Media bias in the 2000 election before election night?

[darklordoftech]

There's often accusations of the media favoring one candidate over another. What, if any, such accusations existed during the 2000 election before election night?

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

The 2000 election media coverage was surprisingly unbiased.

I believe that the event that tipped the election to Bush was the last minute endorsement of Bush by Ross Perot.  I believe that this endorsement dissuaded enough folks in MO and OH to vote Republican that may have otherwise voted for Buchanan or stayed home.

[Landslide Lyndon]

There's often accusations of the media favoring one candidate over another. What, if any, such accusations existed during the 2000 election before election night?

Journalists hated Gore because he was bland and boring, but loved W. because he was someone "you could have a beer with". So they covered their campaigns accordingly.

[Free Bird]

I've heard counts that they were actually pro-Bush. Was it only starting with Obama that the MSM became almost uniformly Democratic-leaning, at least openly?

[OSR stands with Israel]

I've heard counts that they were actually pro-Bush. Was it only starting with Obama that the MSM became almost uniformly Democratic-leaning, at least openly?

The media was more anti Bush in 2004 than it was anti Romney in 2012,

[136or142]

The mainstream media seemed determined in 2000 to tie Al Gore to various narratives they had about him: boring, stiff, programmed.  He made several jokes about it in his convention speech.

The main thing, I think, is that they wanted the Democrats punished for the Clinton Scandal and constantly played up this notion of "Clinton Fatigue" even though Bill Clinton's Presidency had roughly 60% approval ratings.

David Broder was considered the dean of the White House Press Corps at that time, and this was his attitude:

Broder supported Republican efforts to impeach Bill Clinton, whose behavior he deemed “worse” than Richard Nixon’s police-state tactics during Watergate because Nixon’s actions, “however neurotic and criminal, were motivated and connected to the exercise of presidential power.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/david-broder-eyes-wide-shut/

The media overall was much more willing to let indiscretions of Bush slide than they were any indiscretions of Gore.  One of the bigger controversies of the campaign was when, in one of the debates, Al Gore claimed to have gone with FEMA head James Lee Witt on a tour of some disaster area, and he was accused of making the whole thing up when he just got the dates mixed up.

In the same debate, W Bush told a number of outright lies, yet, they weren't mentioned again.

Then as now (although this may finally be changing) the major media outlets bought into right wing narratives (the surplus is 'over taxation.')  Of course, the self interest of journalists wanting a tax cut (or supporting a tax cut for their employers or for their advertisers' consumers) should not be overlooked her.

This was also around the time that the self appointed moral arbiter (and former Secretary of Education) William Bennett was taken as some kind of guru by many in the major media outlets.

[136or142]

I've heard counts that they were actually pro-Bush. Was it only starting with Obama that the MSM became almost uniformly Democratic-leaning, at least openly?

The media was more anti Bush in 2004 than it was anti Romney in 2012,

I have the Oliver Stone DVD 'The Secret History of the United States of America.'  The video on the W Bush Presidency starts with him in one of the 2000 debates saying that 'America needed a humble foreign policy.'  I had completely forgotten about that by 2004, and yet the media was willing to let Bush's vague phrase "9/11 changed everything'  answer for everything.

So, I guess, 'murder used to be illegal, but 9/11 changed everything.'
'Breaking and entering used to be illegal, but 9/11 changed everything.'
And so on...

[darklordoftech]

I've heard counts that they were actually pro-Bush. Was it only starting with Obama that the MSM became almost uniformly Democratic-leaning, at least openly?

I think that cable tv was seen as more conservative than antenna tv and I think the media often favored one candidate rather than either of the parties. For example, the media liked Reagan, but preferred Clinton over HW, Gingrich, and Dole.

[darklordoftech]

There's often accusations of the media favoring one candidate over another. What, if any, such accusations existed during the 2000 election before election night?

