Home
Is The U.S. Media Biased Against Hillary Clinton?
Share
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mailMade Popular Mar 3 2008
United States :
One of the things that Hillary Clinton (HRC) supporters have been complaining about for the past few weeks is the “blatantly biased and irresponsible journalism” . They have complained that their candidate’s media coverage has almost been all negative.
Do they have a point?
The Center for Media and Public Affairs has noted, “Obama has led the race for good press and Sen. Hillary Clinton has lagged the farthest behind.” According to their analysis, 84% of press coverage of Obama has been favorable, compared to just 51% for Clinton.
Of course the problem with the Clinton campaign now focusing on the bias of the media is just another example of how tone deaf they are to the public.
There are more negative stories about Hillary because there are more negative stories to tell. Part of that supposed “experience” that she has means that there is also a larger record which gives a lot of room for scrutiny. And unlike Obama, the GOP has been collecting bad Hillary stories for years. But even they think she’s done.
Chris Matthews and certain other media personalities may have an anti-Clinton bias, but if Clinton had gone on to win 11 straight contests, would the media be covering Obama as much as they’ve been recently covering Clinton?
There is negative Obama news out there. If the story will stick is another question. Supporters don’t think so.
But that doesn’t mean the next one won’t.
Add Images and Videos
Close X
Recommended Tags or Keywords
Search by Tags or Keywords
Selected Media ( You can Upload only Six media )
Sorry no picture found for this combination of tags. Try to search minimum number of tags at once
RSS 
Pratyush
indiadaily.org
Mar 3 2008
New Delhi,
India
If you do expect balanced reporting from media in any part of the world including US, you have no sense. Media doesn’t believe in balanced analysis because it runs because of political personalities and industrialists’s indirect support. I am talking about media in any country. There are groups of media organisations with hidden loyalties to different pressure groups that decide policies of government. Media organisations-supporting Obama do write and show programs against Hillary and vice-versa. It is foolish to think why media is biased against anybody because it is their own job to stay in any power group. You can say that Hillary isn’t successfully manipulating biggies sitting in big media houses in US. If Hillary fills biggies’ mouths with funds and then see...you will raise question here tomorrow - ”is the us media bias against Obama?”
Comment Link
(Global Perspectives)
The losing side nearly always tends to shoot the messenger.
‘Blame in on the media’ is an easy way out.
Now that Hillary election campaign is faltering, it is but natural to hold media biases being responsible for it.
Losing 11 caucuses in a row could not be a media bias, especially after a reputed newspaper like New York Times endorsed Hillary as the democrat primary candidate.
After all, the media is not above board, it only reflects views of a society where it operates.
The Hillary campaign is a classic study on how to loose out the advantage one holds in a marathon campaign.
Early starters in long race find it difficult to hold onto the initial lead as the race intensifies, testing endurance and grit to come out a sure winner.
The Bill Clinton White House legacy has only given more ammunition for the media to scrutinize, dissect and judge the Clintons.
’Experience’ ’ready from day one’ from being touted as an asset has turned out to be the biggest liability for Hillary.
Bill Clinton blaming the media before the South Carolina caucus, only got the biases stronger, if there were any.
With the media you can’t run with the hare and hunt with the hound.
On the other hand, Obama is a freshman who has been able to find great support among younger democrats.
Surely there are a lot of young men and women out there in the media too, who have grown out the color divide that America has been struggling with for more than two centuries.
Biases or no biases, the game is decisively tilted in favor of Obama and Hillary will need more than a win at Texas and Ohio to catapult her back into the White House race.
‘Blame in on the media’ is an easy way out.
Now that Hillary election campaign is faltering, it is but natural to hold media biases being responsible for it.
Losing 11 caucuses in a row could not be a media bias, especially after a reputed newspaper like New York Times endorsed Hillary as the democrat primary candidate.
After all, the media is not above board, it only reflects views of a society where it operates.
The Hillary campaign is a classic study on how to loose out the advantage one holds in a marathon campaign.
Early starters in long race find it difficult to hold onto the initial lead as the race intensifies, testing endurance and grit to come out a sure winner.
The Bill Clinton White House legacy has only given more ammunition for the media to scrutinize, dissect and judge the Clintons.
’Experience’ ’ready from day one’ from being touted as an asset has turned out to be the biggest liability for Hillary.
Bill Clinton blaming the media before the South Carolina caucus, only got the biases stronger, if there were any.
With the media you can’t run with the hare and hunt with the hound.
On the other hand, Obama is a freshman who has been able to find great support among younger democrats.
Surely there are a lot of young men and women out there in the media too, who have grown out the color divide that America has been struggling with for more than two centuries.
Biases or no biases, the game is decisively tilted in favor of Obama and Hillary will need more than a win at Texas and Ohio to catapult her back into the White House race.
(Global Perspectives)
Somebody is charging anti-Hillary campaign due to gender biasness, somebody is charging anti-Hillary campaign due to media biasness, nobody is charging anti-Obama campaign for religion and race biasness. It happens always, there is nothing new and unique. it is part of US politics.
(Local Perspectives)
@ Pratyush- what you wrote here might be the USP of Indian media, it doesn't happen in US. Media here is not biased against anyone.
(Local Perspectives)
@ Eric, I know it happens in India but if you are saying that it is not the USP of US media then you are taking opposite stand just against media of your own country. We here in India are saying what the US newspapers and broadcast media are writing and presenting to the whole world. Don’t justify odd things , this is global world and we have also the resources to know what is going on there in your country. We know it...
(Global Perspectives)
@ Eric- you are acting like a 4-yr kid who breaks his toy and repeatedly says he didn't do it to save him from father's anger. Don't say US media is not bias because Americans would criticize before Indians.
