As debates loom, will media learn from past coverage shortfalls?
SUMMARY: As the media prepare to cover the debates, Media Matters has compiled several items from the 2004 presidential debates identifying patterns of misinformation in the media, at least one of which has already resurfaced this year.
As the media prepare to cover the 2008 presidential and vice-presidential debates, Media Matters for America has compiled several items from the 2004 presidential debates identifying patterns of misinformation in the media. These include echoing the Bush campaign's claims that Sen. John Kerry's debating skills were vastly superior to those of President Bush, thereby lowering expectations for Bush; reversing themselves on the significance of a debate after a consensus emerged that Kerry won; hosting politically skewed panels to analyze debates; and purporting to give balanced fact checks by equating assertions by Kerry that were true, but in their judgment incomplete, with claims by Bush that the media themselves identified as false. Media Matters has already identified at least one of these patterns resurfacing.
Not-So-Great Expectations: Media's spin favors Bush -- again
In the run-up to the 2004 presidential debates, media including CNN and columnists at The Philadelphia Inquirer, Time, and The Miami Herald played the "expectations game," setting the bar low for Bush while heightening both the expectations and the stakes by treating the debates as make-or-break for Kerry. As Media Matters demonstrated, this repeated the media's performance prior to the 2000 election, in which they raised the stakes for Vice President Gore and set a low bar for then-Gov. Bush.
This week, Media Matters has identified at least one instance in which the media asserted that expectations for Sen. Barack Obama are higher than for Sen. John McCain, with Politico's Eamon Javers saying that a "stumble[]" by Obama "could be a real disaster for the Obama camp."
After "make-or-break" buildup, CNN commentators downplayed debates' significance
In the buildup to the first presidential debate of 2004, CNN commentators called the event "a decisive moment"; a "key opportunity" for Kerry; "the most important night of John Kerry's presidential campaign"; a chance for the candidates to win "the very big prize" of undecided voters; and "a pivotal moment." After the debate, these same CNN commentators said Kerry performed well -- but then downplayed the significance of the debates.
Networks persisted with façade of "balance" in post-debate fact checks
After the October 8, 2004, presidential debate, TV networks continued a pattern of false equivalence that Media Matters documented after both the first presidential and the vice-presidential debates. In the purported interest of fairness, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN juxtaposed, for example, Kerry's accurate employment figures, which they characterized as incomplete, with Bush falsehoods about Kerry's tax plan and about inroads the United States had made in dismantling Al Qaeda.
Debate debacle: An MMFA review of MSNBC's skewed debate coverage
Media Matters analyzed MSNBC's coverage of all three presidential debates, as well as the vice-presidential debate, and identified imbalanced panels featuring conservatives and Republicans such as Pat Buchanan and Ben Ginsberg without any Democratic counterparts; definitive declarations of victory for the Republican ticket that were dramatically at odds with the consensus throughout the media and through public polling; faulty fact checks and focus groups; unequal numbers and order of guests; and numerous individual instances of conservative distortion and misinformation.
Also, Media Matters had noted after the October 13, 2004, presidential debate that four of the first five guests on MSNBC's coverage were supporters of Bush; a second Kerry supporter was not interviewed until exactly one hour after the debate had concluded. Indeed, after interviewing Kerry political adviser Robert M. Shrum, the next four guests were then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Bush campaign senior adviser Karen Hughes, former New York City mayor and Republican National Convention prime-time speaker Rudolph Giuliani, and then-White House communications director Dan Bartlett.
In answer to the topic question: No
And furthermore, "Why bother asking?"
Agreed. Media will never learn. Fox is right. CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, PBS are all left. Some things never change.
"An MMFA review of MSNBC's skewed debate coverage"
Well that is one shortfall that MSNBC has most definitely corrected, they have done a 180 and are now skewed Democrat; so MMFA needn't review, or criticize them anymore - they are in line.
Tommy
With Olbermann and Maddow we can be assured those two will not be reviewed by MMFA. My bet is MMFA will target Gregory. Matthews has been in line lately, i do not think there has been many threads on him
My bet is MMFA will target Gregory.
They gave him kudos on the next thread for discussing in detail the Senator Martinez/Paulson exchange.
You can bet MSNBCDEM will not have anything positive to say about McCain, and the huge man crush Olberman has for Obama will be on full display.
Get back to us with your complaints after Fox hires someone from the left with the same kind of pulpit that MSNBC gives to Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan.
