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.