No, you were more than happy to go along blindly believing your ideological dogma. Some of us weren't and it isn't because we are "liberals", we're moderates and independents and we knew better than the sucker line we were being handed. Not you and your ilk though, you sucked it right up.

So I hope you do move to Alaska (except for the Alaskans sake) and I hope you get to have Palin as your governor for at least two more years. You deserver her. As for the rest of us, we'll take our chances without McCain and Palin if G-d spares us from them.

Posted by: wes1155 | October 23, 2008 1:32 AM

secession ,i have a feeling the more screwed up and twisted this country becomes the more your gonna be hearing that word ....montana and texas come to mind,well hope for a "real america" after all

Posted by: jszcoffey | October 23, 2008 1:08 AM

best idea ive heard yet ,hmmm.....get as far from this seething cesspool as possible but still be in america...actually ive been kicking it around for a few years anyway

Posted by: jszcoffey | October 23, 2008 1:03 AM

Once again, you run and hide when faced with the Truth. The only thing you made clear tonight Wes is that you and the rest of the Obama followers dont really understand. Unfortunately, it seems that the majority of the country is as mindless as you and thats why we will all be meeting up at the Soup Kitchen instead of the office water cooler pretty soon. Congratulations, the chickens can finally rule the coup. By the way, I am not paid by the RNC, but I may think about becoming a Democrat cronie, since I could probably shoot right to the top based off the intellect of the leftist party and its followers. Have a good night and remember Ignorance = Bliss! So you are good to go.

Posted by: drew5 | October 23, 2008 1:02 AM

I've got a bit of advice for the neocons who are SO afraid of having someone who can actually think and reason in office, move to Alaska! You can join the AIP just like Palin's husband and vote for secession. Heck with the high school dropout rate in Alaska you should feel right at home.

Posted by: wes1155 | October 23, 2008 12:58 AM

Sarah Palin is not a maverick, she is a MILF. America's MILF. Now for this I will roll out of bed and get to my polling station. One word. Yummy.

Posted by: Original1 | October 23, 2008 12:56 AM

its no use ,the lib dems are are totally brainwashed ........bring on the high taxes ,bring home the troops,let all gay & lesbos get married and have/adopt kids,we can take care of all the illegals and dead weight of our society, ban all the guns ,slap all the criminals on the wrist ,yea im confident about our future

Posted by: jszcoffey | October 23, 2008 12:54 AM

Hmm...I guess someone thinks I am voting for Palin-McCain. Nope, sorry.

Posted by: wes1155 | October 23, 2008 12:54 AM

Sorry, but I don't respond to any paid RNC/Palin-McCain troll since I don't feel obligated to provide them with additional income. But I do want to thank you all personally for getting out the vote for Obama-Biden! Way to GO!

Posted by: wes1155 | October 23, 2008 12:53 AM

Trolls is your favorite word I think. But I wont complain because that is what your new name will be when you go hide under a bridge after you realize that you helped elect the party that plans to wipe the country's a** with the constitution and rewrite it based off the doctrine of all the great leaders in Europe during the 1930's and 40's

Posted by: drew5 | October 23, 2008 12:50 AM

Poor trolls, eleven more days and out of work. Well you;ll need the time off to decompress yourselves from all of the hate and lies you spew. Maybe if Al Qaeda helps him out McCain will get elected like they want. Then maybe he'll provide you with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder compensation.

Oh! Wait! Forget that, McCain doesn't support increasing the deserved benefits to vets so how could he give it to campaign trolls. Sorry, out of luck.

Posted by: wes1155 | October 23, 2008 12:45 AM

Also forgot to point out how obvious you have made it to everyone here that real facts and issues surrounding your candidate are not relevent. Just like a true democrat, argue with emotion ignore the truth to help you sleep at night. Gee, maybe if I ignore all valid points until Nov. 4th, I can sleep better at night knowing that I helped to sell my children's future down the river.

Posted by: drew5 | October 23, 2008 12:41 AM

You need a machete to cut through the stupid. In the politically correct world that the Obama worshippers live in, ANY comment that does not praise OB, is defined as negative. Therefore anyone who has a contrary opinion is labeled negative. Sarah Palin has been slimed, as has McCain because they believe in winning the war in Iraq, promoting small government and lowering taxes, speaking out against the self-centered murdering of unborn children, opposing government health care in favor of free market healthcare, and opposing environmental roadblocks to energy self-sufficiency. Since OB opposes all of these issues (got that, stupid, ISSUES), and his supporters are too vapid or lazy to defend his positions, the fallback position is to label McCain Palin comments as negative, and then call their supporters names. You pissants don't have the sense to win a 3rd grade debate, let alone articulate a position in a comment.

Posted by: NCMike | October 23, 2008 12:41 AM

Poor Wes. It seems to have gone over your head again. Since Obama "Has it in the bag", Why dont you do yourself a favor and take a week off, and go on a vacation from your exciting homeland. Take this time to spend some of your own money on a vacation for the family before the soon to be president takes the money from you and gives it to the guy begging for change outside the local Pigley wigley so he can get more beer! That is, if the ACORN van hasnt already gotten him back on his feet by offering a cheeseburger and a new lease on life for going on down to the polls to vote for the Democrats. Although, I assume Mickey Mouse wont be too hard to find.

Posted by: drew5 | October 23, 2008 12:37 AM

Wow! David Letterman is posting on this blog now! Well...ok, maybe not, since Letterman's lists are more truthful than the same old recycled to death, Pinocchioed, RNC/Palin-McCain "we don't have policies or answers to issues different from Bush, so we HAVE to smear", worn out rhetoric.

Keep up the good work trolls, you keep gaining votes for Obama-Biden!

Posted by: wes1155 | October 23, 2008 12:31 AM

you dont need a study to tell you that

just sit in front of the TV for half an hour

Posted by: dummypants | October 23, 2008 12:30 AM

Wes the bold characters in your comment are scary. No need to yell. Look, i will list some of what you missed the last nine months, so pay attention and share your notes with the other lemmings:
1. Ayers
2. Rezko
3. ACORN
4. Fannie Mae
5. Freddie Mac
6. Franklin Reigns
7. "Spread the Wealth"
8. Likes to take a real stance and vote"PRESENT"
9. Wants to deal with Terrorists
10. Wants to lose in Iraq
11. Jeremiah Wright
12. Wants to be tested in his first months as President
13. WILL DEFINATELY RAISE TAXES
14. Increased Govt. spending
15. Socialized Healthcare
16. Plans alienate Israel
etc. etc.

Shall I keep going? I have a lot more to list than you my friend. i assure you.

Posted by: drew5 | October 23, 2008 12:24 AM

im sure they found many .......you just didnt hear from them. ahhhhhhh media ,bias,very powerful force are we learning anything slants lies coverage propaganda editing poor brainwashed sheeple ,if you had a brain you would vote for the one the mass madia is NOT ramming down your throats but you think your being productive/progressive/cool........bless your hearts

Posted by: jszcoffey | October 23, 2008 12:23 AM

==================================

So...negative candidates

invite

negative reporting......?

==================================
Shocked to my Very Toes.

Posted by: T-Prop | October 23, 2008 12:22 AM

Again people with conveniently short memories, can you say Bridge to Nowhere"? Can you say "Troopergate"? Can you say "abuse of power"? Gosh, why do you suppose she got negative coverage? It couldn't have been because she wasn't telling the truth could it? Nah! It's the liberal, in the tank, elitist mainstream media.

Posted by: wes1155 | October 23, 2008 12:15 AM

How is that the press went to Alaska and couldn't seem to find anyone who liked the most popular governor in the country?

Posted by: pkhenry | October 23, 2008 12:12 AM

Wow Wes!

Is that all you were able to comprehend from what I wrote? The only reason I use the word Savior, is because that seems to be the only reasonable explanation as to why you mindless robots following this abomination of a candidate seem to think you are doing the right thing for this country. But then again, I can see why those who cant think for themselves, would appreciate the government making decisions for them and telling them how to live their lives and how much they are allowed to earn. Like the Blackjack dealer said in National Lampoons Vegas Vacation, " Why dont you give me half the money you were going to bet, I will kick you in the balls and we can call it a night!"

Posted by: drew5 | October 23, 2008 12:11 AM

The coverage of the McCain- Palin campaign has been perceived as more negative because of the negative content of their own messages. How can the media or anyone else make something positive out of attacks, innuendo, and slim. Republicans are indeed reaping what they sow.

Posted by: peter777 | October 23, 2008 12:09 AM

Will everybody please clear the deck and stop discussibng the actual substance of the article, so Wes can get back to the the same old blah, blah,smear, blah, lies, blah. Must be a slow night at he Huffington Post.

Remember, truth isn't the issue here; bashing McCain and Palin is. Haven't we learned *anything" class? Repeat after me: It's all their fault.


Posted by: lastlaff | October 23, 2008 12:09 AM

Palin is the most popular governor in the country, with an 80% approval rating in her home state - yet the Washington press core trashed her governorship by a ratio of almost 10-1. A sure sign of the overwhelming liberal bias of the press.

"The most negative element of the Palin coverage involved scrutiny of her record as Alaska governor, with 64 percent of the stories carrying a negative tone and just 7 percent positive."

