Subscribe Feed (RSS)CNN Secretly Endorses Barack Obama
July 24th, 2007 by Joshua Dorkin | Filed under Commentary, Politics.It is no surprise when a newspaper or other publication backs a presidential candidate. We’ve seen it happen forever. The issue that stands before us today is that one of the major media outlets is secretly backing a candidate without letting us all in on the secret.
We all know that FOX’s, “Fair and Balanced” motto is a huge joke, in looking at their far right slant on the news. After last night’s CNN / You Tube “debate,” it seems that CNN needs to change theirs from “The Most Trusted Name in News” to “We Really Want Obama to Win in 2008.” While watching this “debate” it became hard not to notice that host, Anderson Cooper, favored the Junior Senator from Illinois. Not once was he cut off, even when he failed to keep to the topic at hand. Furthermore, it was compelling to see how truly un-balanced Cooper moderated the event.
From ChrisDodd.com:
It is not hard to see that the amount of time allotted to Obama (15:11) was close to 3 minutes longer than Clinton (12:26), and a whopping 6 minutes longer than the average given to all 8 of the candidates of 9.17 minutes.
If you accuse me of being unfair, then I ask you to also look at the June 3, 2007 CNN “Debate” moderated by Wolf Blitzer:
In the first CNN debate in New Hampshire, it is clear that the amount of time allotted to Obama (16:00) was 1.57 minutes longer than Clinton (14:26), 4.3 minutes longer than Edwards (11:42), and a whopping 5 1/2 minutes longer than the average given to all 8 of the candidates of 10.5 minutes.
Conclusions:
I challenge anyone – especially CNN – to take a look at this data and try to conclude anything other then favoritism. When the mega news corporations stand behind our top tier candidates, no wonder the guys in the second tier don’t stand a chance.
[...] View original post here: Joshua Dorkin [...]
I don’t think I agree with this post.
The reason there was more time allotted to Obama was because of the responses. He seemed to be the one getting attacked most by other candidates… so CNN gave him the time to respond to accusations.
and for the record… I’m not an Obama supporter.
I missed the debate, but I am guessing that they didn’t discuss the issue that 86% of Americans want fixed….ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
Interesting post.. seems like the time each candidate got to speak is pretty much in line with how much money they’ve collected. Or if it’s the other way around. At least for the top 3.
Yes, it is an interesting post. In the UK it is not uncommon for a person to be backed one minute, by the same media outlet that is just as happy to rip them apart of minor issues.
You really cannot come to a conclusion like that so soon.
We still have a lot to understand about the motive of the debate.
There’s more to it than meets the eye!
Very interesting. I guess media should refrain from backing candidates as it sways people’s mind to some extent and media’s role as a fourth estate comes under scanner.
I suppose it’s hard to keep one’s prejudices in check – but what concerns me more is that where once, journalistic integrity would prevent a true journalist from showing a bias, now the news is a profit machine. So the bias help sell to a defined audience. It’s one thing to be slanted, because you can always hit the clicker to hear the other side… but when it’s profitable, each side then has a motive to lie.
Oh yeah….you think there’s any true neutrality left in modern big-name media? Not a chance! It’s all about profit (as it is with all corporations), and they know how to swing things in their favor.
PS: I love how there’s this big “Meet Barack Obama” banner under the “Post your comment” button. HAHA
Hmmm I like your statistical charts- the candidates look like pez dispensers- do you sell them on eBay? If so I will bid on the Hillary and the Barack… I am still secretly undecided!
It only really gets dangerous when one media group owns the most real estate. I saw the daily show last night and they were discussing this exact problem, saying how there used to be dozens of independant papers in NY, now they’re all owned by a few large companies
interesting
We have exactly the same stuff going on down here in Oz. We’ve got an election coming up, and the ABC desperately wants Obama equivalent Kevin Rudd to win. News LTD (Murdoch) papers want incumbent John Howard to win.
Both say they’re balanced. But we know that’s not true. I think they should all just wear their biases on their sleeves and duke it out openly!
Hm, I missed the debate, but this is some pretty interesting data to be sure. I don’t know if I can completely conclude with your analysis, simply because I didn’t watch, but I certainly don’t put it past CNN to play favorites.
Hi,
This stuff gives the real information one needs. One can feel like reaching the destination.