In FOX defense , Greata Van Sustren had a cupcake interview last night with Bill Clinton. I never realiized how chummy is he with her.
What the hell is she doing interviewing Bill Clinton? Is he a witness to a homicide?
Yeah Natalie Halloway.
I watched the Clinton interview last night, it was very good. He gave advice to the "First Dude" Todd Palin.
No, he's a witness to a "suicide". Wink, wink!
Oh, you mean someone like Shep Smith and Alan Colmes?
How did MM "correct" MSNBC?
Your inane questions never cease to amaze me, why do you have such trouble following? I never said MMFA corrected anyone, I said MSNBC corrected itself. I have no idea whether MMFA had any influence on that or not, you will have to ask them.
How did MSNBC "correct" itself? You say they now slant Democract; do YOU think they slanted Republican before?
"do YOU think they slanted Republican before?"
Apparently MMFA had some issues with their 2004 debate coverage, read the thread Governor.
Um, Tommy, YOU made the assertion that MSNBC is "now skewed Democrat". How do YOU think they were skewed before?
I will just repeat myself Governor, glad to help you along.
Posted by tommy in reply to Governor
REPLY »
"do YOU think they slanted Republican before?"
Apparently MMFA had some issues with their 2004 debate coverage, read the thread Governor.
Posted Wednesday September 24, 2008 1:10:39 PM EDT / Flag this comment
YOU made the assertion that MSNBC is "now skewed Democrat". How do YOU think they were skewed before?
Tommy, to be fair i think Governor wants to know YOUR opinion?
I am one who thinks MSNBC is very friendly toward Democrats but I believe that was not the case in 2004.
J,
The Governor has no interest in my opinion, as I have no interest in his. I have clearly said that MSNBC has drifted left, considering their prime time lineup. Apparently MMFA was not too happy with their 2004 debate coverage and as I said, given their Democratic tilt, those worries should be alleviated this time around. If the Governor wants to dispute that, he is more than free to do so.
Tommy, that was very "nasty". LOL
Professor Tommy: "so MMFA needn't review, or criticize them anymore - they are in line."
LMAO!!
Yeah, that's why Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews were pulled from covering any further events and replaced with Karl Rove's dance partner, David Gregory.
So Pete, Do you think MSNBC is more favorable to Democrats or Republicans? I mean that is just silly speculation on my part, isn't it? I mean Olbermann and Maddow don't lean left at all. I mean do they? LMAO!
Olbermann and Maddow are radical right wingers, did you not hear?
More favorable to Democrats or Republicans? It depends on what time of day you're watching.
Scarborough and Buchanan don't lean right at all do they?
Prime time means prime time, when most people watch. Buchanan is a commentator, he doesn't host an hour show during prime time where each and every story is viewed from his partisan viewpoint. But I will give Maddow credit, at least unlike Olbermann she lets her opinions be challenged by her guests.
And weren't you the one who kicks and screams while attributing the dominance of radio by right-wing professional liars entirely to "market forces" despite all the evidence to the contrary?
Keith Olbermann has single-handedly kept MSNBC alive by bringing in ratings and revenue, but now you're insisting that it's 100% political and that the market is not dictating any of this? Rachel Maddow's show beat Larry King on opening night, and it's all just MSNBC's political bent that's responsible?
Once again, LMAO!
"but now you're insisting that it's 100% political and that the market is not dictating any of this?"
Huh? Ahh, wow. It's sad when you have to make stuff up in order to defend your point, or whatever it is you're doing.
I simply stated that MMFA has far less worrying to do than they obviously did in 2004 about MSNBC. Nobody here has yet to dispute that.
You said that MSNBC is "skewed Democrat."
OK, I guess "skewed Democrat" and "insisting that it's 100% political" are not synonymous?
But IMO, you're still hypocritical when it comes to market forces and political bias.
Yes it is skewed Democrat. But did I say that it was skewed Democrat in spite of their ratings? No. They feel they have an audience, the anti-Fox so to speak. I made no comment about market forces, you did.
It's plain to see that you were being called out for your double standard. I guess everything you've proclaimed in the past pretty much has no relevance as far as you're concerned, since you're unwilling to discuss it or stand behind it in any way when confronted with it.
You know what? I concede. Funny how differently you can see things when you're at home with a baby daughter bouncing on your lap, instead of at the office getting calls from everyone wanting everything at once. :-)
Total day: FNC: 380 | CNN: 243 | MSNBC: 171 | HLN: 164
Prime: FNC: 733 | CNN: 460 | MSNBC: 414 | HLN: 372
Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.