Posted by: pkhenry | October 23, 2008 12:09 AM

I find it rather humorous how the RNC/Palin-McCain trolls always talk about Obama as being the "Savior". They seem to be the only ones who believe that.

People don't think Obama is anything but a man and showing himself to be a much better one than McCain.

So keep "spreadin'" the lies and hate trolls, you are doing more to elect Obama then any of the rest of us could. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: wes1155 | October 23, 2008 12:02 AM

Hey Wes,

For someone who professes to care about America and the character of its leader, you seem to have conveniently forgotten all of the questionable attributes of your so-called Savior! If you would have bothered to check any channel other than MSNBC and CNN, you might have heard the news. YOur candidate is a liar, a corrupt politician, of questionable judgement and associated with pretty much every type of white collar criminal. (Sorry to bring race into this). Anyways, point being, if you would take a second and lift your head up from the Democratic trough and take a breather from all the Socialist sewage you have been ingesting, you might find out who REALLY cares about your beloved America. Which I assure you is not Mr. Obama or his pals in Congress.

Posted by: drew5 | October 22, 2008 11:58 PM

I see the RNC/Palin-McCain paid troll meeting has ended and once again we see the desperation of a very, very desperate campaign. They have no real issues to discuss, only smears, lies and distortions.

Hasn't the RNC/Palin-McCain campaign learned anything? The false attacks aren't working. I suppose the trolls don't care since they get paid either way. Enjoy the money while you can because you only have a paycheck for another eleven days.

Posted by: wes1155 | October 22, 2008 11:54 PM

journalist? more like leftist mouth pieces. you dont want to be biased and wear the American flag on your jacket but dont mind being biased for a leftist candidate. where is the call for a birth certificate, the relationship with terrorist, fannie mae, a racist so called preacher, who put him through college, his communist mentor? at least investigate it. if its not true you put alot of Americans at peace knowing it.

Posted by: tblaylock74 | October 22, 2008 11:52 PM

this is a joke . go figure they son of a naval officer who himself spent years as a prisoner of war in vietnam gets crucified about every little nitpicky crap the media can find ............but the unexperienced lib dem who hangs with terrorist racist and felons can do no wrong ,yea we are screwed

Posted by: jszcoffey | October 22, 2008 11:47 PM

Fasten your seatbelts Obamatons. When the election returns show your hero to be the vapid clown he is, you can thank your pals in the left-wing media for lulling you into believing the American people would actually elect such a tool. When you put your brain on auto-pilot, all kinds of stupid takes place.

Posted by: NCMike | October 22, 2008 11:46 PM

Maybe people have short memories or maybe they just don't care to remember the truth, but Palin, from day one when McCain first introduced her has been doing nothing but spewing hate, twisting the facts to make her seem like a "maverick" when she is just another corrupt politician and attacking people she knows little to nothing about. All the while toting her good, "real America", small town "Christian" values.

Well I live in a small town in rural America and I can tell you we do have good people here, but most of them are nothing like Palin thank G-d!

Then she goes on to her twisted, hate filled, vitriolic acceptance speech at the RNC convention and oh yeah, everyone there and I am sure the people complaining now, all cheered. Was she putting America first? Were you? Your participation in this sort of vitriol makes you accountable too. Did any of you try to stop it? No, you encouraged it and let it sweep you up and continue to drive wedges into an already divided country. Country first? I don't think so.

Palin and McCain had the chance to talk and argue about substantive issues, but they chose the very low road instead. They, especially McCain, allowed some of the very same people who did this to him to call the shots in his win at all costs for self elevation campaign. I used to feel sorry for McCain, I don't anymore and I will not until he apologizes to the American people for his actions. He has gone out of his way to run an ugly, divisive campaign. He lost himself somewhere along the way if he ever was the person he portrayed himself to be. We'll never know for certain now.

So does it surprise me they have gotten more negative press? When every word out of your mouth is negative, what do you expect? You sow what you reap and they have sown hate, lies and fear. I for one am very, very tired of this kind of campaign. We all, America, deserve better than that.

Posted by: wes1155 | October 22, 2008 11:44 PM

lastlaff,

Like I said anyone with 1% of honesty knew this.

It reads like your tongue in cheek has gone to your brain.

It takes 1% of honesty and 1/2% of brain power to know the Media is dead and gone off the deep end.

The rating coninue to tank and subscriptions are down.

Thye hated Reagan, both George's and now McCain/Palin and anyone with an R next to their name.

Posted by: DennisKL | October 22, 2008 11:41 PM

The Post ombudsman has been saying the same thing for a long time... ditto for the photos. It must be comforting to know that the Post is the print version of MSNBC with EEE JAY and Mr. Robinson leading the pack of smear artists.

Journalistic integrity has vanished or maybe y'all are trying to capture the old spirit of Drew Pearson and Herblock. They were purveyors of true nastiness and slime.

Posted by: alance | October 22, 2008 11:39 PM

And the head Lemming speaks up! Hey MINDMELDER, you arent allowed to make a point with a lie. This seems to be an unspoken rule that you and your candidate have forgotten. Deep down in that mindless, spineless soul of yours, you know who created this mess. AND IT WASNT GEORGE or the REPUBLICANS! It was the corrupt, greedy, closet SOCIALISTS of your party. So man up and be proud that you are an idiot! After all, Obama prefers you to be ignorant! Long live the TRUE AMERICA!

Posted by: drew5 | October 22, 2008 11:37 PM

Its really a sad state of affairs when one must watch FOX to get the true picture. I remember when other outlets at least attempted to be fair.

Posted by: dencal26 | October 22, 2008 11:34 PM

Apparently there are some misguided souls who actually think the public deserves balanced press coverage. Get a grip.

When you think about it, isn't it better to have every nook and cranny of Palin's life dissected in article after article than to actually have to hear about nine or ten Biden gaffes that would make a high school kid blush? Who wants that?

And I'd much rather read another intense examination of the personal life of Cindy McCain than have anybody write about a few of the things Obama slipped by in the last debate. Why spoil things now?

After all, as some have pointed out, McCain/Palin are "askin' for it." Now if they'd just lie back and enjoy it we could get on with the coronation.

Posted by: gvburke | October 22, 2008 11:09 PM

A little brutal honesty here. If this inexperienced back bencher was not a person of color, he would never have made it past the first one or two primaries. he is so inexperienced that were he not a person of color he would continually be mistaken for a Senate Page not a senator.

Posted by: tumeroll | October 22, 2008 10:44 PM

The lemmings that are fawning over Obama are some of the dumbest people on the planet. They have been sold a bill of goods by a fawning media that has acted as Obama's PR campaign writing only glowing articles while not pursuing any of the stories about Obama's radical background and his work for the radical left and Acorn in Chicago. The Obama media have done everything possible to create a one sided picture of the one while never investigating anything about Obama's proclivity for having all these radical anti semitic, anti american mentors and friends. We will all regret the Obama presidency if he actually wins. God forbid. Congratulations to the Obama media for pulling the wool over the eyes of some of the dumbest people in the country. Oh & Socialism is now a code word for "Black"! What idiots!

Posted by: stevespelling | October 22, 2008 10:41 PM

"You are not going to be able to manipulate the vote and pull a rabbit out of the hat trick like you did 4 year ago.."

Wait! What happened to deal with it and get over it! LOL.

Posted by: lastlaff | October 22, 2008 10:37 PM

"Please anyone with 1% of honesty knew this!!!"

I didn't know. It seems more like seven or eight to one....this number looks like a lowball. All that just lovely coverage of Palin...no hate there! Nah. I guess we need more "facts" from Wes to justify it.

Posted by: lastlaff | October 22, 2008 10:35 PM

Wahhh wahhh wahhh boo hoo and poor me ... for all of the people whining and moaning about this and about that and feeling so sorry for themselves and their party I have this:

Just deal with it and get over it!

You are not going to be able to manipulate the vote and pull a rabbit out of the hat trick like you did 4 year ago when you manipulated the system and placed our now illustrious leader, who by the way has gotten us into this mess, in office for a second term!

Posted by: mindmelder | October 22, 2008 10:33 PM

Well, as Popeye once said
" well blow me down".

Please anyone with 1% of honesty knew this!!!

Posted by: DennisKL | October 22, 2008 10:26 PM

Compassion given is compassion returned.

If you don't like the facts about your candidates' hateful spewing tell them to stop and start addressing the real issues. Cindy McCain was correct in this is a dirty election campaign, what she neglected to say is it is her husband who is running it. Or so we have to presume.

Wait to you hear the Guilliani robo-call they are putting out now. Yes, you can be proud of the campaign Palin-McCain are running.

Posted by: wes1155 | October 22, 2008 10:25 PM

"What a bunch of whining RNC/Palin-McCain stooges posting here."

Sez "Wes," yet another compassionate Obama supporter, just before criticizing McCain/Palin for *their* tactics. Credit to Kurtz and the Post for not burying the obvious even if it causes the world's Wes's to go apoplectic. Truth hurts, even for the Obamatons.

Posted by: lastlaff | October 22, 2008 10:19 PM

Big Surprise. Obama has spent a billion dollars on his campaign, has the fawning press all over him, they build Greek temples to him and he's up by two or three points. What a turkey. He's the new Jimmy Carter writ large. Who on earth would think about a huge tax increase in the middle of a bear market except.....a liberal!!

