[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: A Study in Character Assassination: How the TV Networks Have Portrayed Sarah Palin as Dunce or Demon On Wednesday’s “Special Report,” Fox News anchor Brit Hume cited CMI’s new study, “A Study in Character Assassanation: How the TV Networks Have Portrayed Sarah Palin as Dunce or Demon.” The study found that the media portrayal of Palin has been overwhelmingly negative, smearing the Alaska governor as an unqualified dunce or demonizing her as McCain’s attack dog. Hume stated: CMI PIECE: An analysis of two weeks of coverage of the GOP vice presidential nominee reveals unremitting hostility from the network news. By Colleen Raezler and Brian Fitzpatrick, Culture and Media Institute FULL REPORT Executive Summary| Pdf Version In just one month, the percentage of Americans who viewed GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin unfavorably soared from 32 percent to 49 percent, according to a new survey. Might hostile media coverage account for Palin’s skyrocketing unfavorable rating? Polls conducted in September and October by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press report a stunning reversal in public perceptions of Palin. An October 21 story posted on Pew’s Web site stated: “In the current survey, 49% of voters express an unfavorable opinion of the Alaska governor, while 44% express a positive opinion; in mid-September, 54% viewed Palin favorably, compared with 32% who had an unfavorable opinion. According to a Nexis search, the networks ran 69 news segments covering Palin between September 29 and October 12, a period that included the October 2 vice-presidential debate. CMI analyzed all 69 segments and found that 37 portrayed Palin negatively, only two were positive, and 30 were neutral. CMI defined “positive” stories as stories that included more elements placing Palin in a favorable light than elements criticizing her. “Neutral” stories contained equal numbers of positive and negative elements, represented straightforward factual reporting, or treated Palin and Democratic vice-presidential nominee Del. Sen. Joe Biden equally. “Negative” stories contained more unfavorable elements than favorable, or gave preferential treatment to Biden. For example, on NBC’s October 3 Today show, reporter Amy Robach said Palin “accused” Biden of “looking backwards,” but she said Biden merely “challenged” whether GOP candidate John McCain is truly a “maverick.” ABC was the most biased of the three networks. Out of ABC’s 15 segments about Palin, 9 (60 percent) portrayed a negative image of the Alaska governor, and 6 (40 percent) were neutral. NBC was the second-most biased network with 15 negative stories (54 percent) and 13 (46 percent) neutral. CBS was the least biased with 14 (54 percent) negative stories, 2 (8 percent) positive and 10 (38 percent) neutral. The positive portrayals appeared in the two halves of CBS Early Show anchor Harry Smith’s two-part interview with Palin’s parents. Not one of the evening network news shows ran a positive story about Palin. The overwhelming preponderance of negative stories might have been justified if all the news about Palin had been bad, but the two major news events affecting Palin coverage during the study window tilted both ways. At the beginning of the study period on September 29, Palin was still enduring network news attacks that replayed, over and over again, the most problematic moments from her September 24 interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric. Four days into the study window, however, Palin turned in a solid performance in the highly publicized October 2 debate with Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden. CMI found that during the study period, the media crafted three principal narratives about Palin. 1) Palin is a dunce lacking the qualifications and intellect to be Vice President. 2) Conservatives are revolting over the dunce’s nomination. 3) Palin is a demon, little more than an attack dog victimizing Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Narrative 1: Palin Is a Dunce, Lacking Qualifications and Intellect Rarely have the news networks based so many “news” reports on a comedy show or an old interview from a rival network. Couric’s interview with Palin, however, and Saturday Night Live’s demeaning parodies by Tina Fey, proved to be irresistible clubs for beating up the GOP vice-presidential nominee. Most observers agree that Palin did not perform well in the Couric interview, but the network coverage dwelled on the worst moments, making Palin look as unprepared and inexperienced as possible. No fewer than 21 network news stories attacked Palin’s qualifications and intellect, and 8 of these featured ridicule from SNL. 14 stories replayed the most embarrassing clips from Palin’s CBS interview with Couric. ABC played 3 Couric clips, CBS aired 5, and NBC aired 6. (The CBS count does not include the original airing of the interview.) [snip] The networks failed to acknowledge adequately that Palin was doing more during her speeches than attacking Obama. She was also talking about issues, McCain’s plans for the nation, and her own qualifications. In a speech in Clearwater, Florida on October 6, Palin noted what she has done in office in Alaska: As mayor, I eliminated taxes on personal property and I eliminated taxes like small business inventory taxes. Those burdens on our small businesses, we got rid of them. Property taxes were too high. Every year that I was in office I reduced [taxes]. And as