Journalists hated Gore because he was bland and boring, but loved W. because he was someone "you could have a beer with". So they covered their campaigns accordingly.

The mainstream media seemed determined in 2000 to tie Al Gore to various narratives they had about him: boring, stiff, programmed.  He made several jokes about it in his convention speech.

The main thing, I think, is that they wanted the Democrats punished for the Clinton Scandal and constantly played up this notion of "Clinton Fatigue" even though Bill Clinton's Presidency had roughly 60% approval ratings.

David Broder was considered the dean of the White House Press Corps at that time, and this was his attitude:

Broder supported Republican efforts to impeach Bill Clinton, whose behavior he deemed “worse” than Richard Nixon’s police-state tactics during Watergate because Nixon’s actions, “however neurotic and criminal, were motivated and connected to the exercise of presidential power.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/david-broder-eyes-wide-shut/

The media overall was much more willing to let indiscretions of Bush slide than they were any indiscretions of Gore.  One of the bigger controversies of the campaign was when, in one of the debates, Al Gore claimed to have gone with FEMA head James Lee Witt on a tour of some disaster area, and he was accused of making the whole thing up when he just got the dates mixed up.

In the same debate, W Bush told a number of outright lies, yet, they weren't mentioned again.

Then as now (although this may finally be changing) the major media outlets bought into right wing narratives (the surplus is 'over taxation.')  Of course, the self interest of journalists wanting a tax cut (or supporting a tax cut for their employers or for their advertisers' consumers) should not be overlooked her.

This was also around the time that the self appointed moral arbiter (and former Secretary of Education) William Bennett was taken as some kind of guru by many in the major media outlets.

I wonder if the media also wanted to keep Tipper and Lieberman out of the White House because their views on music, video games, wresting, etc.

[136or142]

There's often accusations of the media favoring one candidate over another. What, if any, such accusations existed during the 2000 election before election night?

Journalists hated Gore because he was bland and boring, but loved W. because he was someone "you could have a beer with". So they covered their campaigns accordingly.

The mainstream media seemed determined in 2000 to tie Al Gore to various narratives they had about him: boring, stiff, programmed.  He made several jokes about it in his convention speech.

The main thing, I think, is that they wanted the Democrats punished for the Clinton Scandal and constantly played up this notion of "Clinton Fatigue" even though Bill Clinton's Presidency had roughly 60% approval ratings.

David Broder was considered the dean of the White House Press Corps at that time, and this was his attitude:

Broder supported Republican efforts to impeach Bill Clinton, whose behavior he deemed “worse” than Richard Nixon’s police-state tactics during Watergate because Nixon’s actions, “however neurotic and criminal, were motivated and connected to the exercise of presidential power.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/david-broder-eyes-wide-shut/

The media overall was much more willing to let indiscretions of Bush slide than they were any indiscretions of Gore.  One of the bigger controversies of the campaign was when, in one of the debates, Al Gore claimed to have gone with FEMA head James Lee Witt on a tour of some disaster area, and he was accused of making the whole thing up when he just got the dates mixed up.

In the same debate, W Bush told a number of outright lies, yet, they weren't mentioned again.

Then as now (although this may finally be changing) the major media outlets bought into right wing narratives (the surplus is 'over taxation.')  Of course, the self interest of journalists wanting a tax cut (or supporting a tax cut for their employers or for their advertisers' consumers) should not be overlooked her.

This was also around the time that the self appointed moral arbiter (and former Secretary of Education) William Bennett was taken as some kind of guru by many in the major media outlets.

I wonder if the media also wanted to keep Tipper and Lieberman out of the White House because their views on music, video games, wresting, etc.

Is this sarcasm?

[OSR stands with Israel]

I've heard counts that they were actually pro-Bush. Was it only starting with Obama that the MSM became almost uniformly Democratic-leaning, at least openly?

I think that cable tv was seen as more conservative than antenna tv and I think the media often favored one candidate rather than either of the parties. For example, the media liked Reagan, but preferred Clinton over HW, Gingrich, and Dole.