Posted by: contracowboy | October 22, 2008 10:15 PM

This is shocking!!!--not. Can you imagine where McCain/Palin would be in the polls if the coverage was even!

Posted by: NotaWPelitist | October 22, 2008 10:11 PM

What a bunch of whining RNC/Palin-McCain stooges posting here. Of course the coverage of McCain and Palin is more negative, they ARE negative. When all you have to offer are attacks, smears, lies and fear mongering what do you think is going to happen?

Don't worry though, Al Qaeda is backing Palin-McCain, they will make sure they win and the RNC/Palin-McCain campaign is supporting the economy with Palin's "hockey mom" wardrobe purchases.

Posted by: wes1155 | October 22, 2008 10:08 PM

socialist racist half breed obama has been as..s kissed by the main stream nazi like media... at least 49 % of American voters will vote against dic head obama..far far from being a mandate..by 2010 ..after months of protests and riots..Congress will change hands and little boy obama will make history by becoming the FIRST
president to be thrown out of office by IMPEACHMENT!...COUNT ON IT!!!

Posted by: roycito | October 22, 2008 10:07 PM

The slanted media coverage has nothing to do with message or the running of a campaign. The media is solidly in the tank for Obama and has been since Feb. I watched as Hillary was treated very unfairly and I hope that those that are responsible will someday be replaced and forgotten. My vote will be cast for the one that the media doesn't hype.

Posted by: ontheblvd | October 22, 2008 9:38 PM

Last month Rove and Schmidt were attempting to brand our mainstream media, our favorite pundits and writers as “Piranhas!” which only means one thing Schmidt and Rove are attempting to steal the fish pet Voters or the Nature Lover's Vote? Or is this a Rove, Schmidt and Davis Freudian Slip – They chose Piranhas - deep down they see themselves as Piranhas?

Democrats are courting all Republicans and Independents Goldfish, Dolphin and Killer Whale fans!

Trained Goldfish Performs Amazing Tricks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buQKZOaB6cY

Dolphin play bubble rings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q

Killer Whale and Trainer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpZFfzDg5nQ

Change we need

Vote Obama/Biden '08

Posted by: cooday | October 22, 2008 9:37 PM

The media, from the very beginning, from its relentless barrage of character assassinations of HIllary Clinton during the primaries, has been ramming the COCKY, EMPTY SUIT called Barack HUssein OBama, down the throat of American voters. They have been controlling the narratives, framing, parsing, strategizing, explaining away for Obama. "Destroy, destroy, destroy" was the mantra for Hillary then. They're doing the same to McCain and Sarah Palin.

They've succeeded in portraying Obama as soooo cool, soooo smooth--- even when lying and prevaricating:
- on tying up John McCain's policies with Pres. Bush
- on his redistribution of wealth- Lesson: Don’t aspire and work very hard to be self-reliant, to be successful in business, to be rich.
- on his “investments” plans (read: spend, spend, spend)
- on Ayers relations and influence
- on his support and involvement in ACORN
- on his unprecedented number of negative ads
- on his campaign's usual cries of "racism" when questioned about his record and background
- on his votes against bills to provide protection and medical treatment for infants who survive botched abortions
- on his record and background and associations.

He hasn’t answered yet why he did not honor a pledge for campaign public financing he made with other candidates. His campaign is so awash with mullah; when the whole country is reeling financially. Where is it all coming from?

Barack Hussein Obama has no identifiable stand or principle on most issues, as he wants to embrace "both" or "all" to appease and to score political points.

Oprah, Rev. Wright, Ayers… so many other interest groups, each with its own agenda, pushing to get Obama elected. Whose puppet will Obama be if he gets elected?

How about Oprah as State Secretary or Press Secretary?

God help America.

Posted by: rosecc | October 22, 2008 9:34 PM

You have to give the communists credit. They have been very patient in their quest for the white house. It began back in the 1960's with them using the useful idiots in the Democratic party to first take over the schools. we have now had 40 years of producing more and more useful idiots who have no foundation in American History, no concept of how our economic system works etc. then they again using the useful idiots in the democratic party to launch an allout class war. First it was the poor against the rest of the country. That got us the Great Society of LBJ and it killed the black family structure in the country.

Then of late it has been the middle class against the rich who by definition get brought closer and closer to the poor in defined dollar amount to be rich.

When was the last time Obama has mentioned poor people? Not once in this campaign because if he did he would tip his hand as to who the redistribution of wealth is going. It won't be the middle class it will be the poor.

So now after 40 years of dividing the country back into classes, producing 40 year's worth of clowns in the school system we are now ready for our very first communist president.

So all you useful idiots you vote away. We rich, thanks to Obam's exuberance in announcing what he plans have already taken steps to move our wealth away from thereach of the tax man. What a surpirise Barry will have when he taxes those over $250,000 and finds much of the income is untouchable. then he will have to come after the very people he has promised to help - the middle class. After all all those poor people who are really stupid in the eyes of the liberals and communists can't be expected to lift a finger.

Posted by: tumeroll | October 22, 2008 9:26 PM

If The Media is not biased, then how come The Media was able to teach us more about the background of "Joe The Plumber" in TWO DAYS than The Media has been able to teach us about the background of Senator Obama in the past two years? Was Senator Obama really born in Hawaii? Why hasn't The Media produced a copy of Senator Obama's Birth Certificate? Senator Obama's father is believed to have come from Kenya, is Senator Obama even a citizen of the USA? Nothing Personal -- Inquiring minds just want to know.

Posted by: HarryDupa | October 22, 2008 9:25 PM

I am a proud liberal socialist.

Posted by: r4147824 | October 22, 2008 9:22 PM

Bad people destroyed the 2000 mccain bid for the white house. In 2000 mccain was a noble statesmen, now mccain 2008 is a shell of him self. Mccain has no honor left.

Posted by: r4147824 | October 22, 2008 9:21 PM

I can't wait...Hussein Obam is going to save us. He is the chosen one, the Messiah that will deliver us from the aweful tyranny of the oppresors. He is Christ and we are with Him.

Stupid people. Can't think for themselves and are brain-washed by the media and by a crook from the most corrupt city in America (and that's saying something). Stupid people, just Pigs at the Trough. Pigs waiting to be fed. Feed us, oh dear Messiah Obama. Deliver us from this aweful world.

You idiots will get what you paid for. Mark MY works...Obama will turn out to be the Democrat's George Bush. He will be the biggest disappointment in American politics. UNLESS...he can just ascend to heaven now and spare us all the disappointment.

People get what they deserve and you pigs at the trough are about to get yours. LOL, LOL.

Posted by: Socialists_for_Obama | October 22, 2008 9:18 PM

I've been following the coverage of this election closely, surfing CNN, MSNBC, and Fox nightly. I don't understand why there is this incessant complaining that Obama is covered in a more favorable manner than McCain. Fox is pro-McCain, MSNBC is pro-Obama. and CNN seems neutral to me. I think most of the negative coverage McCain is receiving is because he is generating it for himself. Even many in his own party are disgusted and tired of of his almost totally negative campaign. It's amazing how McCain was so irate at the negative tactics used against him by Rove and Bush in 2000 and now has hired many of those same tacticians to use those same tactics against Obama. And it is even more amazing that so many wish to believe all the crap that he is spewing.

Posted by: guylo | October 22, 2008 9:05 PM

Gee, it couldn't have anything to do with McCain's incredibly negative campaign or moral bankruptcy could it? I don't know how I could ever consider voting for a Republican after this election year.

Posted by: strathmeyer | October 22, 2008 9:03 PM

McCain is to Blame.

The press has been spending significantly more time covering McCain and Palin. The sound bites are longer and more frequent for both of them because the press loves negative news. I see almost no coverage of Biden, and only brief coverage of Obama. Try to find more than a single current article on CNN about Joe Biden!

The reason so much of the coverage of McCain and Palin is negative is because they are waging a negative campaign. When the candidate spends most of their time making negative comments and allegations about their opponent, they get negative coverage. McCain claims that he's talking about issues like the economy, but the reality is that he primarily talks about them by framing his opponent in a negative way. Palin does the same, spending even less time talking about their own plans, and then in only the broadest brush strokes and with the objective of focusing on negative comments about their opponent.

Undecided and swing voters are looking for a reason to vote FOR a candidate; so while McCain whines about not getting coverage, his real problem is the message he and Palin are sending just doesn't resonate beyond the loyal base.

If the press were to balance the time they are spending on each candidate, we'd be hearing a lot more about the record breaking 100,000+ person Obama rally in St. Louis and 30,000 in Miami.

Posted by: mikeBY | October 22, 2008 8:55 PM

The Media recently ran an article about how Nanny Pelosi was looking forward to a Democratic Super-Majority in both the House and the Senate. What I don't understand is how the Pelosi Congress, with an approval rating in single digits to the low teens, can expect the American Voters to reward their Half-Arsed attempt at governing this nation by electing more of their cronies. Other than convening seemingly endless hearings and fruitless investigations, the Pelosi Congress has succeeded only in helping Barney Frank Bugger up Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and the entire American Financial System. Rest assured, though, if senator Obama gets elected, there will be no investigations into our financial collapse, and there will be a round of Presidential Pardons for Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, his wife, and their cadre of Bomb Throwing Domestic Terrorists.

