Yet more proof the press screwed Al Gore
October 23, 2008 4:53 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
Lots of folks are talking about the broad, new Project for Excellence in Journalism study about the fall's campaign coverage that concludes coverage of John McCain had been decidedly more negative than the Barack Obama coverage in the last six weeks.
According to the study of mainstream media, 57% of print and broadcast stories about the GOP nominee were negative, compared to 14 that were positive.
As Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post notes, that imbalance likely reflects the fact that McCain's campaign has suffered drastically this fall, falling behind by double digits in some major polls. In other words, when a campaign craters, the corresponding coverage is not going to be pretty.
"Winning in politics begets winning coverage," the study concluded. Makes sense, right?
Than how do we explain this additional conclusion from the study: "McCain's numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore." [Emphasis added.]
Somebody alert Bob Somerby, because this is just amazing. John's McCain campaign has, according to the polls and even conservative pundits, been going through a slow-motion wreck for the last month. (i.e. Free fall?) And yet his press coverage is "almost identical" that of Al Gore in 2000.
It's amazing because what was Gore doing at this point in 2000? He was basically running dead even with George Bush, and in the process of winning virtually every toss-up state come Election Day.
See how that correlation between performance and coverage disappeared for Gore? He was performing just as well as his opponent (and light-years better than McCain today), yet Gore got saddled with kind of coverage usually assigned to the pronounced loser.
"Winning in politics begets winning coverage," the study concluded.
Because LORD knows, that I wouldn't know who to vote for, or even whatever to think, were it not for "coverage" to tell me so...
If the American electorate is indeed that stupid and easily influenced, then the rules of the game are changed, from Policy to politics, and from action to appearance...
Because "Winning in politics begets winning coverage," the study concluded...
Because I and you and everybody I and you know, is a television-driven staring idiot w/o compass or mind to know and think outside of "coverage", right?
SURE.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention: Al Gore?
A big favorite and hero of your's, Al Gore?
Did you ever get the feeling that Congressional Democrats are spectacular in their unparalleled ineffectiveness and lamesness in opposing the Bush administrration? (If so, then me too)
Ever look for a stupid and lame ineffectual face, to go with the frustration (even anger) you might feel, about this lack of opposition to the Bush administration? (I have)
AL GORE: the absolute most stupid and lame ineffectual face you could ever imagine, to place on the most ineffectual and lame political opposition you could ever witness, to the Bush adminstration...
As he stood lamely by, while the Presidency was stolen from him and you and many millions like me and you...
...resulting in 9/11 and all that followed...
...but by all means, let's rally around AL GORE.
As AL GORE is either the thesis, or antithesis, of AMERICA FUTURE...
you decide.
Obama doesn't deserve 100% positive coverage, but McCain deserves 100% negative coverage. Has he done anything right during the whole campaign? Has he made a single important true statement? Has he benefitted our public discourse in the tiniest way?
It's okay for a journalist to say that a lying moron is moronic and a liar.