Wash Post concedes bias for Obama

[nonesuche]

I guess caseau can't sweep this one under with Snopes. The expanded article by Deborah Howell in the print edition of the Washington Post even included a photo of Obama in a superman get-up?????????????? It never ends.......

Obama calls Bush's administration the most "secretive" in history.  he must think we can't read now? TONY REZKO, JEREMIAH WRIGHT, WILLIAM AYERS.......actually mr president-elect, we can not only read but we can spell also. 


Wash Post concedes bias for Obama

The mainstream press have been accused of being biased in favor of President-elect Barack Obama for months - a phenomenon now acknowledged by one of the nation's media heavyweights.

On Sunday, The Washington Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, offered evidence of an "Obama tilt" in her own newspaper.

"Readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts," Ms. Howell wrote in her column.

"Now Howell gives the mea culpa in her first column after Election Day, when it's far too late to do anything about it. Where was Howell during the last three months? Why wait until the election is over to speak up? That's an answer in itself," countered Ed Morrissey of Hot Air.

"Now she tells us," quipped Byron York of National Review.

Revelations of a pro-Obama press are not new.

A Pew Research Center survey released in late October found, for example, that 70 percent of voters agreed that the press wanted Mr. Obama to win the White House; the figure was 62 percent even among Democratic respondents. The same analysis found a Democrat-friendly press dating back to the 1992 presidential election.

A current Harvard University analysis revealed that 77 percent of Americans say the press in politically biased; of that group, 5 percent said it skewed conservative.

With the help of an assistant, Ms. Howell examined The Post's political coverage since Nov. 11, 2007. "Numbers don't tell you everything, but they give you a sense of The Post's priorities," she said.

The number of Obama-centric stories was 946, compared with 786 centered on John McCain until the presidential nominations were completed in June, she found. From then to Election Day, the tally was 626 stories for Mr. Obama, 584 for Mr. McCain.

Mr. Obama was on the front page 176 times, Mr. McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both candidates.

"The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement," Ms. Howell said.

The Post also ran more photographs of Mr. Obama. Since June 4, Mr. Obama was in 311 Post photos and Mr. McCain in 282. The Democrat also got splashier treatment, garnering larger pictures (133 to 121, respectively) and more color shots (164 to 133).

She compared her results to a study of the national news media conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which found that from June 9 to Nov. 2, two-thirds of the campaign stories were about Mr. Obama compared with 53 percent for Mr. McCain

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/10/post-concedes-bias-for-obama/

[Ree]

I guess caseau can't sweep this one under with Snopes. The expanded article by Deborah Howell in the print edition of the Washington Post even included a photo of Obama in a superman get-up?????????????? It never ends.......

Obama calls Bush's administration the most "secretive" in history.  he must think we can't read now? TONY REZKO, JEREMIAH WRIGHT, WILLIAM AYERS.......actually mr president-elect, we can not only read but we can spell also. 


Wash Post concedes bias for Obama

The mainstream press have been accused of being biased in favor of President-elect Barack Obama for months - a phenomenon now acknowledged by one of the nation's media heavyweights.

On Sunday, The Washington Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, offered evidence of an "Obama tilt" in her own newspaper.

"Readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts," Ms. Howell wrote in her column.

"Now Howell gives the mea culpa in her first column after Election Day, when it's far too late to do anything about it. Where was Howell during the last three months? Why wait until the election is over to speak up? That's an answer in itself," countered Ed Morrissey of Hot Air.

"Now she tells us," quipped Byron York of National Review.

Revelations of a pro-Obama press are not new.

A Pew Research Center survey released in late October found, for example, that 70 percent of voters agreed that the press wanted Mr. Obama to win the White House; the figure was 62 percent even among Democratic respondents. The same analysis found a Democrat-friendly press dating back to the 1992 presidential election.

A current Harvard University analysis revealed that 77 percent of Americans say the press in politically biased; of that group, 5 percent said it skewed conservative.

With the help of an assistant, Ms. Howell examined The Post's political coverage since Nov. 11, 2007. "Numbers don't tell you everything, but they give you a sense of The Post's priorities," she said.

The number of Obama-centric stories was 946, compared with 786 centered on John McCain until the presidential nominations were completed in June, she found. From then to Election Day, the tally was 626 stories for Mr. Obama, 584 for Mr. McCain.

Mr. Obama was on the front page 176 times, Mr. McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both candidates.

"The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement," Ms. Howell said.

The Post also ran more photographs of Mr. Obama. Since June 4, Mr. Obama was in 311 Post photos and Mr. McCain in 282. The Democrat also got splashier treatment, garnering larger pictures (133 to 121, respectively) and more color shots (164 to 133).

She compared her results to a study of the national news media conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which found that from June 9 to Nov. 2, two-thirds of the campaign stories were about Mr. Obama compared with 53 percent for Mr. McCain

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/10/post-concedes-bias-for-obama/

Interesting that the day this runs, the section of the paper it runs in has a photo of Obama in a Superman costume.  Too little, too late.  They're trying to pretend it was all a mistake so we won't stop buying their rags.

[WhiskeyGirl]

I've been told for a long time by 'foreigners' that the US media does not report realistic visions of world events.

The alternatives include the internet.  I would like to see more English language news programs from non US media, even from those places that do not like the US.  It provides balance.

I believe the Spanish language networks already have such shows. 

There are many sides to a coin, and in the US, we just seem to see one side.  Would the coin toss be fair if there was only one side to every coin?  Maybe in another dimension?

Perhaps the election coverage provided by TV and internet media should face more regulation, like the presidential donation limitations...fairness in reporting...

jmho