I would say Reagan was probably the only Republican President/Nominee they covered favorably since 1960.

[136or142]

I've heard counts that they were actually pro-Bush. Was it only starting with Obama that the MSM became almost uniformly Democratic-leaning, at least openly?

I think that cable tv was seen as more conservative than antenna tv and I think the media often favored one candidate rather than either of the parties. For example, the media liked Reagan, but preferred Clinton over HW, Gingrich, and Dole.

I would say Reagan was probably the only Republican President/Nominee they covered favorably since 1960.

They covered Trump favorably in that they covered Hillary Clinton just as badly even though Trump is at least 100X worse.

[Free Bird]

I've heard counts that they were actually pro-Bush. Was it only starting with Obama that the MSM became almost uniformly Democratic-leaning, at least openly?

I think that cable tv was seen as more conservative than antenna tv and I think the media often favored one candidate rather than either of the parties. For example, the media liked Reagan, but preferred Clinton over HW, Gingrich, and Dole.

I would say Reagan was probably the only Republican President/Nominee they covered favorably since 1960.

They covered Trump favorably in that they covered Hillary Clinton just as badly even though Trump is at least 100X worse.

Hillary was no Obama in terms of media coverage but to say she wasn't treated better than Trump in the admittedly smaller amount of airtime she got is asinine.

[RINO Tom]

You are going to get a lot of hot takes from partisans in this thread, but the media was relatively unbiased in 2000 compared to future elections.  Whether you agree with this or not, in 2004 Bush was portrayed as that dumbass cowboy we accidentally elected President and we needed to get him out ASAP for the vastly intellectually superior Kerry.  In 2008, Obama was an absolute media darling in both the primaries and general ... anyone telling you otherwise is absolutely insane.  In 2012, the media gave a little bit of lip service to Romney being an articulate, strong candidate compared to the doofus cowboy and senile old man the GOP had put up the two elections prior, but the Obama love was clear to anyone who was willing to notice it.  2016 needs no explanation.

In 2000, we weren't nearly as divided as today (until after the recount, of course), and it showed.  The media loved Clinton, and Gore seemed underwhelming in comparison.  Additionally, after eight years of Democratic rule, I think a lot of people in the media were intrigued by a Bush candidacy; they love a story, and for eight years of a popular Democrat to be replaced by a good GOP Presidency of a former President's son was a nice story.  I think a lot of them saw Bush as a potential return to the 1980s, politically, except this time the Democrats were not a joke party Presidentially but rather on equal footing?  Hard to explain.

Anyone telling you that the media actively favored Bush, however, is a straight-up partisan goon or didn't live through the election in the United States or both.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I've heard counts that they were actually pro-Bush. Was it only starting with Obama that the MSM became almost uniformly Democratic-leaning, at least openly?

I think that cable tv was seen as more conservative than antenna tv and I think the media often favored one candidate rather than either of the parties. For example, the media liked Reagan, but preferred Clinton over HW, Gingrich, and Dole.

I would say Reagan was probably the only Republican President/Nominee they covered favorably since 1960.

They covered Trump favorably in that they covered Hillary Clinton just as badly even though Trump is at least 100X worse.

Hillary was no Obama in terms of media coverage but to say she wasn't treated better than Trump in the admittedly smaller amount of airtime she got is asinine.

Well, it depends how you define "better." Trump received more negative coverage, but I'd make the argument that it's "asinine" to believe the vast majority of his negative coverage was undeserved. Hillary's coverage was perhaps more positive than Trump's overall, but it was still massively negative, the content of which was mostly unfair trumped-up bullsh-t.

I mean, come on. Late August and September were almost entirely about her health.

So sure. Hillary was treated "better." But she was definitely treated more unfairly. Fair is not the same as equal, and that's nearly what she got despite objective reality pointing against the morons to something very unequal to Trump.