This did not come out the way it should of but here is the link
On Monday Olbermann could not even beat Nancy Grace and Rachel was behind Larry King.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp
So what's your point?
Point is that MSNBC is still not reaching the people that it needs to reach if GE wants to maintain this investment. Geez Gov , Tommy is on to something do you read?
Well, I did not read your notion "that MSNBC is still not reaching the people that it needs to reach if GE wants to maintain this investment" before you posted it, so you got me there.
And considering the Governor just posted this "Prime time programming is driven by what the people want. I hate to break it to you, Tommy, but the people don't want Buchanan"......and then asks you what your point is regarding MSNBC's ratings, I don't think he even reads what he just wrote, nobody is that clueless!
I think the Governor is lost. Thank God he is not a real Governor of a state, or maybe is is.
State of confusion, perhaps.
You two are not talking about anything. You just typing insults. You both have no point. Tommy: Do you think MSNBC has a liberal bias in 2004?
Governor I made my point and my point about the ratings was to counter what Pete had said. You have no point, your clogging up this thread with the smae question to Tommy over and over again, what is your point?
Thank you Sue. Governor is like a petulant child, if he doesn't like the responses we give him I suggest he save himself the trouble and stop asking. Simple.
SueEld, please tell it to put the lotion in the basket unless it wants the hose again.
My point is that the notion of a liberal media remains a myth not born out by the facts.
I swear you must live in your own pharmaceutically enhanced universe.
That should have been in response to your lotion in a basket and hose comment.
Welcome to America. By the way, MSNBC is 2004; would you say it was a.) fair/balanced, b.) skewed Democrat, c.) skewed Republican, or d.) don't know?
Governor , in 2008 is MSNBC
a.) fair/balanced, b.) skewed Democrat, c.) skewed Republican, or d.) don't know?
It's skewed to the right.
Who is on at 8pm ET and 9pm ET, prime time, on MSNBC Governor?
Repeat at 10pm also
Geez, for the guy who can't answer a simple question...
http://www.tvguide.com/
Please don't ask me where your remote control is, but assuming you can't find it, check the empty pizza box like last time. Oh, that reminds me, once you've settled in:
http://www.dominos.com/
(PS: On the whole, MSNBC slants right.)
Thanks Governor so despite Rachel and Olbermann MSNBC is far right wing.
Got it now.
I did not claim that MSNBC is far right wing.
MSNBC might as well be funded by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the Obama campaign. Jeez, give up the tired mantra.
About as balanced as it gets
You're right, Tommy, if MSNBC would just stop it with being so "skewd Democrat" and just give Buchanan his very own prime time show, then their rating would shoot to the top.
That data is not from Rachel's opening night, which is what I cited.
I understand you stated it, i was just giving the most updated and stating something somewhat related. Either way I love her but I do not think she will survive past the election. Especially if Obama wins , what will MSNBC spew? Hate toward the Republican minority in Congress?
Will Olbermann do nightly reports and phony outrage on the Bush retirement?
There's a proven formula they can borrow from...
Fox News prosopered throughout '00 to '06 while spewing hate toward the Democratic minority in Congress.
Scarborough had his chance at prime time, but those darn market forces, geez.
Oh, I got it now. Liberal programming is driven by ratings, conservative programming is driven by corporate ideology. But of course......
To clarify, the liberals have to work and earn whatever podium they get. The conservatives have a massive podium handed to them and are supplimented with huge amounts of capital until they find the right schtick to capture an audience.
Prime time means prime time, when most people watch.
Prime time programming is driven by what the people want. I hate to break it to you, Tommy, but the people don't want Buchanan.
MSNBC has been assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Off the top of my head, there are three things I'd want to see this Friday, that I probably will not see:
1. More direct speech between the candidates themselves, as opposed to the candidates speaking in response to the moderator and his questions. I'm under the impression that Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have agreed to allow for them to directly address and ask one another questions... Great! That's different from previous debates, where it was actually a rule in their debate agreement (their "memorandum of understanding") that they could not question or address one another directly. Who better to ask Mr. McCain the important National Policy questions of the campaign, than Mr. Obama? And likewise, who better to challenge Mr. Obama, than Mr. McCain? And if you were under the impression that their direct questions to one another would be banal or fluffy of somehow stupid or misleading or foul, then that's exactly what the other candidate would say in response: "Your question Sir is extraordinarily stupid, even for you... it insults not only my intelligence, but the American People's also." Anyway, I don't think we'll hear anything that good this Friday, but I am under the impression the candidates may and will speak to and question one another directly, which is Great, and I only wish the entire debate was in that format.