(Local Perspectives)
What a lesson US would give to the world if the US elect a man whose name is Barack Hussien Obama.
(Local Perspectives)
Yes, US media biased against Hillary and no one knows the exact reason of it.
(Local Perspectives)
Yes, it is correct and i tell you the reason..because Obama is simply better person to lead the country than Clintons.
(Local Perspectives)
Mili i wrote single reason here, I think it is enough for you. There are other reasons too..
(Local Perspectives)
You answered the question in a single sentence - "There are more negative stories about Hillary because there are more negative stories to tell."
(Global Perspectives)
Did you people watch CNN in past one week their biasness for Hillary is sickening.
(Local Perspectives)
Are you Hillary's fan? Hillary thinks half of Americans are idiots.
(Local Perspectives)
I have heard the media is reporting about Hilary both positively and negatively. The same is happening with Barack too. I think I am hearing less negative about Obama because he is a poster child. He looks better.
(Local Perspectives)
Larger part of US media is in the control of men and those men do not like a woman like Hillary who is strong in mind and determined at work.
(Local Perspectives)
Obama is young, smart, charismatic, good public speaker and reasonably good looking. People began to notice him, so did the press.
(Local Perspectives)
Hillary Clinton is a victim of media bias. It has been proved now.
(Local Perspectives)
News media was earlier praising Hillary everywhere but the trend changed all of a sudden. They realized the coming danger if she wins. Now, they are afraid of her. It all changed when she and her staffers threatened a reporter about what questions they can and can't ask her. She openly showed her willingness to censor questions. She will behave like a dictator once he comes in power so media decided to favor Obama over Hillary.
(Local Perspectives)
She simply doesn't deserve to become president of US because she has the surname Clinton and she is very arrogant woman.
(Local Perspectives)
Yes, it is right and I suggest Obama also - 'don't trust media, they can't be yours too.'
(Local Perspectives)
I think first black president is more important than first woman president. So, I would vote for Obama.
(Local Perspectives)
In my opinion the media is biased against HRC mainly because she is less glamorous than Obama.
(Global Perspectives)
But ain't the media doing its own job? Hillary has exposed her weaknesses and the inability to articulate matters when it mattered the most. No wonder why Obama looks such a smooth operator.
(Local Perspectives)
Well, not really. The media isn't actively biased against her. It's only paying more attention to Obama then her. Hillary enjoyed tremendous media attention even before the race began. Now the shift in focus is stinging her and her die-hard supporters.
(Local Perspectives)
Hillary is toast. Rumors are that she will call it quits if she loses Ohio or Texas. But then, you never know.
(Local Perspectives)
The other day you were saying the media asked an unfair question to Obama.
If you asked me, Jon is right.
If you asked me, Jon is right.
(Global Perspectives)
Samantha Bee in DS did a wonderful job last week. Did anyone watch it? If there is a YouTube video please post the link.
(Local Perspectives)
Tita you are simply senseless for you Monica Lewinsky should be the next president. Isn't it?
(Local Perspectives)
Hey Jonty you bell the cat finally with your comment and hit the weak point. Thats why I say don't trust on media. they can't be anyone's.
(Local Perspectives)
Obama will be the winner either with media or without media, Hillary is a loser.
(Local Perspectives)
This is amazing as just over a couple of months back the media was criticized for choosing the candidate for the people when they supported HRC. Now people are saying that the media is sabotaging her campaign. This is rubbish.
(Local Perspectives)
Jon:
Where is Ms. Lewinsky these days? I thought she would have a wonderful running mate for Hillary.
Where is Ms. Lewinsky these days? I thought she would have a wonderful running mate for Hillary.
(Global Perspectives)
I think Colin Powell would have made a better president than Obama. In fact, Powell was a moderate amongst the neo-con sharks in the Bush administration. He just chose the wrong party.
(Global Perspectives)
This presidential campaign has turned into a media circus. The media just did the trapeze act with Hillary Clinton.
(Global Perspectives)
It is Hillary who is using the media to create an environment where it would seem that the media is biased against her. Her USP so far has been the whines and the cries.
The best candidate for the US presidency should have ideally being a devout Muslim so that he could have brought in some peace in this world. The Americans are missing out on something here.
The best candidate for the US presidency should have ideally being a devout Muslim so that he could have brought in some peace in this world. The Americans are missing out on something here.
(Global Perspectives)
Leave discussion here, media can't support everybody all the time.
(Global Perspectives)
All of a sudden media has started giving so much unnecessary attention to Hillary. No need to give give much credit to Clinton in Texas and Ohio. It was the result of the Republican cross-over, mischief voting pushed by Rush Limbaugh.
(Local Perspectives)
US media is also biased against Obama. He is a great candidate and media hasn't still given him much space. He is the winner.
(Local Perspectives)
Hillary showed she is a negative campaigner. She saved herself from a debacle with her shameful tactics, but she will be the loser.
(Local Perspectives)
The US media is still criticizing Hillary even after her winning performances shown recently. I was just election coverage on CNN, the three young black election analysts were repeatedly bashing Clinton. They even lost their cooland began ranting against Her.
(Local Perspectives)
I did some research last week to investigate a theory I had on WHY the American media was so against Clinton. Guess what? It turns out that that GE, who owns MSNBC, the one network really seeming after her, donated MILLIONS to Bush in 2000. Same with CNN. These are REPUBLICANS owning these stations. And Republicans know Obama is easy kill in the general election. So it adds up, let’s make Hillary bad to defeat her in the primary so we can have victory against Obama in November.
(Local Perspectives)
Add your Comment