[136or142]

I've heard counts that they were actually pro-Bush. Was it only starting with Obama that the MSM became almost uniformly Democratic-leaning, at least openly?

I think that cable tv was seen as more conservative than antenna tv and I think the media often favored one candidate rather than either of the parties. For example, the media liked Reagan, but preferred Clinton over HW, Gingrich, and Dole.

I would say Reagan was probably the only Republican President/Nominee they covered favorably since 1960.

They covered Trump favorably in that they covered Hillary Clinton just as badly even though Trump is at least 100X worse.

Hillary was no Obama in terms of media coverage but to say she wasn't treated better than Trump in the admittedly smaller amount of airtime she got is asinine.

Completely disagree. For instance, Jeffrey Toobin at CNN said that he felt pressure that every time he commented on a negative story on Trump, that he also had to mention something negative about Hillary Clinton.  I don't think there is any question that every other major news outlet did the same thing in order to keep some so-called 'balance.'

For Donald Trump, it meant virtually a new story a day, and in the end virtually none of it stuck.  For Hillary Clinton it meant repeated reporting on the Clinton Foundation and her emails, even though there is pretty much nothing behind either of those things.

To deny these things is asinine.

[darklordoftech]

There's often accusations of the media favoring one candidate over another. What, if any, such accusations existed during the 2000 election before election night?

Journalists hated Gore because he was bland and boring, but loved W. because he was someone "you could have a beer with". So they covered their campaigns accordingly.

The mainstream media seemed determined in 2000 to tie Al Gore to various narratives they had about him: boring, stiff, programmed.  He made several jokes about it in his convention speech.

The main thing, I think, is that they wanted the Democrats punished for the Clinton Scandal and constantly played up this notion of "Clinton Fatigue" even though Bill Clinton's Presidency had roughly 60% approval ratings.

David Broder was considered the dean of the White House Press Corps at that time, and this was his attitude:

Broder supported Republican efforts to impeach Bill Clinton, whose behavior he deemed “worse” than Richard Nixon’s police-state tactics during Watergate because Nixon’s actions, “however neurotic and criminal, were motivated and connected to the exercise of presidential power.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/david-broder-eyes-wide-shut/

The media overall was much more willing to let indiscretions of Bush slide than they were any indiscretions of Gore.  One of the bigger controversies of the campaign was when, in one of the debates, Al Gore claimed to have gone with FEMA head James Lee Witt on a tour of some disaster area, and he was accused of making the whole thing up when he just got the dates mixed up.

In the same debate, W Bush told a number of outright lies, yet, they weren't mentioned again.

Then as now (although this may finally be changing) the major media outlets bought into right wing narratives (the surplus is 'over taxation.')  Of course, the self interest of journalists wanting a tax cut (or supporting a tax cut for their employers or for their advertisers' consumers) should not be overlooked her.

This was also around the time that the self appointed moral arbiter (and former Secretary of Education) William Bennett was taken as some kind of guru by many in the major media outlets.

I wonder if the media also wanted to keep Tipper and Lieberman out of the White House because their views on music, video games, wresting, etc.

Is this sarcasm?

Why would it be? Would you want the government fining you?

[136or142]

There's often accusations of the media favoring one candidate over another. What, if any, such accusations existed during the 2000 election before election night?

Journalists hated Gore because he was bland and boring, but loved W. because he was someone "you could have a beer with". So they covered their campaigns accordingly.

The mainstream media seemed determined in 2000 to tie Al Gore to various narratives they had about him: boring, stiff, programmed.  He made several jokes about it in his convention speech.

The main thing, I think, is that they wanted the Democrats punished for the Clinton Scandal and constantly played up this notion of "Clinton Fatigue" even though Bill Clinton's Presidency had roughly 60% approval ratings.

