We have work to do before November. Only 52 percent of Washington's registered voters now think that the media is rooting for Obama. (8 percent think the media is rooting for John McCain; 35 percent think they are being fair to both.)
So we have convinced a majority, but we still have a long way to go. But with the help of almost all of our local news organizations, I think we can make substantial progress by November, perhaps pushing that 52 percent to 60, or even 65 percent.
By way of Jack Fowler.
(Of course I would prefer to see our "mainstream" news organizations be fair to both sides, and maybe some day they will be. But it would be foolish to expect any improvement from them before this election is over.)
Posted by Jim Miller at September 04, 2008 05:07 PM | Email ThisAnd the fact that Dino is very competitive is QUITE telling in that even the Marxist, Leftist Slavery Party members are disappointed with the former attorney general's performance!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 4, 2008 05:16 PMJust because someone realizes that the media has a bias doesn't mean that they are going to change their mind and vote the other way.
Posted by: Smoley on September 4, 2008 06:24 PMAnd the story's still to be written on his squandering of over 100 million dollars on 'activists' instead of the intended improvement of Chicago schoolkids. No doubt they jet-propelled his ascent in Democratic politics, but I'd rather see educated students than fat activists.
Our corrupt media has used the words 'community organizer' as a blanket to pull over the specifics of his lavish subsidies to questionable leftist groups. Time for some changes, all right, in how the public gets informed of the doings of its politicians.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on September 4, 2008 06:27 PMThe glory of God is intelligence. Doesn't mean everyone uses their gift.
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr on September 5, 2008 12:04 AM
Does the press have a "bias"? Sure. But it's not ideological.
The press (along with police detectives, intel agents, and PIs) -- they all try to gather information from well-placed sources over time.
So the press' bias is to maintain the status quo. Mostly so their sources will get promoted, and provide better information.
This is why the press was so resistant to Perot. No one had any idea who he'd hire/appoint. Which would mean reporters would actually have to hit the streets and work for a living digging up their stories, rather than taking their sources out on expense account. :)
In this light, it's not surprising at all that Obama would be getting numerically more negative coverage than McCain (see link above). If the govt changes party, then the people turn over, which means sources dry up.
Again, note this has nothing to do with reporters' personal preferences. It has everything to do with them being (strike)lazy(/strike) efficient. :)
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr on September 5, 2008 07:32 AMI think you may be burying the lead:
"On the whole, is Joe Biden an asset to Barack Obama? 46% Asset, 26% Liability, 26% Don't Know Enough, 2% Not Sure"
"On the whole, is Sarah Palin an asset to John McCain? 45% Asset, 39% Liability, 15% Don't Know Enough, 1% Not Sure"
The "asset" numbers roughly correlate to the percent that have made up their minds in favor of their respective candidates, with some bleed over on each side. The "liability" numbers are interesting.
Biden has been a national figure for decades, and yet most non-"asset" people -- mostly non-Obama supporters -- are still undecided about him.
Palin has been a national figure for a week, and yet far more non-"asset" people -- mostly non-McCain supporters -- are AGAINST her.
I think this is a good example of what people mean when they talk about the "angry left."