I have a query though – Usual sites like dig.com and muti.com declare “spam” when I try bookmarking there.
I don’t have any spam pages or websites.
Can you help me regarding this matter?
Thanks.
Wow! That info blows me away. There certainly seems to be a favoritism employed. Really makes you question as a voter whether or not you really have any say or if there are higher powers pulling the strings.
This post was really interesting considering the fact that it concerns the senatorial polls.Barrak Obama has been attacked for many issues that need a tough stance.And given the time limit, it only does justice to him.
I guess it’s just shows how much attention each candidate was given… It’s not them who asked for it, so why would you talk about favoritism?
Well,
I’ll have to say that no matter what tv station you watch or which side of the political fence you stand on, there will always be some bias in the media. Always has been. Always will be. The best solution is to offer two sides and let people decide for themselves.
I missed the debate, but I’m surprised at the amount of pull he has seeing his short track history and historically radical points of view
Amazing, CNN should be taken to the back yard and switched. I’ll be interested to see if this trend continues in the months to come and how it will affect the outcome.
Wow! Very interesting numbers there. I second Paul’s thoughts on whether we will see any correction or whether the trend will continue.
Huh, who would have thunk it? CNN showing favoritism??? I’m appalled, outraged, and not a bit surprised.
If you think that’s something, you should have seen the New Hampshire republican debate on Hannity & Colmes. They would laugh every time Ron Paul spoke, even when it was completely uncalled for (when he was just beginning his answers, before he even got to the point). They asked you to text in your vote after the debate, and when he won all Hannity would say is “someone must be texting again and again for him”. They treat him like a senile old man, meanwhile he’s the only one who made any sense in the debate… So yeah, it sounds very similar to CNN. It’s really unfortunate
good luck to obama, but where is rudy?
I missed the debate but that is pretty interesting. I think Obama is a cool dude.
Thanks
I don’t know but it seems like CNN has been anointing him since the 2004 elections. He wins his first federal office and they were going ga-ga over him. I just don’t know. Whenever the media goes that ga-ga over anointing him, it makes me wonder why.
THE NEWS MEDIA IS NOT ONLY BIASED FOR CERTAIN POLITICAL CANDIDATES BUT ON MANY ISSUES RE:THE DECISIONS MADE BY THE PRESIDENT, CONGRESS ECT.
FOR INSTANCE, HOW MUCH MORE SPECTACULAR ARE NEWS STORIES IN TIME OF WAR, THAN IN TIME OF PEACE?
I HATE TO SAY IT BUT, THE MORE SPECTACULAR THE STORY, THE MORE THEY GET VIEWERS, SELL PAPERS ECT.THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR, PERIOD.
THEY PROBABLY SEE OBAMA AS THE ONE WHO WILL CAUSE THE MOST TALK AMONG PEOPLE, AND SELL THE MOST IN THE NEWS!!
TODD
Very good post. I agree 100%. There’s no media outlet out there that isn’t biased and I wish they’d just come out and admit it, rather than doing it covertly.
Secretly? Isn’t it obvious? CNN is selling us Obamaism, a new brand of propaganda to steer our votes. It started way before any of the primaries. There were several fireside chat specials with Obama that I am sure he didn’t pay for. None of the other candidates had any specials. I thought it odd, even back then. Now it borders on the ridiculous. Not only are they grandstanding for Obama by applauding his endorsements, speeches, wins and ability to get young voters interested in politics again, but they are cutting off Hillary’s speeches with commercial breaks and critcising her and her husband at every opportunity. They don’t mention her endorsements. For instance, excluding Caroline and Ted, the rest of the Kennedy’s (Robert’s children included) are endorsing Hillary. Has anyone heard that mentioned on CNN? No. Why…they want us to believe all the Kennedys are endorsing Obama. Open your eyes people! The media is trying to control you!
I also think you hit the nail on the head with this one. It is obvious the Obama has been a favorite of the media, and I also know that some of the other candidates did not recieve there fair share of air time to be able to get there message out. It is sad that the media is this way.
I like yous blog. Its everyday so informative. Go on that way!
I voted for Hillary Clinton.
He is really a woman with a big heart and not so selfish.
Sad that she lost the competition.
thanks for this site. it is really informative.