David Broder was considered the dean of the White House Press Corps at that time, and this was his attitude:

Broder supported Republican efforts to impeach Bill Clinton, whose behavior he deemed “worse” than Richard Nixon’s police-state tactics during Watergate because Nixon’s actions, “however neurotic and criminal, were motivated and connected to the exercise of presidential power.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/david-broder-eyes-wide-shut/

The media overall was much more willing to let indiscretions of Bush slide than they were any indiscretions of Gore.  One of the bigger controversies of the campaign was when, in one of the debates, Al Gore claimed to have gone with FEMA head James Lee Witt on a tour of some disaster area, and he was accused of making the whole thing up when he just got the dates mixed up.

In the same debate, W Bush told a number of outright lies, yet, they weren't mentioned again.

Then as now (although this may finally be changing) the major media outlets bought into right wing narratives (the surplus is 'over taxation.')  Of course, the self interest of journalists wanting a tax cut (or supporting a tax cut for their employers or for their advertisers' consumers) should not be overlooked her.

This was also around the time that the self appointed moral arbiter (and former Secretary of Education) William Bennett was taken as some kind of guru by many in the major media outlets.

I wonder if the media also wanted to keep Tipper and Lieberman out of the White House because their views on music, video games, wresting, etc.

Is this sarcasm?

Why would it be? Would you want the government fining you?

Oh, I get what you are referring to.  I thought you were commenting on Bill Bennett as the self appointed moral arbiter. 

I doubt that.  The majority of the Republican Party had the exact same position as Joe Lieberman and Tipper Gore.

[Progressive Pessimist]

By attempting to cover their asses from prematurely calling Florida for Gore, some media outlets did inadvertently become at least somewhat pro-Bush.

[136or142]

By attempting to cover their asses from prematurely calling Florida for Gore, some media outlets did inadvertently become at least somewhat pro-Bush.

You mean prematurely calling Florida for Bush.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It was totally in the tank for Bush. The only time they ever praised Gore was when he chose Lieberman as his running mate, so I knew it was a terrible choice.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It was totally in the tank for Bush. The only time they ever praised Gore was when he chose Lieberman as his running mate, so I knew it was a terrible choice.

You probably think the media was in the tank for Bush in 2004 as well lol

[136or142]

It was totally in the tank for Bush. The only time they ever praised Gore was when he chose Lieberman as his running mate, so I knew it was a terrible choice.

You probably think the media was in the tank for Bush in 2004 as well lol

The media played up the swiftboat liars (Jerome Corsi et al) and it wasn't until after the 2004 election that the major media outlets acknowledged that the rationales in favor of the Iraq invasion were all based on lies.

[Mr. Smith]

I've heard counts that they were actually pro-Bush. Was it only starting with Obama that the MSM became almost uniformly Democratic-leaning, at least openly?

I think that cable tv was seen as more conservative than antenna tv and I think the media often favored one candidate rather than either of the parties. For example, the media liked Reagan, but preferred Clinton over HW, Gingrich, and Dole.

I would say Reagan was probably the only Republican President/Nominee they covered favorably since 1960.

No, they trashed McGovern [not that McGovern did any favors for himself], Humphrey, Dukakis and Gore quite badly compared to their GOP counterparts.

[darklordoftech]

I've heard counts that they were actually pro-Bush. Was it only starting with Obama that the MSM became almost uniformly Democratic-leaning, at least openly?

The media was more anti Bush in 2004 than it was anti Romney in 2012,

I have the Oliver Stone DVD 'The Secret History of the United States of America.'  The video on the W Bush Presidency starts with him in one of the 2000 debates saying that 'America needed a humble foreign policy.'  I had completely forgotten about that by 2004, and yet the media was willing to let Bush's vague phrase "9/11 changed everything'  answer for everything.

So, I guess, 'murder used to be illegal, but 9/11 changed everything.'
'Breaking and entering used to be illegal, but 9/11 changed everything.'
And so on...

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/05/president.2000/poll/

Even in March 1999, people thought Bush seemed like "a strong and decisive leader".