Supposedly "biased media"
So, I was reading this article today...
Palin story sparks GOP family feud
Anyhow, this brought back to mind the number of stories about the supposedly biased media. Over and over again, those who didn't like the coverage of Palin kept claiming that it had to do with media bias. Some groups even pointed to statistics showing that there were a far higher percentage of negative stories for her than the other candidates.
But look at the whole thing again from a different standard--did the McCain/Palin camp earn a higher percentage of negative stories? After all, this idea was never addressed by the critics and so no one bothered to justify the coverage. But as this story points out, the camp repeatedly leaked negative information about her and the campaign, performed various actions that renewed stories and caused them to be repeated and so on. All this and they continued to bitterly feud internally, unable to stay on message and focus on their cause.
By contrast, the Obama/Biden camp responded to critical stories from the media by making them look ridiculous. When critical commentary was made, they always did something to make it go away quickly. In some instances, they even won people to their side by doing so, such as the whole "celebrity" comment, which they spun as renewing the world's love of America.
So, take all of these factors, and pretend you're a news producer. You have one side that you're finding very little traction in commenting on and plenty of positive items to focus on. Their opponents are flustered, conducting internecine warfare, are totally unable to contain any negative internal info, perform badly in numerous interviews (and contrary to public opinion, Obama got tough interviews, but dealt with most of them ably and intelligently) and continue to further stories that should be left to die (such as the whole clothing issue).
Imagine you're in that situation and tell me how you justify trying to keep the number of negative stories even. You have a number of leads, quotes, documents and video segments that lead one way with one camp, and a number of the same items leading the other way. Are you really supposed to ignore all of those, and if so, how is that "fair" or "balanced" to the Obama camp? How is it that because they handled the media with great skill and savvy, they are to be penalized because the other camp can't handle any media at all? Seriously, the candidate famed for public gaffes, Biden, was held to just a couple of minor ones by the campaign; hell, he made vastly more before dropping out than he did while the VP nominee. Doesn't that alone say how well the campaign handled things?
The negative image of Palin wasn't the fault of the media, and it certainly wasn't the fault of Obama or his campaign (except maybe by contrast). It was the fault of Palin herself and/or the campaign behind her.
Palin story sparks GOP family feud
Anyhow, this brought back to mind the number of stories about the supposedly biased media. Over and over again, those who didn't like the coverage of Palin kept claiming that it had to do with media bias. Some groups even pointed to statistics showing that there were a far higher percentage of negative stories for her than the other candidates.
But look at the whole thing again from a different standard--did the McCain/Palin camp earn a higher percentage of negative stories? After all, this idea was never addressed by the critics and so no one bothered to justify the coverage. But as this story points out, the camp repeatedly leaked negative information about her and the campaign, performed various actions that renewed stories and caused them to be repeated and so on. All this and they continued to bitterly feud internally, unable to stay on message and focus on their cause.
By contrast, the Obama/Biden camp responded to critical stories from the media by making them look ridiculous. When critical commentary was made, they always did something to make it go away quickly. In some instances, they even won people to their side by doing so, such as the whole "celebrity" comment, which they spun as renewing the world's love of America.
So, take all of these factors, and pretend you're a news producer. You have one side that you're finding very little traction in commenting on and plenty of positive items to focus on. Their opponents are flustered, conducting internecine warfare, are totally unable to contain any negative internal info, perform badly in numerous interviews (and contrary to public opinion, Obama got tough interviews, but dealt with most of them ably and intelligently) and continue to further stories that should be left to die (such as the whole clothing issue).
Imagine you're in that situation and tell me how you justify trying to keep the number of negative stories even. You have a number of leads, quotes, documents and video segments that lead one way with one camp, and a number of the same items leading the other way. Are you really supposed to ignore all of those, and if so, how is that "fair" or "balanced" to the Obama camp? How is it that because they handled the media with great skill and savvy, they are to be penalized because the other camp can't handle any media at all? Seriously, the candidate famed for public gaffes, Biden, was held to just a couple of minor ones by the campaign; hell, he made vastly more before dropping out than he did while the VP nominee. Doesn't that alone say how well the campaign handled things?
The negative image of Palin wasn't the fault of the media, and it certainly wasn't the fault of Obama or his campaign (except maybe by contrast). It was the fault of Palin herself and/or the campaign behind her.