Media Expert Decries Campaign Coverage

DALLAS — The founder of a prestigious institute on media and politics added his voice Saturday to the chorus of complaint over perceived press bias in favor of Democrat Barack Obama.

Walter Shorenstein, a prominent San Francisco-based real estate developer, Democratic fundraiser and longtime supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, penned a memo to Democratic party "superdelegates" and other activists criticizing media coverage of the presidential campaign.

Shorenstein is the founder of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. His memo came days before Tuesday's key primaries in Ohio and Texas, which Clinton must win to save her waning candidacy.

The former first lady and her advisers have lashed out at the press in recent days, suggesting unfair coverage of the campaign has in part led to Obama's victories in the last 11 voting contests. They've encouraged supporters and voters to watch a "Saturday Night Live" skit that aired last weekend, depicting a group of journalists fawning over Obama.

Clinton appeared on this week's "SNL" to praise a similar sketch that parodied the media's treatment of her and her rival.

In his memo, Shorenstein concurred with the Clinton campaign's assessment.

"I am absolutely outraged with the media coverage of the presidential campaign," Shorenstein wrote in the memo, which was obtained by The Associated Press. "This is the most important election in my long lifetime, and to quote one of my favorite movies, 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!'"

He was quoting the 1976 movie "Network," in which a mentally disturbed television news anchor played by Peter Finch went on the air and implored viewers to rebel against gimmicks staged by network news executives.

"There is too much on the line for the media to ignore important issues while they obsess about Hillary's hairdo or Barack's baritone," Shorenstein continued. "Is it in the country's best interest that voters received far more information about Hillary's laugh than Obama's legislative record? Is it good for our nation that more attention is paid to the differences in their speaking style than their health care plans?"

Shorenstein attached several studies to the memo indicating the press had given more favorable coverage to Obama than to Clinton, and urged activists to forward the material to friends and voters and to complain to reporters.

"Our democracy depends upon the fourth estate to fulfill the uniquely critical role of informing voters about the important issues facing our nation," Shorenstein wrote. "Yet far too often, the campaign coverage has been biased, blase, or baseless."

Comments

[dr4Will]

the media liars attempt to cover their biased repoting with hundreds of bullshit words--it only takes a second to recognize the antiClinton crowd and the ultra left obama butt kissers-how sorry you will feel in Nov when you helped McCan't become the next bush

[dthom7171]

you know as an Obama supporter, I agree with you except for the part where you said everything.

[authoritarianbootlicker]

Go back to licking Bush's boots.

[2liveNdie]

Since their policies are pretty much the same what else would anyone talk about but:

1)The fact that he has won 11 states in a row.

2)He has raised more money than she has.

3)He has closed the gap in states she had double digit leads in.

4)He has more significant endorsers than she has.

5)He has gained super delegates while she has lost them.

6)He has bigger rallies with more people who want to hear him.

ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why wouldn't the media want to talk about this??????­??????????­??????????­??????

[CalliDem]

1. He raised more money because REPUBLICANS have given him MILLIONS
2 He won 11 SMALL states when cacaus ObamaBots bullied everybody and the other people had to WORK
3 He has closed the gap because REPUBLICANS are VOTING for HIM to keep Hillary OUT
4 Endorsers are SHEEP who will do anything political to be POPULAR
5. He gained superdelegates by THREATENING elderly civil rights advocuts and sending death threats to Tavis Smilies family
6 He has bigger rallys because HALF are RePIGs and the rest are a buch of spoild rotten give me what the fuck I want or I will distroy you ... OBAMABOTS

ETC ETC EEC ETC ETC !!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­! Now STFU

[winterfuknmute]

You can put your head in the sand all you want......­.. but I hope you like what you see on tuesday when Obama wins again.

[greenpaz]

Nice post. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm due back on Planet Earth.

[authoritarianbootlicker]

Why do you hate your country?

[indie17]

Eleven small states with causcuses?

Let's see: Virginia, primary, not small. Maryland, primay, not small. Wisconsin, primary, not small. Louisiana, primary, not small.

Perhaps you are ill-informed. Or perhaps you are a simple-minded fool. Or, perhaps you are a liar, as the rest of your post shows.

You accuse Obama of sending out death threats?

As a matter of fact, you are one sick person, and you need to get some help before it's too late.

[boombox]

and Hilary's going down the tubes and it JUST ISN'T FAIR!!!! sniff...

[winterfuknmute]

The Senator had no problems with media when she was the fount-runner!!!

So now a Clinton support says that there is media bias against the Senator, so it most be true!! LOL

[nazirmo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mOa3sXjqE4

[nazirmo]

Even in debates I have seen two instances where Obama was going on and on for a long period of
time to a question and just when Hillary was about to respond the moderators went on a break.
This is just one example.

[dajay]

It is so obvious. During the MSNBC debate, you had 3 male egos, sitting next to a woman who had more brains in her foot, then those 3 had in their entire body.

Men and insecure women cannot stand Hillary because of one thing: jealousy. That's why they treated her like crap and keep talking about her husband's penis every chance they get.

