Have U noticed this subtle media bias in your area? Kerry clips vs. Bush

[Lerkfish]

This is something I've noticed here locally in Ohio, as very prevalent, and I"m seeing it nationally as well. Once I point it out to you, you'll see it, too.

When a tv report covers both campaigns, notice this subtle but telling difference:
-- If Bush makes a statement, or soundbite, the audio of his own voice is left in the clip. In other words, there is no filter between him speaking and the viewer.
-- If Kerry makes a statement, or soundbite, the video is included, but the anchorperson retells what Kerry said, even if the retelling is LONGER than running the non-muted video clip would be. There is a filter (the reporter) between Kerry speaking and the viewer.

Once I noticed this, about the time of the swift boat controversy, I have yet to see any local news channel act differently. Its always Bush direct video/audio, Kerry video with anchor summarization of Kerry message.

How is it where you live? is this merely a local things, or are other markets experiencing this? Please check and report back if anyone sees this and where you are from (I'm in Dayton, Ohio)

Why this is a bad thing: Well, there are some obvious and nonobvious downsides to this inequality -- it creates room for distorting or misinterpreting Kerry's message, thats obvious. a Non-obvious downside would be that by deleting the audio, we don't get crowd reactions, no cheering, no indication of the size of the crowd or whether they approve/disapprove of what he's saying. Also, inflection is key. A candidate is going to state their own message with their own purposeful inflection....to allow a reporter's monotone to teleprompt the message automatically deletes inflection, fervor, charisma, and even humor or righteous anger.

A similar subtle difference I've noticed is that they don't show Kerry crowds. There is never a crowd shot of the audience. They talk about "record" crowds for Bush, but they don't do a visual comparison between the rallies.

Another difference is that when republicans attack (which is essentially their entire message), the only thing reported from the Kerry campaign is their response to that attack, or the non-response, but the rest of the Kerry message doesn't get reported, even if the response were 1% of the entire speech. Why this is bad is I hear a lot of repub coworkers talk as if Kerry has no message, no plan, no vision.

[annabanana]

1. you got it on the button!

They've been doing that for a long time.

liberal media my sweet Aunt Fanny

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. Kerry's defense from the SBVT liars was similarly filtered

giving the impression that he wasn't defending himself.

[blondeatlast]

9. Which was more than obvious on this very board! nt

[tom_paine]

3. This is all now common and longstanding practice for Imperial Pravda

This is not new, but likely extends before we were watching for it, back to 2000 and beyond.

You can also include dozens of other Orwellian Double-Standards where EVERY Kerry position and startegy is examined in terms of ulterior motives while EVERY Bushevik Lie, distortion, or ulterior-motive-drive position is given the Paen to Glorious and Incorruptable Fuhrer, NEVER examined in term of ulterior motives.

Because, you know, our God-Sent Fuhrer is pure of Heart and Totally Moral, don't you know?

Madness.

[Cocoa]

4. I've noticed it

here in Chicago.

I think a lot of people still only know Kerry second-hand.

[Longhorn]

5. Last night, the newscaster talked over both of them but

showed four or five clips of Bush* and only one of Kerry that didn't last nearly as long. I noticed because I kept wondering if they were going to say anything about the Kerry campaign and they finally throw in a tidbit.

I'll watch for the scenario you described. I actually don't watch much local news any more.

[mhollis]

6. Media Bias Alert

OK, I work for "the media" at a national news network. And I have accused executive producers of letting this stand. We have one "reporter" (stupid ninny would be accurate) who, when doing a story on Kerry to be edited together with a Bush story as they criss-crossed the same state, spent time on how much luggage the Kerry campaign was bringing.

That is a total lack of focus. The purpose for her having been assigned to report on Kerry was to talk about his campaign not his luggage. There was no soundbite from Kerry, there was no mention of his position on any issue. I was absolutely infuriated.

Our other reporter, who has been a Washington Correspondant for some time, offered a position soundbite from Bush on why it was important that the Republicans be business-friendly (in an area that has experienced massive job layoffs) and several other comments about the Bush position. There was no "luggage" prattle, it was all very professionally done.

