Did press bias in favor of Obama constitute a major media failure? Did it matter

[Lunar]

Stole this question from Politico's Arena:
http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/98.html

My answer to this is that yes, the press was biased towards Obama, he was what people wanted to hear about.  The press is biased towards whomever people are more interested in (positive and negative).  I will acknowledge that some of the bias probably occurred due to Obama's appeal to intellectual academics, and the McCain campaign's increasingly populist tones (Palin then Ayers and some "teaching sex to infants" ads) turned off the media.  I think overall this "failure" of the media was due to the failure of the McCain communications team and the success of Obama's.  Obama's campaign was simply better at manipulating the media, god forbid.

But, if one views the job of the press to be something philosophical or ethical and not business-related, I could understand opposing views.  I imagine any press agency that tried to simply wright about what the people "ought to know" rather than what they "want to know" would quickly go out of business.

[Lunar]

The press is biased towards whomever people are more interested in (positive and negative).

A dangerous myth. Private media generally shares the biases of whoever (or whatever) controls its purse-strings.

True, but news is a relatively competitive industry (CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX, etc.) and if someone talks about who people don't want to hear about, then they lose money. While the news media could be argued to be leaning oligarchic, one also has to substitute in the ease of switching channels.  If you don't like the product (the TV show), then it's a lot easier to flip over to the story you're more interested in than to, say, go to the store or whatever.  If you function as a propaganda piece and that turns people off, then your impact is diminished because people flip one channel up.

[Lunar]

Oh, boohoo. The Democrats get an election where the media doesn't constantly paint them as boring or unpatriotic. Major news networks and institutions are still by and large center-right.

Democrats are usually pretty damn boring, I don't see what's wrong with labeling Kerry or Gore with that.  If they're bored with a candidate they'll label them boring.  God forbid.

Which one of those two, boring or unpatriotic, was Clinton?

[Lunar]

And they liked Obama.

So is the press the key determinant in presidential success?  They certainly voted Kerry significantly more than Bush but found him dull, thus from an editor's perspective, Bush was probably favored.

I mean, I'm sure one can find a positive correlation between "positive news cycles" divided by "negative news cycles" and winning.  I mean, candidates that do a better job campaigning are gonna end up cranking up that ratio.  And, as I pointed out, Obama had far better press communications team (or whatevsky you calls it) than McCain.  Should the media be held responsible for the McCain campaign's ineptness in handling them?  Should they take the iniative and investigate things about Obama that McCain's campaign doesn't tell them to investigate?  I'm not sure.

I view them as a business.  Obama's positive and negative traits yield far more interest than anything about McCain.  And McCain has a far more exciting biography (minus race) than Obama in all departments.... war hero.. extramarital affairs...

[Lunar]

The press is biased towards whomever people are more interested in (positive and negative).

A dangerous myth. Private media generally shares the biases of whoever (or whatever) controls its purse-strings.

True, but news is a relatively competitive industry (CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX, etc.) and if someone talks about who people don't want to hear about, then they lose money. While the news media could be argued to be leaning oligarchic, one also has to substitute in the ease of switching channels.  If you don't like the product (the TV show), then it's a lot easier to flip over to the story you're more interested in than to, say, go to the store or whatever.  If you function as a propaganda piece and that turns people off, then your impact is diminished because people flip one channel up.

Broadly speaking (with a few variations here and one major exception, but even then...) American television news basically follows the same political line, which happens (shockingly!!!!!111) to closely match the political views of the people who control purse-strings and to large sections of the political establishment generally.

I understand Rupert Murdoch.  But he's hardly exclusively American.

Who are these people?

[Lunar]

Who are these people?

People that own media companies, other companies that have adverts in the paper or on the channel in question, and so on. And the bureaucratic structure of the companies themselves, of course. I'm not suggesting a crazed conspiracy theory, I'm just pointing out an obvious truth. And I'm not just thinking about biases as regards to politics.

If you can't name these people, how do you know that the actual reflection is mirroring their views?

[Lunar]

Rubbish. Vilifying the media is a cheap thrill and it has no basis whatsoever in reality - they are a mirror rather than a cinema projector.

mmm is the Drudge Report also a mirror?