[TimeForChange]

I've been surfing all of the "news" channels since last fall regarding political coverage. Clinton supporters have a very short memory as just months ago, before Iowa, Hillary Clinton was the media darling and could do no wrong as she was the presumed inevitable Democratic part nominee.

Iowa changed things. Suddenly there was a new kid on the block and she was no longer being crowned the winner by the media. Hillary and her campaign began doing devisive things and her news coverage changed. If anyone was mistreated by the media, it was Edwards - he was ignored almost entirely by the media.

Why the big play by Hillary Clinton about unfair coverage now? My guess is to manipulate the media into slanting coverage in her favor in the last few days running up to Tuesday. If you watched any of the talking heads this morning, her tactics may have been working.

Do you really want a presidential candidate that has to manipulate, backstab, mock and lie their way into the nomination? Don't we have Republicans for that now?

Obama has tried to run a positive & upbeat campaign, in spite of the attempts of the Clintons to take the fight into the gutter.

Hopefully the voters on Tuesday will refuse to be manipulated and vote for a change in politics.

[CookieWrites]

What rock have you been living under? The majority of women I talk to are pissed about the press' biased coverage of Hillary. We see the same things said about her and done to her that we as women suffer every day in our jobs and society inn general. The innocent pleas of reporters are self serving. Check with the Congressional Quarterly cq.orgg) which is truely unbiased and you will discover that they have seen the press be very biased towards her.

[authoritarianbootlicker]

She is in the position she has always wanted to be in. She created her own reality.

[indie17]

None of my female friends agree with you. Clinton has been treated too well all along. Just recently some in the press finally brought her lies and tricks to the forefront.

It's a Clinton talking point that the media is biased. It's just another of her campaign tricks, like these:

Obama's run is a fairy tale, Obama wasn't really against the war, Obama took cocaine, Obama's middle name is Hussein, Obama is like Jesse Jackson (they're both black, get it), Obama isn't pro-choice, Obama is for latte drinkers, Obama only wins caucuses, Obama only wins states that don't matter, Obama is all talk and no action, Obama is an empty suit, Obama plagiarizes, Obama's followers are a cult, Obama isn't ready on day one, Obama might cause or not be able to handle a terrorist attack, Obama shouldn't win because I am entitled even if it takes Michigan, Florida, and superdelegates.

[AnninCA]

Agree. It's all my friends and I talk about right now.

This has been a very shocking eye-opener. And I really agree with the author that this was entirely too important to let this happen.

Yet, it's looking as though we'll be led by someone who thinks withdrawing from Iraq will be OK because we can always go back in if Al Qaida re-establishes a base.

Oh lordy help us.

[dajay]

The majority of Hillary supporters I talk to say they will not vote for Obama, based on this horrible treatment that Hillary received.

The only people who fail to recognize the unfair coverage of Hillary, are the OBama supporters.

[dthom7171]

I agree. Watch the three days leading up to an election of CNN. They slam Obama like a WWF wrestling event. Never fails. Fox hates all Dems and ABC with Goerge Stephanopolis at the helm, the former Clinton advisor, is beyond biased. NBC nightly is pretty fair, hardly any opinions or false reporting. Has the media ever collectively questioned their bias in terms of republicans? I didn't think so. The media is a little liberally slanted. I always shrugged it off as anyone who writes for a living, usually thinks critically and that no critically thinking person could ever support a republican agenda. In this situation, the ties the Clinton's have in the media is what's driving the biased coverage rather than critical thinking.

[Clarabell]

TimeForChange -- I don't think you and a lot of the others understand the MSM game plan. If it seems to you that they were building Hillary up, you may be right, but what you are missing is that it was done so they could squash her later -- and I've predicted this over and over. Now it seems that they are building Obama up -- but only so that he willl have the same fate -- just you wait and see -- and God, I hope I'm wrong, but I have seen this ploy way too many times. So get ready to defend Obama -- maybe it will start Tuesday night. It's actually in his benefit to keep Hillary in the race as long as possible, thereby delaying the big guns that are headed his way.

[argeec]

To all you supporters of either Hillary or Obama: A plague on both your houses!

After one or the other is president, what then?

Most of you won't know if they do the right things or not because most of you don't know what the right things are.

You all should rally around issues - not personalities!

[CaptainObvious]

Exactly. Let's all just focus on a single issue, and make our voting decisions based solely on that issue. Like abortion. Or terrorism. Or health care.

[Clarabell]

CaptainObvious -- I understand argeec to say "rally around issues," not an issue -- see how easily things can get twisted?

[dthom7171]

All of this is ridiculous. The Media have never been Pro-Obama. With the exception of a few here or there, It's been entirely Pro- Hillary. Expecially the national tv media. What CNN is doing to Obama is beyond disgusting. I can't even watch that channel anymore. After being a loyal CNN viewer, It makes me sick to my stomach to watch Wolf fawn over the clintons. Lou Dobbs in his obsession of anything Clinton. It's all quite sad. What a joke Howard Kurtz is with his "critical look" at the media. I've watched CNN everyday for the last 10 years, up unti this election. I'll never watch again. Jim Lehrer and the news hour is what my preference is. I even prefer fox because I at least know they're not trying to be subtle. It's Blatant. CNN is worse that Fox.