I recalled that report to the show's Executive Producer and this particular reporter has not been regularly assigned to Kerry since. Presently, the reporter assigned to him is a lot more mature and careful to keep the focus on his campaign. I told him about the other reporter's coverage, which might help him when it comes time to renegotiate his contract with the network.

That said...

One of the sources for all reporters is the information that the two campaigns wish to ge released to the media. All reporters are given a sheet with the talking points of the day so that they can follow along and quote freely from those talking points without fear that they will misquote the candidate. In many cases, in the Kerry camp, the talking points are specific replies to attacks on their campaign by Bush, his surrogates or the attack advertisements being pumped out by the 527 committees. This shows a lack of focus in the Kerry campsign and the Democrats have done their best to improve that by encouraging Kerry to shuffle his advisers and to put together a team to sharpen the message.

Our reporting reflects these issues. I, personally know that I have tried to show both candidates in positions where they were both surrounded by crowds and standing against backdrops. I have tried to air applause and have done so. I have made sure that the Kerry campaign gets equal hearing and sometimes more than equal.

I would criticize John Kerry for "being Senatorial" instead of being Presidential. His soundbites tend to be long-winded and that is a consequence of how he has learned to debate with others. He tends to not attack because Senators don't attack their colleagues even if they oppose their views (Vice President Cheny really broke the rules in his comment to Daschle -- but then, he has never been a Senator).

I would criticize us for not fairly reporting on Bush. He has to run away from his record, which is abysmal. He has placed former lobbyists in positions to regulate the very industries for which they lobbied. He would dispoil our National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges by leasing them out to mining conglomerates and lumber companies for prices that would have been bargains in the 1950s. He will fight to prevent the enforcement of the new clean-air standards just passed into law by fellow Republican Arnold Schwarzenneger that will decrease greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. He attacked Saddam Hussein instead of looking with due diligence for Osama bin Ladin and Mullah Omar. He still claims that the Iraqi dictator had weapons of mass distruction as well as strong connections with Al Qaida groups when both claims have been utterly disproven. And he ordered his EPA to tell New York residents, volunteers, firefighters and police officers that Ground Zero air was safe when it had not been tested and clearly was not safe, leading to the disability of hundreds with no compensation for their disability.

We have reported on many of these failings of the Bush Administration. But these reports do not seem to "stick" in the minds of the voters.

The aim of Karl Rove, who is running the campaign is to malign the character of the opponent instead of running on a winning record. This changes the whole conversation that you hear in the Media from "This is what we are doing and are going to do," to "He's a bad person," "No I'm not, he is."

The Kerry campaign, despite their best efforts are playing Rove's game, not their own.

[AP]

10. Fascinating.

[Lerkfish]

11. thanks for your post (and those of others)...very informative

I hope someone in the Kerry campaign reads yours, to help them concentrate on how they are disseminating their message to the press itself.
There is always room for improvement.

[blondeatlast]

13. Egad; I remember the "luggage" thing! Would it be a conflict of

interest for you to send this to someone in the Kerry campaign?

Your analysis of the "sounding senatorial" Kerry is so true; I "knew" it, but I couldn't find a way to express it.

And I agree about the reporting of Bush's failures, but I would venture to say that that is still a MEDIA failing; a little backroom dalliance in the WH had no problem sticking.

What the media is failing to do in this case is to demonstrate why the failings MATTER; and many of them have mattered on a grand scale.

The outing of the CIA operative, Abu Garaib, the Chalabi duplicity were incredibly important but the media spent so much time with swiftboats, Kobe, and Bennifer that nobody cared.

I pin the blame for those squarely on the media, who so loves hearing itself analyze that the facts that matter are obscured in pretty mouths saying big words that only impress their speakers.

A good start: cut out about 50% of the talk shows. Maybe they get the ratings, but they serve no purpose other than to make stars out of journalists. They provide no service to democracy or the public whatsoever.

Remember, there was a glorious time when we got REAL news in 30 MINUTES; no time for the luxury of fluff. We knew then what was happening in the war and the White House.

