Saturday, September 20, 2008
Subliminal bias?
Picking up the New York Times today, watching CNN and MSNBC, and glancing at the Sun-Times in 7-11, I noticed one thing: news outlets almost always mention Obama first when recapping the news. The blue candidate's name appears first, or his story is run closer to the top of the page, or there are simply more pictures of him. Its uncanny--look for it. While, granted, Obama's candidacy has set the larger precedent, and McCain has been grabbing a few more headlines because of his running mate (this could all change in a few weeks) it is a bit telling. Is the media just more excited to spotlight Obama? The better question: is that fair?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The more prominent coverage that Obama receives does demonstrate a bias in the media. If one candidate is predominately has his front page picture or his name always appears first in a headline, it will affect the consumers outlook on the two candidates, even if it is subliminally. Obama getting more attention from the media turns the election into a popularity contest and can even present a media bias.
It is true that Obama is covered much more in depth than McCain. That is something that is truly not fair. If people are supposed to vote in November, I guarantee that they will not know very much about McCain, except for his running mate. Something needs to change.
Reading the news this summer I was wondering the same thing. It's obvious who many people in the media support and want to be in office. But if they think about if they think that Obama is everything a candidate should be, wouldn't you think that they would want to show Obama in comparison to McCain and how inferior they think he is?
Post a Comment