Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Another not so scientific poll and "scientific evidence" of media bias for the GOP

by Norman Markowitz

First I spoke with a retired professor who is 88 years old, needs a walker to get around, and has nursing care. But he voted, and he voted for Obama.

He is an old socialist who voted when he was a young man for Norman Thomas. His view is that both Clinton and Obama are acceptable, but he considers Obama the better, more hopeful candidate. He is someone by the way who taught briefly in a Southern historically Black college shortly after WWII.

Meanwhile, there was an interesting story in the New York Time which mentions that John McCain is getting more coverage than either Clinton or Obama over the last week, even though they are among the two most interesting candidates in presidential history, in terms of media values (the first women and the first African American candidate who have serious chances to win a major presidential nomination and the presidency).

McCain over the last week received 37% of all news coverage on the Republican side of the election as against 34% and 32% for Obama and Clinton respectively. This from a scientific study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which has used traditional content analysis survey research methodologies to study dominant news stories since the beginning of 2007.

The study also showed that Rudy Giuliani, running as a candidate with many powerful supporters and very few voters, campaigning on the myth of his "leadership" during the September 11th attacks, got much more coverage in his withdrawal than John Edwards, a former Vice President running on a progressive anti-corporate, anti-poverty and pro labor program.

This should tell all those who don't already know that the rightwing's attack on the "liberal" media is as phony as the media fantasy that John McCain's candidacy is opposed by "conservatives."

The press and TV, especially Cable TV, are owned by the corporations and are as separate from the corporations and the rich as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were from feudal Lords in the Middle Ages.

I guess they would say that they are being "objective" in giving McCain so much coverage, whereas they would also say that they were being "objective" in denying coverage to Kucinich, Edwards, Gravel, and others because of their low vote totals.

I would suggest that readers who are interested in looking at news analysis which comes from an honest and open pro labor and progressive perspective should read the People's Weekly World and Political Affairs, in print (important, because the publications need the subscriptions) and online. While this might sound and sort of is a commercial, it is a commercial for a press which is represents different class interests, not the press that Marc Blitzstein captured in his social realist opera, "The Cradle Will Rock," in the song that went "The Press, The Press, Freedom of the Press/for the One Who Pays the Best."

[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]


Anonymous said...

McCain's press is due to the fact that the media creatures hate Romney and his social conservative views. They want him defeated at all costs. If large corporations controlled the major news outlets they would be backing Romney, a Wall Street fund manager and multi millionaire.

Snaporaz said...

Don't forget Democracy Now!

Anonymous 2 said...

The large corporations are backing Romney-- they are covering themselves by backing all the candidates both Republican and Democrat-- they favor McCain because they fear a Mormon can't get elected in the general election and they prefer a Republican, if they can't have that then the next best is Clinton but Obama will also do because once elected he will tow the line as well after tossing a few sops to the saps.

normanmarkowitz said...

I would sort of agree with anon2. McCain is really the only credible candidate the Republicans have. The Republicans in most instances at most of the time are preferable to the Democrats, and that has been true with a few exceptions since the 1880s(Grover Cleveland was ok, actually, some of the Robber Barons would have preferred Alton Parker to Teddy Roosevelt in 1904, but those are about the only exceptions I can think of off-hand, although some would contend that Bill Clinton was preferable to Bob Dole in 1996(he was really the only Democrat to garner a majority of press endorsements) because, like Cleveland in the 19th century, he had ended up being better for the corporations than most of the Republicans