Posted by: HarryDupa | October 22, 2008 8:55 PM

What I can't wait for is the meltdown that will occur when Obama screws up big time and it becomes flagrantly obvious even to the most jaded partisan Dem that their choice of Messiah was and will continue to be the most ridiculous that could have been made. I want to see the elite media that pushed this empty suit on the nation have to admit they were wrong and try to salvage their ruined reputations.

Posted by: prgc33 | October 22, 2008 8:54 PM

There is no doubt that the liberal media conspiracy is out to sink John McCain. The liberal media got Al Gore ... oh, wait a minute. Okay, there was John Kerry... uh... well, look at how they smeared President Bush on Katri... no, wait. I mean, they made it look like there were no weapons of...
Well, forget all that. It's clear the media is in the tank for Barack Terrorist Obama. Yeah, that explains everything! I can sit back and stroke my rage now, knowing that I am very, very far right.

Posted by: profpaul | October 22, 2008 8:46 PM

With Democrats controlling the House, The Senate and the media, who will hold Obama accountable when he takes more and more of our money and our freedom for his extreme agenda? It seems that nobody is allowed to criticize His Majesty. He reminds me more and more of Stalin, or Mao or Hussein. Everyone should fear the lack of checks and balances if Obama is elected.

Posted by: HerbF1 | October 22, 2008 8:40 PM

finally some one who speaks the truth. fox news ran two reports on sunday. the first was the mortgage meltdown. it showed that the democrats were the main cause of the disaster. even bill clinton acknowledged that. stunning. has any one else in the so called free press said anything about the program. NO! it shows that the democrats were using the fannies as a campaign funnell for donations. also when republicans tried to regulate them. it passed in the house and killed in the senate by c*%p dodd. tried again in 2006 same result. they even had the gall to take credit for the bail out while packing another 200 billion in pork projects. people this is what osama will do its nothing new its the same garbage democrats have been doing since the 60's. when he got into the senate in 06 he became the second highest donee from the fannies dodd as always was first.
the second show was on ayers. it showed that osama had alot more friendship with the ayers duo than his campaign wants you to know about. guess what it was the acorn project. osama was recruited from harvard to work in a firm that ayers wife was working. also the firm itself was a leftwing/socialist. who did legal work for acorn and other progressive(leftwing) groups.
so what have we learned. this guy was never vetted and well over 90% of the media have covered it up. nbc has lost all credibilty, cbs nuff said, abc close turner news the name alone shows his bias. the only network who actually vetted this empty suit was fox news. who every one says is biased when in fact its them. old adage when you tell a lie over and over it becomes the truth. democraps are masters at this sham ploy.

Posted by: carl6352 | October 22, 2008 8:36 PM

It is so woefully obvious that Obama has been propped up and protected by the main stream media. They have been negligent in pursuing his ties to terrorist Bill Ayers. Sure they mention Ayers, but only in the context of "Republicans accuse Obama of ties to Ayers." They have ignored the mobster Tony Rezko's ties to Obama. While the reprehensible New York Times chose to highlight and feature an article on Cindy MaCain's past dependence on prescription meds, there has been no such investigative reporting into Obama's cocaine use. There's Obama's ties to ACORN and voter fraud, his associations with marxist groups... It goes on and on. When something is brought out about Obama, the media wring their collective hands and lament of the "personal attacks" and "nasty tone" that McCain's campaign has taken, but do nothing to INVESTIGATE the information. It's a no win situation for McCain.

The main stream media has devolved into a bonifide pro-leftist advocacy group.

Posted by: Phizz | October 22, 2008 8:34 PM

This is crap. Maybe in international news this is true. In local news, Obama, with all the spending is a MILLION times more negative than McCain! My mcmind is made up, I'm voting for McCain!

Posted by: wtbofnc | October 22, 2008 8:30 PM

The mainstream media are washed up. They can look forward to a bleak, dismal, unprofitable future wherein they continue presenting their propaganda to the fringe leftists who comprise the sum total of their remaining readers/viewers.

Posted by: finsher771 | October 22, 2008 8:26 PM

Also in the news, the grass is green!

This just in, bear poops in the woods. Film at 11.

Why vote for McCain? Because he's not a socialist with lots of friends who hate America?

Because he's got the experience to do the job?

Because his Vice-Presidential nominee has more experience that 0bama?

Because McCain's VP isn't a schizophrenic?

Posted by: NeverLeft | October 22, 2008 8:25 PM

My My My.....all this ranting and I haven't gotten one single reason to vote FOR McCain.

OK, once again....

What has McCain done these past few weeks that deserves more positive stories?

Posted by: StoptheSpin | October 22, 2008 8:13 PM

Barack Obama is no more nor less than the consummate Chicago Politician. But fear not! For over a century, Chicago has earned the reputation for producing some of the finest Judges, Governors, Congressmen, and Senators that money can buy.

Posted by: HarryDupa | October 22, 2008 8:05 PM

Anyone catch the journalistic excellence on CNN last night when the Palin interviewer purposely took a New Republic writer's quote and made it sound like the writer was calling the Gov. (I paraphrase) either ignorant or dangerous, or something to that effect, when the real quote in context said that if anyone were to rely on the media she would be judged that way?

Journalism is dead!

Posted by: kelly10 | October 22, 2008 8:05 PM

San Diego CA poster here: At no time during the 3 prime-time hours I watched television last Friday night was there any anti-Obama ads delivered by McCain or anyone - NOT 1!! On the other hand, every other ad break included an anti-McCain ad delivered by none other than Barack Hussein Obama himself. Thank god for the remote mute button. Also, as noted by rmadc4me, http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html is an exellent article about the media and their coverage of the next "messiah"

Posted by: hrtuvau | October 22, 2008 7:50 PM

Can the New York Times and the Washington Post, Newsweek and Time survive the backlash of an Obama Presidency? Just asking.

Newsweek - first to go by 11/09 (maybe summer)
NY Times - Murdoch has it by 2011
Time - just Time.com and that failing by 2010
Washington Post - just a dotcom by the next election

Thoughts? Predictions?

Posted by: caroltempleton | October 22, 2008 7:47 PM

rmacd4me Excellent point on Hillary too. The media dumped her like a rock when they had a new rock star to drool over. They're leaches who will latch on to whatever is the flavor of the day.

Posted by: keebosr | October 22, 2008 7:29 PM

eenip Why didn't the Dems work more vigorously to fix these things during their two years of Congressional control? Answer - they're more feckless than the Republicans you complain about. What did Sadam do? Why, all of the things that Obama said in his second debate would justify the projection & use of US force - genocide, torture, rape, use of chemical weapons, mass terror.... Go review the 2nd debate tapes. Obama made the case for invading Iraq and sending the nutcase off to his judgment.

Posted by: keebosr | October 22, 2008 7:27 PM

If you want to read an article from and HONEST journalist about this election, go to this site:
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

People who are not blind, know that the main stream (leftist) news media has been in bed with Obama, from the begining. The trashing of HRC was almost totally done by the media. With Palin, it was mostly the media, but Obmambots bloggers and other stooges for Obama as well as Obama himself, had a go at her.
Of the 2 vice-presidentail candidates, I think Biden is the most laughable and useless. Much of Palins' problems have been how she has been 'handled'. I think McCain made a mistake, by not letting her talk earlier. If you pick someone to be your running mate, make sure they are ready BEFORE you pick them

Posted by: rmacd4me | October 22, 2008 7:27 PM

Such wonderful folks here. Let us see how you react to some facts.

Google the Security Exchange Act of 1934 and read section 32 paragraph a) to see for your own eyes a corporate get out of jail free card. Then ask why NEITHER has ever made an effort to eliminate that loophole.

Next, in the bailout all of you remember that the FDIC was told to increase account coverage up to 250,000.00. What no one, especially the press, has told you that the bill also told them they could not increase their fees to cover this. They could only borrow if necessary to cover losses. Just more fiscal irresponsibility by the Democratic party who brought you the mortgage meltdown of 2008.

Now, I want you to examine Obama's tax plan. He intends on taxing the rich over 250,000.00 more so he can give more to those earning under. On the surface a very noble undertaking. However, of the 95 who will be getting refunds, 40% do not even pay any taxes. But that is not the worst of it. All of us more lowly folks are trying to do is to become part of the wealthy; but it does not make much sense to work harder just to pay more taxes. What we have to understand is that Obama will have to go back to the well of the rich again to support the increased spending that will come out of Congress; and at some point that will necessitate they lower the level from 250,000.00 and include more of the taxpaying public to generate enough revenue.

Then another interesting point many of you have wondered about. Why the rush to pass a bailout when the Stock market would have been patient enough to evaluate the legislation they knew would eventually pass. Well, I have sen a few postings that showed a particular SEC Corp. was misreporting almost 400 million dollars of negative cash flow. Were their line of credit to be called, which would have been the case with the tight credit, you would have had another Enron. Why does not the media and Congress be forthcoming and let us know that.

Posted by: lionheart23031 | October 22, 2008 7:24 PM

ronniesmith123 No need to bow with shame & guilt. Just consider yourself redeemed, enlightened, and informed. I'm a McCain supporter and a Republican but I understand people have differing views. I could better respect them if their views were based from a postion of knowledge and balanced presentation. But, most American's take what is force-fed to them from the mainstream media thus they don't have impartial views. In fact, if you don't do some of your own homework, you'll never have an impartial view. I applaud you for a truly unbiased and honest post!!