[shinybear]

Now, now Saturday Night Live said so. It MUST be true.

[SouthCentralDel]

Yeah I'm mad as hell, too! The media let's Hillary get away with accusing but doing the same thing, sleight of hand silliness constantly. Like

the 3am phone call (where is Hillary's experience handling an emergency foreign policy issue?)

the mailing she thinks distorts her record on NAFTA (she is constantly doing negative mailings against Obama)

He has no experience(have any of the major news outlets truly went thru her touted 35 years?)

Ready on Day 1 (again virtually no media due diligence)

Ready to be commander and chief (where is the media and Hillary's role in the Armed Services Committee during the span of time soldiers were missing armored humvees, ammunition, and body armor?)

I am constantly seeing Sen. Clintons' talking points parroted like puppets by the media. Where is the objective reporting?

[jsinclair]

I couldn't agree more. I watch CNN and they could be the Clinton News Network, the way they parrot the Clinton talking points. Dobbs is outright obnoxious on the subject of Obama and his supporters (as well as being completely uninformed).

And CNN has their least objective reporter--Candy Crowley--assigned to Obama. She's long been a fan of GWB and other Republicans and never misses a chance to spin a story against Obama (even if it means being positive about Clinton).

Hillary learned so much from Rove. Just substitute "Obama" for "liberal agenda". She's made the press defensive and look for negatives in Obama while muting criticisms of Clinton.

Nicely played, Hillary. Press intimidation, Rove-style!

[dajay]

Well I guess there wasn't room on Obama's butt for CNN to place their lips. I heard the MSNBC news commentators have taken up all the space.

[jsinclair]

re: this artilce. So a wealthy Clinton backer, who donated money to Harvard for a journalism school, "adds his voice to the chorus of complaints about press bias toward Obama"?

So what? He's biased toward Clinton. Their campaign--including the candidate and her surrogates from her husband on down--has got to be the whiniest I can remember.

She started last year as the cocky, "inevitable" nominee and the press played into it 100%. Obama had to fight for everything he's had---"fight" with intellect, charm, humor and principles. Oh, and skilled people who know how to manage a ground-level campaign AND who can MANAGE THEIR MONEY!!!!

Maybe if the Clintons tried THAT formula---instead of "whining + old hands + Rove = winning"---they wouldn't be in this situation now.

[Palito]

LOL the MSM is controlled by corporate interests. It is unfortunate that the "progressives" have forgotten that in their obama fever.

[relevancematters]

Anything short of handing this woman the presidency on a silver platter is going to be grounds to make it a national issue for the next eight years. I don't know which is the worse prospect--letting her be president or listening to her complain about it for the rest of time.

The candidate who got shafted by the press was John Edwards. I wonder how people would be feeling if he was still clamoring about the unfairness of it all.

[jmaroon]

And what about your bias, Walter? Hmmmmm?

[LAcarlito]

BTW, there are numerous progressive media people who claim to be independent, and it is quite obvious by their interview style and coverage that they are Clinton supporters. On the other hand, it seems to me that many progressive media people who are pro-Obama come out and admit it.

So it seems that Clinton gets a lot of free slanted and biased time from progressive talk radio due to the fact that those who are Pro-Obama admit their bias, while many pro-Clinton talk radio hosts do not admit their bias. This is just an observation from one who listens to a lot of progressive talk radio.

[annalivia]

It's fine for Beth Fuohy to write this article, but the way she wrote it is misleading. The lead should not be "media expert" and "prestigious institute".
To have any credibility Ms Fuohy should reveal that Mr Shorenstein is not an independent expert, but a Clinton supporter. So the lead would be "Clinton Supporter Decries Campaign Coverage". That way Fuohy can write her story and tell the truth.
I think it's largely untrue by the way. For too long before South Carolina the press gave enormous coverage to both Hillary and Bill Clinton, so that Obama was double teamed at crticial times in the campaign. The MSM gave Clinton wall to wall coverage for crying in a diner the day before New Hampshire and crowded Obama out. Total bias on their part.
Throughout, CNN was especially biased against Obama and for Clinton. The MSM had already crowned Clinton and treated Obama and his surrogates with disrespect and less coverage.
As the campaign wore on the MSM gave more coverage to Obama rallies - they were playing catchup in my view - and she started whining.. She even got one reporter suspended, and used another MSNBC pundit to raise money.
So the premise of the claim in Ms Fuohy's article is debatable and testable, and to me untrue.

[Aroth30]

This whole media bias thing is a little ridiculous. What is perceived as bias is just natural humannature. People like a winner, and as Barack Obama is winning right now there is a little more positive attention towards him. If Hillary were winning it would be her getting all of the positive attention. She blames the media when what she should have done was focus more on the states after Super Tuesday instead of presuming that she would be the nominee by then. You can never count your chickens because too often it will come back and bite you in the ass. So Hillary blame your campaign and yourself no one else for your poor showing.