governor, I brought the same agenda of positive change on a state level. I came to office promising to control spending, by request if possible, but by veto if necessary. And today, our state budget is under control and we have a surplus. And I put the veto pen to nearly half a billion dollars in wasteful spending. (Applause) We suspended our state fuel tax and I’m returning a chunk of our surplus money right back to the people of Alaska. It’s their money and they can spend it better than government can spend it for them. (Applause) Imagine that. Imagine that, having that principle. And that’s what we’re going to bring on a national level also. That principle of knowing that – no, the people, our families, our businesses they know best so let them keep more of what they earn and produce and not have this government take trying to quote, “solve” all the problems for our families and our businesses. No, we’re not going to do that. Conclusion ABC, NBC and CBS are distorting the public perception of Sarah Palin by incessantly assassinating her character, even citing people they usually ignore, conservative columnists, because they have criticized Palin. The networks have actually stooped to mocking Palin by repeatedly rebroadcasting parodies from Saturday Night Live, as if frivolous entertainment belongs in the evening news. Rich Noyes, the MRC’s research director, found in his study, Obama’s Margin of Victory: The Media, that “the Big Three broadcast networks have showered Obama with positive – even glowing – news coverage, protected the candidate from the attacks of his rivals, and shown little interest in investigating Obama’s past associations or exploring the controversies that could have threatened his campaign.” Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 12.
#1. To: OliviaFNewton (#0)
(Edited)
The media didn't have to "smear" Palin. She "smeared" herself with her own idiotic statements, and now her fans look for someone to scapegoat. Nobody in the media forced her to repeat the neocon lie about the Saddam-9/11 connection, www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do? http://diaryId=1946">www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1946 nobody in the media forced her to call the war in Iraq "God's will," and nobody in the media made her give answers to questions like this: COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess? PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy [emphasis added], helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health- care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that. If she looks like a lightweight and a nutcase, she has only herself, or perhaps her neocon advisors, to blame. It's true that the media go out of their way to make Obummer look good. He's a mediocre mind promoted by affirmative action, who'd be an unknown, second-rate hack lawyer if the DNC didn't need a new golden boy, and they make him out to be some kind of Messiah. But nobody has to go out of his way to make Palin look like an idiot - she does that well enough by herself.
I'd dare anyone here to switch places with her and give this a go.
What's your point? George W. Bush is under even more scrutiny and pressure. Does that mean that we can't say that he's an idiot and a liar?
Seems rather obvious to me.
Taken at face value, it means that none of us have any right to criticize ANY politician because they are under a lot more public pressure than any of us are. Why does her argument only apply to Palin? Can't we say the same thing about Bush, McCain, Obama, Hillary...ad nauseum?
Whale away at it. I agree whole heartedly. Do you recall ANYONE past or present using their free speech to demean anyone to the degree that has Palin has endured???? The ugly name on the T shirts and signs has NOTHING to do with politics, not even as to how stupid she is. Myself, had I been Palin, I would have withdrawn when the gender thing appeared and it was totally accepted by MSM. Totally and mentioned only by Fox and Drudge. It really does not matter, this is just a sideshow to entertain the masses. We are saddled with two losers, that is the main feature.
If I were Palin, I would not have withdrawn from the race because of the MSM attacks. I would have called a nationally televised press conference and lashed into the MSM for their baseless sexist attacks on her as well as their anti-Christianity positions and their shameful attacks on her pregnant teen and their negativity to her disabled baby publishing photos and scurrilous articles about what they judge to be a waste of RNC $ to clothe a mere Down's baby nicely for the campaign trail. I would end my conference with a promise to the American people that I would not withdraw because of the unfair and incessant attacks of the media because I know the American people deserve to have the opportunity to have candidates running for office such as herself who are not MSM-annointed, MSM-promoted but rather candidates who are ordinary people trying to represent ordinary American voters in DC. I would have turned the tables on the MSM and appealed to Americans and their commonly shared values about family, children, equality of women,Christianity - and positioned the MSM to look hateful, jealous, atheists who are attacking Palin because she is representative of the America that is majority America and not their oddball post-modern fringe hobby-horses.
There are no replies to Comment # 12. End Trace Mode for Comment # 12.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||