Posted by: keebosr | October 22, 2008 7:23 PM

After 8 years of failure that has brought war with a country that did nothing to us ( I think the only answer they have now is “Sadam was a bad guy” . Occupation of that country after we broke it. The worse financial crises since the Great Depression. Lies and crimes as well as torture. You guys still drink the kool aid. Amazing! The GOP will lose the white house The Dems will win a wild majority in the house and the senate. Good work you guys. Nice job! By voting in loonies and idealogs you have really helped the Republican brand.

Posted by: eenip | October 22, 2008 7:19 PM

I just love too how the media grills & grills Palin about her 'readiness' to be President with her sixteen years of public service including positions on a city council, mayor, oil & gas commission, and governor. Obama is the state senator who wouldn't make a decision about anything ("present") and he has a whopping four years in the US Senate, two of them campaigning. And he's more qualified? Some of my local school board members are more qualified!

Posted by: keebosr | October 22, 2008 7:18 PM

And this is news...??? Maybe those reporters who get funny feelings up their legs when they hear the Messiah speak are part of the problem. The media has been totally in Obama's corner since the beginning. They've not asked him one tough question nor have they come close to vetting his many dubious past & present relationships. They have utterly failed in their fiduciary duty to be unbiased and impartial. What a disgrace and they deserve to lose market share. Who can trust them?

Posted by: keebosr | October 22, 2008 7:14 PM

This story doesn't even really address most pernicious element of bias - the HEADLINE. Often, if you assess the entire content of the stories, it's not THAT much more biased for 0bama. However, the media has definitely biased the HEADLINES (the attention getter) towards 0bama.

They could do a story on each candidate kissing a baby - the 0bama story would lead with "0bama Showers Affection On Child", while the McCain headline would read "McCain Spreads Germs To Infant". The damage is done before the story is even read.

Posted by: beezdotcom | October 22, 2008 7:14 PM

How can the media report anything positive about McCain when he's out there running an overwhelmingly negative ad campaign?

You get what you dish out.

Posted by: softlanding | October 22, 2008 7:05 PM

I'm still waiting for Sean Hannity to save the lection for Mccain, all by his wittle wonesome self. What a grade A a-hole.

Posted by: jfern03 | October 22, 2008 6:56 PM

Dolph 924 wrote
The media focuses on what's happening

You sir/madame are an idiot.

Thanks and goodnight.


Posted by: blevins20061 | October 22, 2008 6:53 PM

Funny that when you are a lousy candidate and a lousier vice president, the media is "elite".

Elite, my ass.

Posted by: jfern03 | October 22, 2008 6:53 PM

The media focuses on what's happening and what has been happening in the McCain campaign has been lies, smears, distraction, erratic positions on the economym, poll support shrinking, real information about Palin, 4 bad debates for the GOP, etc. The media would have to write about some other campaign than the one McCain is running for the coverage not to be negative. There is no obligation to treat liars and the lied about equally.

Posted by: dolph924 | October 22, 2008 6:49 PM

If the media gets their way and Obama is elected, I hope they won't cry when he goes after them. The resent story about Obama selling news spots at his election night party is only a start. Once he's elected he won't need them anymore and will then start treating them like redheaded step children. The new liberal fairness doctrine may be more encompassing than the msm expects. We all know Obama does not like stories or people that question him. Take a look at the wringer Joe the Plumber was put through. While the msm did this for Obama, once elected, like all good socialists he will have people to control the press. Finally, as far as I'm concerned the msm has lost any respect I have ever had for it.

Posted by: Kagura1 | October 22, 2008 6:42 PM

Anyone who thinks that the media hasn't given Obama a free ride is either ignorant or a fool. And the comment made about "what about Rush, Hannity, Prager, etc....." is so incredibly ridiculous. Comparing talk radio and one network, Fox, to CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, Time, Newsweek, New York Times, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle..... give me a break! The vast majority of journalists are treating Obama like the messiah and McCain like a leper.

I will take McCain and his foibles over Obama and his paltry 2 years in the Senate. And Palin and Biden?? Oh my gosh no contest there whatsoever! Biden must have athelete's mouth by now, since he just keeps changing feet every time he talks. Palin is awesome and the media hates her because she's a CONSERVATIVE. She is successful, has a career, a happy family...she fits the bill of the feminist women's dream. Except for that pesky fact that she is Conservative and - God forbid - actually goes to church and holds to traditional family values.

No wonder the media hates McCain/Palin so much.

I pray to God every night that people in this country will wake up and smell the coffee. Obama will destroy our country.

Posted by: rc_lifeguard | October 22, 2008 6:37 PM

You mean the media are rooting for Obama?????? Shocked I say!!! Shocked!!!

Posted by: jadrummond | October 22, 2008 6:33 PM

Honest reporter = an oximoron

Posted by: tumeroll | October 22, 2008 6:32 PM

I am a liberal democrat, and I always have supported the democrats in all the elections. But, what the media and newspapers have done this election in terms of media-obsession towards Obama is abominable. They let the American people down. I thought such total lack of journalism ethics happens only in dictatorships, like China and Iran. It is extremely unfortunate that American democracy has been reduced to such low level. Why is Obama never scrutinized, always covered positively, and never analyzed with any objectivity, whereas McCain is always trashed. All these years, I used to fight my Republican friends that Fox News has the lowest ethics, and CNN and the major networks will never be so low. Now, I bow in front of them with shame and guilt. Fox News looks far more objective than CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS. That is a low point in America. I wish American people will deal a blow to the media and press (even reputable ones like WP and NYT). Let the democracy win.

Posted by: ronniesmith123 | October 22, 2008 6:18 PM

What does one expect when you have children running most of the world. Few have any experience with anything resembling the real world. And reporters coming out of college have a mission to change the world not report the news. The nasty little truth is that when dictators get voted into office as Obama hopes to do, the first thing they do is shut down the press. So all the drooling fools pushing Barack the Boma will be out looking for work.

Posted by: tumeroll | October 22, 2008 6:15 PM

What has McCain done these past few weeks that deserves more positive stories?

Posted by: StoptheSpin | October 22, 2008 6:11 PM

If media coverage is supposed to accurately reflect events as they occur, it should come as no surprise that the coverage of the McCain campaign would be negative. We were taught as kids that we should treat others as we would have them treat us. Guess McPalin forgot that lesson.

Posted by: moonshad | October 22, 2008 6:11 PM

It is obvious to the world that the liberal, elitist media wants Barack Obama to be President. Therefore they slant their stories to help him achieve the goal they desire.

Mark Penn was correct when he stated "the biggest loser in this year's election will be the media".

Posted by: mwhoke | October 22, 2008 5:52 PM

LOL KMMicheals, check out the good news "honey child":
DOW -514 points today.

http://www.marketwatch.com/

Still waiting for an answer


.....anyone? anyone?

Posted by: StoptheSpin | October 22, 2008 5:50 PM

Let's play who said it.

"The fundmentals of the economy are sound, contrary to the current phychology."

Answer:

Barney Frank, top DEM, discussing the state of our economy.

When? Yesterday.

Obama of course called up Barney Frank and said, "Honey child, you really need to go with the flow and pretend that the economy is as bad as I say it is. You dont want me to lose with good news to you?"


Posted by: KMichaels | October 22, 2008 5:42 PM

I agree with volt92001. LOL This is obviously a plot by the corporate owned, commercially driven media to get a "socialist" elected.

and I repeat....What has McCain done these past few weeks to deserve more positive stories?

anyone?

Posted by: StoptheSpin | October 22, 2008 5:35 PM

Wall Street took a big hit this Fall, but it was nothing compared
to the profession of journalism. The East and West Coast
media have made total fools out of themselves.

They will probably get Obama elected, but how long will it take
them to get their reputations back?

Posted by: KACU | October 22, 2008 5:27 PM

If you're a DRUDGE reader, you should try out blipnews.

http://www.blipnews.com

It's a tool that allows you to sort all of the content from DRUDGE REPORT by most recent articles--so you don't waste another 30 seconds of your life sifting through stories you've already looked at...

Posted by: blipnews | October 22, 2008 5:26 PM

I am neither a democrat nor republican and in fact I do not hold politicians in high regard. However, I hold the mainstream media in lower regard than politicians, snakes and commercial sex workers. I apologize to commercial sex workers, at least with them you get some level of honesty up front. The mainstream media focuses on the sensational and whatever sells and furthers their agenda. Not much credibility as I see it.

Posted by: volt92001 | October 22, 2008 5:25 PM

God forbid the commercial war media actually admits Obama was born in Kenya... that he is NOT a natural-born U.S. citizen and, therefore, ineligible to run for President.

Maybe the Post could cover the story and just convolute it so it doesn't matter. That seems to be the M.O. these days.

Posted by: drumz | October 22, 2008 5:10 PM

Simple response. What has McCain done these past few weeks that deserves more positive stories?

Posted by: StoptheSpin | October 22, 2008 5:06 PM

StoptheSpin, the issue is not whether Obama has admirable traits, it's whether he's qualified for the office he seeks, whether the country will be well served by ideology, and frankly why he dissembles about his radical background and mentors -- at least some of whom are undeniably anti-American.

