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

[iPolitics]

The media only cares about the STORY. They care about filling new nescycles and ratings. Hillary went negative so it created conflict and story lines. That is the only reason for these issues coming up.

[Ping]

This is another neo-con tactic, attack the press.

The stupid "PRESS" predicted that Hillary would be the Presidential nominee. As late as Christmas they were saying that it would be over on Super Tuesday. Where is the bias?

[sfsj]

In total agreement. All last year -- up until the 98%-white-Iowans chose Barack Obama --I was certain that the anointment of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee was the gospel truth -- based on coverage for the 10 or so months leading up to Iowa. Every poll was showing her way, way ahead of everyone and she had the support already of many of the Dem establishment who were superdelgates. The media covered it like it was -- she was way ahead and got covered for that. I think media definitely covers the winners, the ones with the mo -- whether it be baseball or politics! Clinton people just tend to squawk when it's not going their way. Barack Obama has forged a better, more cohesive, excited, happy camp of campaigners and shown how he can "manage" such a huge campaign -- with only one year to get it together compared to the 35 years of insider relationships the Clintons had. He's a great leader simply as evidenced by how his campaign has been run. It's been remarkable and the media should not be chastised for remarking on what has been remarkable -- just like they weren't chastised for telling the facts about Clintons major leads and support up until Iowa.

[glorija]

And why is this guy's protest worth being the news??? He is Clinton's supporter-­-shouldn't that count when deciding what to put in the news? Or, is that this Sunday is a bit slow so everything is welcome?

[presto]

You said:

"He is Clinton's supporter-­-shouldn't that count when deciding what to put in the news?"

Exactly. That is the definition of media bias. Maybe you should re-think your comment.

[jadez]

the media bias is against Obama.

[RISEUPAMERICA]

well then , the media has just proved once again that they are full of bull shit

[Allen66]

You are exactly right. They insult our intelligence and I can hardly watch any of it anymore. Hillary gets our votes no matter what.

[Mattie]

I agree, I will write her name in when I vote, I'm tired of all the media bias, and the Obama supporters hate!

[flyguy14222]

Now what....ya­'ll going to say he is on HRC's payroll?

[mcfried]

If you read the article he may as well be.... sorry I think the bias is mild and does not require a temper tantrum.

[Ides]

Walter Shorenstein, a prominent San Francisco-based real estate developer, Democratic fundraiser and longtime supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton...­.
----------­----------­----------­----------­-

Yes. He is.

[TheInsomniac]

Why wasn't anyone complaining about this back in 2000? Or were liberals too busy complaining about how boring Gore was and flocking to the incredibly exciting Nader?

[presto]

Were you asleep in 2002? Or too young to read? A few evenings with a history book might make things more clear.

[Merin]

Again, all I heard was "Waaah, waaaah, waaaah - why does the media keep reporting on Senator Obama's followers and growing, WINNING campaign as some kind of movement? Waaah, waaah, waaah - why does the media, and the public, love a winner and keep reporting on the candidate who is winning the elections and gaining in the polls as "winning" and the candidate who is losing elections and dropping in the polls as the "loser"? Waaah, waaah, waaah - stop criticising Senator Clinton's mistakes just because she's losing and praising Senator Obama just because he's winning."

Get. Over. It.

[ldavi]

Saturday afternoon on CNN's "Ballot Bowl," Suzanne Malveux said that Senator Clinton was "trying out some new lines" in her discussion of national security at a campaign rally. She then went on to report that Obama had responded with his "line of thinking, his defense when it comes to national security." This news coverage makes it sound like Clinton is giving us a line, but Obama is simply giving us his line of reasoning. This is clearly an example of media bias.

[Merin]

no, ldavi, this is clearly an example of parsing words to prove what you want them to prove.

I know people who complain to me constantly that CNN is pro-Hillary. One guy gets so enraged that he cannot watch the Clinton News Network.

It's a matter of perspective.

On Senator Clinton's side, it's part over-sensitivity and MOSTLY opportunism.

Do people REALLY want Senator Obama over her? OF COURSE NOT, its only that LIBERAL MEDIA (er, isn't she liberal?) --I mean-- a vast, right-wing conspiracy of media that is skewing things as if Senator Obama was more wanted. And they skew the polls, too, of course.

Is Senator Clinton losing vote after vote for the last few weeks and the polls are showing an increasing lead for Senator Obama everywhere? NO, OF COURSE NOT - it's only the LYING MEDIA that is reporting untrue facts.

Get. Over. It.