2. The pre-arranged topic of debate this Friday is National Security, but given the extraordinary scheme proposed this past week by the Bush administration (one that may impact the Federal Budget and taxes and inflation for years to come), I wish the candidates would agree to make National Security the topic of a later debate, and make the WALL STREET swindle the immediate and first topic of Friday's debate: and if they went back and forth in great detail on that subject alone, not only would we all be glued to our television sets drinking it all in, the whole world would tune in, because it's that important... it will have that much of an impact on Budgets and taxes and inflation in America, for years to come. I wish they'd make an emergency and timely change of Friday's debate topic.
3. And lastly, one awesome thing I'd want to see this Friday in the debate: A SPLIT-SCREEN! Remember when C-SPAN went with a split-screen in the first Kerry-Bush 2004 debate? It was awesome! It completely took away the natural "editorializing" that goes with cutaway shots and selective camera direction... it put the two candidates both on screen the entire debate, so that as the one spoke, you saw also (if you wished) the reaction and body posture and facial expressions of the other... and in 2004, it made for a permanent video record of how much of an absolute jerk George W. Bush was and is! Remember that? That's what I'd also want to see this Friday, A SPLIT-SCREEN presentation of the debate. It makes it so that you feel like you're actually there, instead of just watching it on television.
I would prefer not to have a split screen, looking at McCain all the time will hurt my eyes.
As you watch the debate, note the iron control by a Big Media Stooge. Democracy can't survive without a Big Media Stooge. Bow down and worship the holiness of the Big Media Stooge, noble guardian of democracy, without whom we couldn't even hold an election.
I agree with your recommendations, I'd stay home for that one.
Free Sarah Palin!
Free Sarah Palin?? Thanks, but no thanks. I wouldn't take her if she came with an earmark check pinned to her blouse.
Would you take her if the earmark check was pinned to her bra? :-)
Thanks...but no thanks. Hate to disappont you, Julia, but even I have principles... ;>)
Principles yes, but undies, no? :-0)
That's because I'm a maverick, baby...! ;>)
I really hate this new hyperlink, you can hardly tell there's one. The video is quite hard hitting at McCain's sexism...
I've seen the video...I was just making a play on words.
She will not be freed until after the election. Then hopefully she will disappear forever.
As debates loom, will media learn from the past coverage shortfalls? MMFA
Is this one of them thar rhetorical questions, MMFA?
Then Rhett outta answer it!
I think Scarlett... er, Bush is hitting up Rhett... er, the taxpayers to save Tara... er, Wallstreet. So boyfriend is too busy. Or he's still in jail :-0)
You Hopeless and Hapless Libs must understand this...
The skew of a network or perceived bias of anchors or reporters has NOTHING to do with how the Democrats have performed in these debates in 2004 or 2000.
The fact is the debates are the ONLY time Voters get to see and hear these candidates in an unscripted forum and in the past two elections the Democrats -- both John Kerry and Al Gore -- came across as arrogant, unlikable and as "leaders" whose policies would be hurtful to the country. This is why they "lost" the debates and ultimately the elections. (Take that back..In 2004, Kerry beat Bush pretty badly in the first one at least on style, but he stil got beat at the ballot box)
As for the low expectations for Republicans, the liberals create this perception on their own: Bush is dumb and can't speak, etc.. And this year Obama is the "Great Orator" when in reality this kind of format is his WORST (See Saddleback Forum). Meanwile McCain can't give a decent speech and he is senile, etc., but McCain sitting at a table answering tough questions is something he's done on the Sunday shows for 20 years.
So, thanks to the Moonbats in and out of thr media, the millions who don't pay attention until the debates are going to expect to see the eleoquent Obama and the stumbling McCain. Unless Obama baits McCain into some anger, I think you libs will be disappointed once again.
The fact is the debates are the ONLY time Voters get to see and hear these candidates in an unscripted forum and in the past two elections the Democrats -- both John Kerry and Al Gore -- came across as arrogant, unlikable and as "leaders" whose policies would be hurtful to the country.
McCain wants to cancel Friday's debate:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/24/mccain_suspending_campaign_ask.html
McCain wants to cancel Friday's debate...