Posted by: zjr78xva | October 22, 2008 5:06 PM

Counting the number of favorable and unfavorable stories does not reveal bias.

You must also assess the accuracy of the favorable or unfavorable claim. If the claims are accurate, then the journalist has done his job and deserves no criticism.

Kurtz is in the bag for Republicans. Halerprin, Schaffer, Brokow all in the bag for the ethically bankrupt Republican party.

Posted by: NeilSagan | October 22, 2008 5:01 PM

If McCain spent more time leading instead of tearing the other guy down, he would have more positive stories.

Posted by: StoptheSpin | October 22, 2008 5:01 PM

What really strikes me about this latest set of attacks is the hypocrisy. Senator Obama is the poster boy for "republican values".

He came to this country, overcame an adverse family situation, worked hard, blamed no one for his problems, gained his education, got a job, sacrificed personal wealth (that he certainly could have made in the private sector) to become a community organizer and a public servant. He is the closest thing to a self made man in this election. He "pulled himself up by his bootstraps" but is now being labeled anti-American and is undergoing numerous smears and attacks.

The only thing that Senator Obama threatens is the party of privilege. So its OK to dream, reach for the stars and be successful as long as you do not threaten the republican party status-quo. The pathetic truth is that Senator Obama is hated in many quarters simply because he reflects the true hypocrisy and mediocrity of his detractors. At this point they will say anything.

What chance do you think Senator Obama would have at becoming president if he had an unwed pregnant teenage daughter....or if he had disrepectfully turned to the camera in the debates and said whatever he wanted....or if he had said the "fundamentals of the economy are strong"....or if he had graduated last in his class or left a disabled wife? This is the double standard that we are are so immersed in that we can no longer see it there. Or do we choose not to see it?

Posted by: StoptheSpin | October 22, 2008 4:54 PM

Coverage of McCain has been negative because most people outside of the bubble world of the GOP base think McCain has run a terrible campaign and done a terrible disservice to the nation by choosing Palin. I say this as someone who voted for McCain in 2000.

Posted by: osullivanc1 | October 22, 2008 4:40 PM

Down in the polls, McCain's Divide & Flail™ strategy is to call Barack Obama's tax cut for 95% of Americans "socialism."


Well, McCain must have once been a socialist, because it turns out that for years he supported higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for lower taxes on the middle-class.


The YouTube don't lie:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8EyGpOU3qM
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 22, 2008 4:38 PM

So, A vote for Obama is a vote for danger, Joe: Is that what you're telling us- Thanks for the Warning! I'll stick with Foreign Policy Credentials at the Top of my Ticket.

Posted by: thecannula
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Before you used reason and issues and although I thought you were dissembling and distorting, Now you are using fear mongering. Some how I do not think your judgment of leadership and foreign affairs out strips Colin Powell's.

For reasons of honest disclosure I think you should disclose that you earn more than 250K and that you support McCain to improve you business prospects. Doing that gives you some integrity. You seem to have forgotten about disclosure everywhere you post.

Posted by: Gator-ron | October 22, 2008 4:31 PM

ABC News- REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL PART 3

"At a Seattle, Wash., fundraiser Sunday, Biden said, "Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America ... Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.""

So, A vote for Obama is a vote for danger, Joe: Is that what you're telling us?- Thanks for the Warning! I'll stick with Foreign Policy Credentials at the Top of my Ticket.

Posted by: thecannula | October 22, 2008 4:15 PM

Reply toPosted by: DrainYou | October 22, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Small potatoes compared to the the transfer of funds from his campaign to his family. However, neither did anything against the law. The problem is you probably didn't hear about the Biden issue. Just like his gaffes, Obama/Biden gaffes and negative stuff never quite makes to the MSN reporting even though they are quite similar to McCain/Palin. Obama knows all he has to do is coast not say anything meanigful except platitudes and the MSN will provide him with all the cover he needs while viciously going after McCain just like the professional hit piece on Cindy out of the New York Times. The only equivalent would be a vicious hit piece on Michelle's digust with America in the WSJ. If that happened you libs would be foaming at the mouth, showing mock disgust and having Michelle go back on the View to discuss how mean Republicans are.

Posted by: johs | October 22, 2008 4:12 PM

Re-defeat the media. Vote for the only great man running, Sen. John S. McCain.

Posted by: zjr78xva | October 22, 2008 4:02 PM

reply to Posted by: republicrat | October 22, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

I will try and do the research on the first negative by Obama, that set the stage, I believe it was his race baiting attack on Republicans and McCain. That being said, the negative ads are a bit unfortunate and would not be necessary is the MSN vetted the subjects in a professional way when they came up. Obama's relationships over the years have all been marxists, socialists, and bigoted left wingers and his voting record reflects a position that is so far left he would have a difficult time "reaching across the aisle" let alone to Blue Dog Democrats. It currently appears he won't have to worry thought and blatant liberalism will become a cancer that we will never be able to get rid off with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Biden 4 horsemen of the Apocolypse.

Posted by: johs | October 22, 2008 4:01 PM

I realize there is some circularity here, but if McCain were actually running a more negative campaign, by objective metrics, then he should be getting more negative coverage, if the media is "fair."

On the other hand, if he's getting more negative coverage but his campaign is about the same, then it's media bias.

Point being: just quoting the percent negative tells us absolutely nothing about media bias or McCain's campaign, because we have an equation with three variables and two unknowns.

In going negative hard first, McCain made himself the bad guy. Obama waited a week to bite back, and by then the impression of McCain as the attacker was set.

And look: conservatives are coming out of the woodwork to disparage Palin, to complain about the robocalls, to call McCain out on his negative campaign. Lots of Republicans are bailing the ship. In that context, how is that the media's fault?

Posted by: mbbatz | October 22, 2008 3:55 PM

Side Show Palin is a Freeloader.


$150,000 shopping sprees (at all the best "elitist" shops, no less), on the Republican National Committee tab.
.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html


$21,012 worth of free flights for her daughters, charged to the state.
.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/10/22/alaska_paid_for_palin_daughters_to_travel/


All this, when she already makes $125,000 a year as governor and pockets an extra $22,883 in energy extraction royalties.


Sarah Palin is a chisler supreme.


All of which makes the fact that she charged $16,951 in expenses charged to the state, including 312 per diem allowances for staying in her own home just that much more amazing.
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088.html


A dual income family, with Sarah earning $125K. Free travel (even for the family), and now free clothes, hair and makeup. They can actually go out in her backyard and shoot a moose, keeping her family in free mooseburger for a year. And still she feels the need to cheat. Shoot that moose for free and still charge the state $60 per burger. And she claims she deserves every bit of it.


Now that's what I call a perverse sense of entitlement.


"Sounds like socialism to me," to borrow a phrase.


Just another fake "bootstrapper" Republican. What a shocker.


Meanwhile, we all have to endure the indignity of Palin turning the campaign for the Vice Presidency into some kind of FOX reality TV makeover show, where they take some ridiculously not-ready-for-prime-time pol and dress her up, push her out on the stage, and see if they can turn her into a VP in 10 weeks.


What the heck, right? It's just being second in line to the nuclear launch codes. No big thing. We could even do a whole copromotional deal with moose sandwiches at Subway.


Thanks, Republicans. You sure do love your country n' stuff.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 22, 2008 3:51 PM

Why is that most of the intellectual Republicans are leaving the Mcain ticket for the Obama ticket? We don't see the reverse happening.
People like Ms. Eisenower,Mr. C. Bukley,Ms Peggy Noonan, Secretary Powell and more...
Republicans for Obama!

Posted by: BFranco | October 22, 2008 3:45 PM

As with polls, the trend is more revealing than the score.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 22, 2008 3:43 PM

Posted by: nnia | October 22, 2008 3:41 PM

Duh. Did that study cost more than the one to get DNA from bears?

Posted by: MarkInAustin
-----------------------------------

That sums it up for me.

Posted by: cyrix1 | October 22, 2008 3:37 PM

Lets have a 100% Redneck GOP ticket in 2012.

Go Palin/JoeThePlumber 2012 !!!

Joe will make a great VP. He will be in charge of the country's offshore oil drilling efforts since he has a lot of experience working in wet conditions.


Posted by: tinguman | October 22, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Excellent idea! so Joe the plumber could be in charge of the Senate and "work on a lot of good policies"

Posted by: BFranco | October 22, 2008 3:36 PM

Hilary Clinton brought up Tony Rezko, Barrack Obama's best friend and their friendship..did you Amaericans ever get an answer to that from Obama? If someone bought a vacant lot beside my house, so that I could afford it, he would be a VERY good friend or he would want something from me in return. Rezko, Wright, Ayres, Obama...it seems Americans are just as bad at judging character as Obama is.

Posted by: steve85 | October 22, 2008 3:22 PM
__________________________________________
The press was in court every day for the trial of Mr. Rezko. If there was a story to be had, it didn't pan out. We know the press likes a good, juicy, scandalous story above all else - good for sales I hear. Does anyone ever think that the reason there is no more to tell is that there is no more to tell.