[Doctor_J]

7. subtle?

must be nice to be somewhere where it's subtle. The tribune (Chi) hasn't endorsed a dem for prez since 64, and has this year been campaigning for * for months.

[blondeatlast]

8. Excellent observation! Why is it so easy for us to see the bias,

and so difficult to point it out to the offenders?

ANALYSIS is not the same as NEWS, and this is clearly analysis.

You are dead-on with this.

After the elections, I am ready to take on CNN in a big way--anybody with me?

[AP]

12. I complained to NPR about precisely that issue a few weeks ago:

Subject: OK, how much do I need to donate for you to drop ATC?

I think I'm about to all but give up on expecting NPR's ME and ATC to beneutral reporters on the upcoming election. Lately, my routine for listening to these shows' election coverage has been to ask myself: am I listening to John Kerry's voice? George Bush's voice? Am I listening to a message that George Bush wants me to hear about Kerry or himself, even if it's not coming from George Bush? Is it a message about Bush that Kerry wants me to hear?

Well, lately, I hear very little from Kerry (unless it's meant to criticize Kerry), I hear a lot from Bush directly, and I hear a lot of messages from people who aren't Bush, but who emphasize Bush's message. And anything that could remotely be perceived as a criticism of Bush is rarely put in the context of the campaign, or in the context of a choice on election day between two policy agendas.

Today's ATC is a perfect example. The first story in today's show that was relevant to the election was "Report: Saddam Had 'Intent', But No Weapons." Marie Louise Kelly waited until the end of the story to put it in the context of the election and made sure to tell listeners that this story wouldn't have any influence on the election.

That was followed by the LAMEST excuse for repeating Bush campaign attacks on John Kerry I've heard recently (and that's saying ALOT, because NPR et al. are trying pretty hard to do this). "Before Bush Speaks, Partisans Preach to Faithful" was little more than free advertising for the Bush campaign. What would Kerry have to pay to have you play clips from his stump speeches for as long as you played clips from Bush's? And don't give me any BS about there being a legitimate news story behind that. What ATC was doing was transparent, and NPR should be ashamed of itself, and its local affiliates should be ashamed to broadcast this trash.

And what was that followed by? "On the Campaign Trail, a 'George Bush Special.'" Mind you, I haven't heard John Kerry's name mentioned positively ONCE yet. I've been told that he gains nothing from Sadaam having intent but no weapons. I've heard him called a "waffler." I've heard repeated jokes about him. Yet we're already on to George Bush being humanized for ordering his own food? Oh, come on.

Incidentally, I applied my test to your "Bush, Kerry Fight for Ohio" story. Here's what I came up with: OK, finally I heard Kerry's voice talking about the campaign. But after Bush's, and Bush is already way ahead in total time on tonight's broadcast. And, after all, how could you do a story that's explicitly about the CAMPAIGN without actually letting us hear from Kerry? Ok, I'm sure you'll figure out a way to do that before November if it's still close, but not tonight. The real zinger in this story was ATC playing the voice of Bush campaign workers READING THEIR PHONE BANK SCRIPT!!! The Kerry campaign worker talked about mechanics of the campaign. The Bush campaign workers got to read their GOD DAMNED SCRIPT ON THE AIR. That was worth a million dollars to the Republicans. The Kerry callers have to do this one person at a time, and will probably reach only 10,000 people today. But NPR just ensured that Bush's script will have reached 10,000,000 listeners tonight. Mara Liasson better be getting a check from the Bush campaign -- and she should add a line to her resume: assistant campaign manger. She's doing a great job of helping Bush with media and GOTV.

And where does all this leave me as a listener? It leaves me begging my local affiliates to start thinking about decentralizing the control over the message. How about an hour of ATC and ME and 2 hours of locally controlled, locally relevant news? I'd rather have my local stations produce versions of national, state and local news. I'd rather have people who live in my community interpret world, national, and local events. I'm going to give
up on expecting NPR to be responsible producers of the news.

[blondeatlast]

14. I've given up on NPR. It's let itself become a tool of Wal-Mart,

etc.

They may as well run commercials, hell--they virtually do.

My $$$s are going to AAR instead.