...because he's way down in the polls and his campaign is going down the toilet. He needs a ploy. Why couldn't he just fly to Washington after the debate? Like his presence is so critical in Washington that they can't do anything without him?
A very transparent ploy at that. By the way, is this the first time a Republican presidential nominee has ever stopped in his tracks to rush to Congress to hand ouy $700 billion to influential financial interests?
Isn't it amazing? Lincoln had no problem campaigning during the Civil war, FDR had no problem campaigning during WWII, Nixon had no problem campaigning during vietnam, but McLame can't campaign? What gives, he's missed over 80% of all votes, what's so important about this one?
Amazing. Simply amazing. Worst. Campaign. Ever.
Again, ignoring facts that are relevent, you state this while failing to account for the fact that all the PRESIDENTS mentioned were incumbents, and the campaign challenge is generally lessened. Besides, you'd rather have an ideologue who basically hasn't "been there" since he's been in office because he's too busy campaigning as opposed to someone who does go back to the office when there's a crisis.
Well, couldn't you make the argument that an incumbent has MORE responsibility and MORE on his mind, so if they could manage to debate, McCain certainly should be able to? McCain wants to cancel Friday's debate and debate next week instead, bumping the VP debate to an indeterminate time. Surely even someone as logically impaired as yourself can see that for the ploy it is?
As usual, your haste to post before thinking blows your argument out of the water. All one needs to point out is 1) for every incumbant there is also a challenger and 2) vietnam spanned across 3 different presidents.
Oh, and McLame is only doing this as a political stunt. Just like picking an inexperienced, incompetant idiot was a gimmick.
McCain less than 24 hours ago when asked about the Bush administration's bailout plan:
"I have not had a chance to see it in writing. I have to examine it."
I guess he can't read the thing and work to become the next President at the same time.
Not good. Speaking for myself, I would rather have a president who can walk and chew gum at the same time. I don't think Putin or Kim Jong Il will cooperate in scheduling their issues around our issues in the future.
And what is their excuse for wanting to cancel the VP Debate? Sure Sarah needs more prep time, but can you really just say that???
Just remember, bubble butt, on January 1st you will have to say Mr. President when addressing Obama...
Liberals didn't creat the preception that Bush is dumb. He proved it all by himself.
Oops! Not only is McLame not ready to debate, it's painfully obvious that sarah the slut can't debate a squirrel in the forest. McLame wants to delay all debates because he is woefully unprepared to discuss anything except depends and milk of magnesia. And stupid sarah? Nothing but a gimmick.
Dana Bash, CNN: I spoke with Senator Lindsey Graham, he is in the McCain campaign, he is negotiation — is trying to negotiate with the Obama campaign and the presidential debate commission. What they are saying, and what he is saying is that they are proposing to instead of having next Thursday the vice presidential debate in St. Louis, to make that the presidential debate and then to delay the VP debate to another time. That is what they are proposing, they understand very well that both the Obama campaign and the debate commission have no intention of delaying Friday’s debate, but both he and a senior advisor that if there is no bailout deal by Friday, McCain has no plan to go to debate.
Given the criticism of Obama's performances in debates, and the Saddleback forum, isn't he the one who should be the "underdog" in this debate, especially given the topic?
You can have whatever opinion of Olberman you want, but don't call his outrage "phony".
From reading some of your posts, your outrage at Bush seems at times "phony" (note that I used the word "seems")
It is already crystal clear that the media does not give a damn about being fair or accurate. Right now they continualy comit FRAUD by misrepresenting what the people's choices are. For example, when the media often refer to "both candidates" THAT is fraud because there are more than two and many people don't expect the news to constantly push a falsehood. Even new media such as Youtube misrepresent what the choices are and thus rob the American people of knowing that there are more than twe candidates running. Please see this video: Ask Steve to Change the "You Choose '08" page.
Well, couldn't you make the argument that an incumbent has MORE responsibility and MORE on his mind, so if they could manage to debate, McCain certainly should be able to? McCain wants to cancel Friday's debate and debate next week instead, bumping the VP debate to an indeterminate time. Surely even someone as logically impaired as yourself can see that for the ploy it is?
Let's see, Obama made a complete fool of himself at the White House meeting and threw the proceedings out of control and the media is stone silent on the issue. Instead, they are playing sound bytes of Harry Reid telling the President to tell McCain to "leave town". Yeah, they're right on track for the debates. Can the media fawn over Obama 24/7? Yes we can!!