Posted by: republicrat | October 22, 2008 3:36 PM

Might have something to do with this:
McCain's campaign moving to 100% negative ads.

and

Is there really anything new and good to say about Palin? As it turns out all the supposed good (by conservative standards) things about her were untrue down to her not even being a hockey-mom.

Posted by: JRM2 | October 22, 2008 3:36 PM

Johs wrote: "...Obama went negative before McCain and the campaign was ordered not to go negative and only go negative once Obama did."
__________________________________________
What alternate reality are you stuck in? McCain went negative because he wasn't getting any attention. He started with negative "personal" attacks first. Obama countered with negative "policy" attacks. McCain countered with negative policy and personal attacks.

Posted by: republicrat | October 22, 2008 3:28 PM

AP is correct. In fact, McCain should be higher than Obama in the vote count.

Now, LET'S SPREAD THE WEALTH!

McCain '08

http://www.obamaunveiled.com

Posted by: nnia | October 22, 2008 3:22 PM

Hilary Clinton brought up Tony Rezko, Barrack Obama's best friend and their friendship..did you Amaericans ever get an answer to that from Obama? If someone bought a vacant lot beside my house, so that I could afford it, he would be a VERY good friend or he would want something from me in return. Rezko, Wright, Ayres, Obama...it seems Americans are just as bad at judging character as Obama is.

Posted by: steve85 | October 22, 2008 3:22 PM

Who really represents the middle-class in this country?

Now, LET'S SPREAD THE WEALTH!

McCain '08

http://www.obamaunveiled.com

Posted by: nnia | October 22, 2008 3:21 PM

If the McCain campaign repeatedly promotes negativity, it is going to be reported on. Is that negative?

Posted by: republicrat | October 22, 2008 3:21 PM

Reply to: Posted by: ajackson3 | October 22, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

McCains ads in the summer, both the Paris Hilton one and the Moses one were the best ads I have ever seen in a politcal race dating back to the Kennedy/Nixon campaign. Obama went negative before McCain and the campaign was ordered not to go negative and only go negative once Obama did. To this day they haven't hit Obama on his 20yr intimate relationship with Wright. The ads that you deem negative were really a spoof of the MSM. The only unfiltered air/press time McCain/Palin get is during the convention live portion (not the pre/post analysis) and the debates (not the pre/post analysis). During the analysis portion the only fair shot they get is on Fox news if you consider a fair shot being treated like Obama was in the analysis portion of the debates and convention by ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,MSNBC,PBS. Another parallel is in print with only the WSJ as opposed to the NYT,LAT,WAPO,USA Today,Boston Globe, Chi Trib, and others.

Posted by: johs | October 22, 2008 3:21 PM

Just an obervation from this comment board..people for Obama seem to have a LOT of hate inside them, which I don't see from the other side. Any reason for that?...I mean 2 people are running for President of your country, it doesn't mean you have to HATE the other person...just vote against him.

Posted by: steve85 | October 22, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse
__________________________________________
Depends on where you've been observing. McCain supporters, as a rule, are very vicious.

Posted by: republicrat | October 22, 2008 3:19 PM

McCain Is Proud Of His Brochure Linking Obama To Islamic Terrorism.
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/rnc-mailer-what-does-obam_n_135407.html
.


On Monday, a Missouri-based television reporter asked McCain whether he was proud of a smear-laden mailer sent out by the RNC on his campaign's behalf.
.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/21/mccain_stands_by_controversial.html
.


McCain's reply: "Absolutely."
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbEPmh7iS7E
.


It all comes down to the economy. Despite his attempted "reboot", John McCain is still as determined as ever to smear Barack Obama with the most scurrilous garbage imaginable -- all because he has no clue what to do about creating new jobs.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 22, 2008 3:18 PM

Just an observation from this comment board..people for McCain seem to have a LOT of hate inside them, which I don't see from the other side. Any reason for that?...I mean 2 people are running for President of your country, it doesn't mean you have to HATE the other person...just vote against him.

Posted by: lou1 | October 22, 2008 3:18 PM

Just an obervation from this comment board..people for Obama seem to have a LOT of hate inside them, which I don't see from the other side. Any reason for that?...I mean 2 people are running for President of your country, it doesn't mean you have to HATE the other person...just vote against him.

Posted by: steve85 | October 22, 2008 3:16 PM

Has it really been that long since McCain said or did anything positive to report on?

One thing you neglected to mention, Howie, is the fact that McCain and Palin have dominated the campaign coverage, day after day, week after week. I guess that makes it all the more shocking that nobody's found anything positive in their campaign.

If it bleeds, it leads.

McCain's campaign is an atrocious bloody mess, which accounts both for the fact that it's getting most of the coverage and the fact that mowst of that coverage is negative.

Posted by: lonquest | October 22, 2008 3:14 PM

McCain is flailing...or is it unraveling? After watching this video of McCain it looks like he's doing both of these things at the same time.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnE-YJ---GI
.

HAHAHA!!!

Posted by: DrainYou | October 22, 2008 3:09 PM

Who is to blame, the newspapers or the newsmakers?

"Reap what you sow."
-thenotoriousflavio

Posted by: mdownes | October 22, 2008 3:06 PM

Lets have a 100% Redneck GOP ticket in 2012.

Go Palin/JoeThePlumber 2012 !!!

Joe will make a great VP. He will be in charge of the country's offshore oil drilling efforts since he has a lot of experience working in wet conditions.

Posted by: tinguman | October 22, 2008 3:06 PM

I don't need a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism to tell that coverage of McCain has been more negative than that for Obama.

Of course it should be this way, MCCAIN'S CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN MORE NEGATIVE THAN OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN!

Most of the political news media (exception maybe FOX NEWS) are reflecting the general public dissatisfaction with the personal attacks and smallness of the McCain campaign tactics, especially over the last month when the financial market crisis hit.

Posted by: AJ2008 | October 22, 2008 3:05 PM

I definitely feel that coverage has been biased toward Obama.

That said, I don't know that the media can ever really win on this issue. Even if they strenuously tried to have an equal number of positive stories for each candidate, that act alone would contort and frame things perhaps unfairly. What if it were Abe Lincoln and Hitler running for the White House, should the media attempt to have an equal number of positive stories on each candidate? Please note that I'm not trying to draw a parallel between our present candidates and the historical figures, just making a point.

http://www.politicswithagrin.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Kristen2 | October 22, 2008 3:05 PM

Way to go Kurtz.
Isn't two full more weeks of McCain's constant whining enough? Did you have to give him a bone? Who the hell is the organization anyway? I don't believe what they are saying. What is their methodology? You can't just put this crap out here without facts.

Posted by: rlcampbell | October 22, 2008 3:04 PM

Yo Kurtz, what good could have be said about McCain's erratic actions? That he's doing mavericky things.

McCain got a free ride until Amy Poehler, as Hillary Clinton, told the MSM to "grow a pair" on their reporting of McCain.

Posted by: Roofelstoon | October 22, 2008 3:04 PM

Getting sick of this "liberal media" crap.
Aren't Rush, Sean, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, etc. part of the media, not to mention the Rupert Murdoch newspaper empire? Seems to me that you get negative coverage when you do negative things.

Posted by: StevefromSacto | October 22, 2008 3:03 PM

Muppet...no..but why Germany?

Posted by: steve85 | October 22, 2008 2:59 PM

The media in a free country isn't there to represent the "general Feeling" of the country...they report the facts, or "find the facts". Americans still do not know the relationship between Willaim Ayres and Obama..in the last debate Obama said Willam Ayres DID NOT have a fundraiser for him in his livingroom..that is an outright lie that CNN or the media in general follwed up on.

Posted by: steve85 | October 22, 2008 2:57 PM

It is pretty obvious that conservatives see the findings as a "no duh" and the liberals want to tear it apart and reassemble it just as the pundits and reporters do. Liberals have no idea, nor would they ever admit how liberal the media is and how much they report from that prism. Liberals need not worry it is not going to change in my lifetime, the only problem is the liberals have to live with the fact that they have lost so many times when the "refs" tried to throw the game for them. They should win this year since Obama came into the race with a 30 point generic Dem/Rep lead, but who knows, as Obama said Dems are very good at snatching defeat out of the Jaws of Victory. If Dems do win, you can rest assured it is not because of your ideals it is because voters backlash to Bush and want a change even if it is not well thought out or even challenged change due to "in the tank" coverage.

Posted by: johs | October 22, 2008 2:57 PM

I agree with other bloggers on this post. The McCain started the negative campaigning in the Summer with the two ridiculous commercials, "The One" and "Celebrity". Then the gimmick, Governor Palin, was introduced and all she has EVER done is campaigned negatively. She does it because she is CLUELESS to the position she as selected for and she is given talking points which are negative. Then the McCain-Palin campaign began with the William Ayers, "palling around with terrorist" accusations. Now they are trying to call Senator Obama a "Socialist". Again, in all of that, where have you heard a theme that discusses WHAT THE MCCAIN-PALIN TICKET WILL DO FOR THE COUNTRY? And they wonder why they are getting negative press coverage. Did you think Colin Powell brought this up Sunday just for kicks? McCain brought negative press coverage on himself by virtue of the type of campaigning he and his sideshow VP pick are doing and the fact that he made a STRATEGIC pick, not a "country first" pick for VP.

Posted by: ajackson3 | October 22, 2008 2:56 PM

Howard always strikes me as a Republican in disguise...

Posted by: BFranco | October 22, 2008 2:51 PM

Great Video

Check out this video of Sarah Palin answering a 3rd grader's question about what the job of the VP is, Scary:

http://liesliesmorelies.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palin-to-third-grader-vice.html

Posted by: Snakeheader | October 22, 2008 2:51 PM

Steve85, let me take a guess...you're from Germany?

Posted by: MUPPET | October 22, 2008 2:51 PM

Yes, of course coverage of McCain is more negative. Long established, major media have very strong internal feed-back loops, and their staff attitudes and bias becomes more and more concentrated.

Especially with the rise of the internet, they now must struggle to maintain viewers/readers, so as customers leave to watch other media, so these established become even more factional and biased.

Posted by: pgr88 | October 22, 2008 2:50 PM

Worried the missus might be out of a job as a Republican lobbyist, Howie? McCain is the negative.

Posted by: SarahBB | October 22, 2008 2:49 PM

I am also a non American observer and I believe that the American media represent the general feeling of the American opinion.
The opiniion is the need of change after 8 years of failed policy of Economy, torture, war just to mention some. My impression is that the American people are thirsty for a change and it appears that a political sunami is on its way

Posted by: BFranco | October 22, 2008 2:45 PM

McCain's problem is that he has had to play Obama's game. Obama defined the rules two years ago, McCain only realized the rule changes a few months ago. So McCain has had to play catchup - he has to throw long passes. ................

http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/10/21/the-prophecy-of-barack-obama/

Posted by: glclark4750 | October 22, 2008 2:42 PM

If a campaign is more negative and has more wrong with it, the media SHOULD cover it more negatively. I'm so tired of the assertion that everyone is equally bad. Sarah Palin says Obama pals around with terrorists, but Obama attacked McCain health care plan. So, they're both negative.

No, they're not. One is worse than the other, and that should be reflected in the media.

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | October 22, 2008 2:41 PM

McCain, Palin, and their campaign staffs have worked hard to earn the increase in negative coverage.

Of course, it didn't help for McCain, Palin et al to begin attacking McCain's media "base."

Posted by: ChrisBrown11 | October 22, 2008 2:39 PM

As a non-American observer, I'm glad someone picked up on the negative coverage of the Republican ticket...the worst is CNN their new slogan "No Bias, No Bull" is a slap in the face to ALL Americans, it's a joke. I have cancelled my CNN subsription because of it, it's just wierd - the media Love-in with Obama..I mean they're saying Obama's relationship to Ayres, Rezko, Rev. Wright, etc. is no longer relavant...really..in my country if a leader was running and there was THIS much contravercy, he WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO RUN....you either have a very tollerant or complacent society....wierd stuff!

Posted by: steve85 | October 22, 2008 2:39 PM

It's simple, McCain has committed one stupid, desperate stunt after another for the last 6 weeks. How could his press be anything but negative?

Posted by: dcwsano | October 22, 2008 2:39 PM

This analysis of "positive" and "negative" coverage makes no sense at all.

Is the news reporting about McCain itself negative, or is the subject matter being covered unfavorable to the candidate?

It seems to me that reporting on the harsh attack strategy employed by the McCain campaign is not negative reporting it is a factual account of a negative situation created by the Republicans themselves.

Likewise, how is it negative to report about McCain's bogus "suspension" of his campaign? He did all that back-and-forth maneuvering himself. The media just reported on it.

If Palin made fewer flubs and gave more interviews she would have gotten more positive press. As it was, she and her dopey handlers generated the negative coverage by so severely restricting her access to the journalists who might have given her a good break.

Of course, the fact that Palin insisted on making bone-headed statements like referring to the "pro-America" parts of the nation did not help her one bit.

McCain has run a remarkably shabby, relentlessly downbeat and nasty campaign of unscrupulous tactics lacking an overarching message or vision. Without a doubt, the ugly nature of the campaign will continue to be exposed in the media coverage.

Posted by: dee5 | October 22, 2008 2:38 PM

I'm not surprised in the least that McCain is getting his butt kicked, he doesn't have a clue about how to fix the failed Bush economy because he and Phil Gramm helped break it.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4egXbhSOhk
.


McCain has never worked a day in his life. His idea of hard work is marrying a rich beer heiress for a living.


Running for political office is McCain's hobby. All trophy spouses have hobbies.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxT0s_I5WtA
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 22, 2008 2:34 PM


Does this survey include opinion pieces, news stories, or both?

Dig deeper. How much of the negative coverage is focused on negative campaign tactics, how much on falling behind? Does reporting the negative results of a poll count as negative coverage? What percentage of the negatives are criticism of policy proposals, of character, of rhetoric?

The negative coverage of Biden can't be accounted for by poll results as he is on the leading ticket. It also suggests these results can't be simply attributed to media bias.

Posted by: j2hess | October 22, 2008 2:34 PM

The coverage is negative because McCain has the stench of a loser around him.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 22, 2008 2:33 PM

Never mind how subjective and pointless the whole concept of measuring positive and negative coverage is, horse race coverage tends to favor the leader because he's, you know, winning. Is there some question about that?

Posted by: zukermand | October 22, 2008 2:30 PM

Wingnut Economic Philosophy 101:


Socialist = raising the top tax rate for the richest among us from 35% to 39%.


Free-Market = nationalizing the banks, massive investment in insurance agencies, limiting certain types of trades, raising the debt ceiling, and promoting government investment into stocks and bonds. And an emphasis on Red States.


It’s all so clear now!


"Conservatives" are hilarious, especially now that they're headed toward an epic defeat.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcdLO3jKkPo
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 22, 2008 2:28 PM

flavio, did you see the latest AP poll?

Posted by: MarkInAustin
==============

It's so rare you cite polls, I do wonder what it says. The suspense is killing me. Would I be way out of line if I took a wild guess you found a poll that shows the race tightening?

Posted by: zukermand | October 22, 2008 2:27 PM

This study probably reveals that his coverage is negative because his messages are negative.

Interesting to note that the latest NBC/WSJ poll showing Palin is a bigger drag on the McCain campaign than Bush.

Palin is just a side show. Without a doubt she is incapable of the 2nd highest office in the land, I would even question if 4 more years would give her the time to acquire the smarts she needs to pursue high office, or enough time to have her learn the correct pronounciation of nuclear (it is NOT nu-cular, Sarah). I see the Neanderthal Party ticket being Palin/Joe the plumber in 2012.

Anyways, she's nothing more than an official GOP cheerleader, not to be taken seriously as a VP candidate, america understands that. Funny how Joe Plumber has done more interviews than Palin.

Right now, it is quite enjoyable watching the death throes of a ruinous republican rule, as they are desperaely hanging on to the ledge of power by Palin's fingernails... and losing grip.

Equally entertaining to watch Mr. Hate himself Sean Hannity, panicking and freaking out about rezko, drug dealing, acorn, ayres ...and the reality of an Obama presidency.

Posted by: jfern03 | October 22, 2008 2:24 PM

what do we expect, exactly? that media coverage SHOULD be equally positive and negative for both candidates?

mccain has run a horrible, train wreck of a campaign, and his ads have been worse than obama's in terms of incendiary rhetoric and out-and-out lies.

mccain deserves the negative coverage he's gotten. indeed, he probably deserved WORSE.

Posted by: brickerd | October 22, 2008 2:23 PM

OBAMA HIMSELF IN INTERVIEWS, PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO LISTEN TO HIS FACTS. I GET MY FACTS FROM THE CANDIDATES THEMSELVES AND THE PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE SPENT THEIR LIVES AROUND.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036

Posted by: ashirklpn | October 22, 2008 2:20 PM

How to lie with statistics, yet again...

What this article doesn't mention is that the mainstream media has had a field day ripping apart Obama's Chicago network, but hasn't done much reporting at all on McCain's dirty, filthy, "liquor" (and sin) Arizona network. Hensley-Marley-Lansky...

So what if the media runs a lot of little articles critical of McCain, they've spiked the biggest story. Well, Frank Rich and the New York Times did report on it twice, but that's about it...

You WaPo people ought to be ashamed of yourselvs. If something happens to Obama, then you'll have to accept part of the blame. Live with that.

Posted by: jrob822 | October 22, 2008 2:18 PM

Reminds me of an old saying about a pig and lipstick. Must be some expensive lipstick... Lots of ethics stuff coming out about the Palins. Must be nice to jetset around the world with family on Alaska's dime. I know if I did that I'd be fired. Must be nice to shop for $150k worth of clothes without paying taxes. you betcha...

Posted by: DontGetIt | October 22, 2008 2:18 PM

It will take more than lipstick and a wardrobe to sell this one.

Posted by: frodot | October 22, 2008 2:17 PM

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: hclark1 | October 22, 2008 2:17 PM

flavio, did you see the latest AP poll?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 22, 2008 2:11 PM

Duh. Did that study cost more than the one to get DNA from bears?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 22, 2008 2:11 PM

Obama hasn't been acting like a schizophrenic jackass in search of an ankle to bite.

Posted by: ehperkins1971 | October 22, 2008 2:11 PM

Reap what you sow.

Posted by: thenotoriousflavio | October 22, 2008 2:09 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company