Yesterday, Rich Noyes of Fox News wrote, "If, in celebrating his victory Obama wanted to give credit where credit is due, he might want to think about calling some of America's top journalists, since their favorable approach almost certainly made the difference between victory and defeat."
He then proceeded to identify "five ways the media elite tipped the public relations scales in favor of the liberal Obama and against the conservative challenger Mitt Romney." According to Noyes, the five ways were:
- The Media’s Biased Gaffe Patrol Hammered Romney.
- Pounding Romney With Partisan Fact Checking.
- Those Biased Debate Moderators.
- The Benghazi Blackout.
- Burying the Bad Economy.
To support that last way the elite media "buried" the bad economy, Noyes wrote:
"Pundits agreed that Obama’s weakness was the failure of the US economy to revive after his expensive stimulus and four years of $1 trillion deficits. But the major networks failed to offer the sustained, aggressive coverage of the economy that incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush faced in 1992, or even that George W. Bush faced in 2004 — both years when the national economy was in better shape than it is now.
"According to a study conducted that year by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, from January through September of 1992, the networks ran a whopping 1,289 stories on the economy, 88% of which painted it in a dismal, negative light. That fall, the unemployment rate was 7.6%, lower than today’s 7.9%, and economic growth in the third quarter was 2.7%, better than today’s 2.0%. Yet the media coverage hammered the idea of a terrible economy, and Bush lost re-election.
"In 2004, the economy under George W. Bush was far better than it is today — higher growth, lower unemployment, smaller deficits and cheaper gasoline — yet network coverage that year was twice as hostile to Bush than it was towards Obama this year, according to a study by the Media Research Center’s Business and Media Institute.
"When Republican presidents have faced reelection, network reporters made sure to spotlight economic “victims” — the homeless man, the woman without health insurance, the unemployed worker, the senior citizen who had to choose between medicine and food. But this year, with an economy as bad as any since the Great Depression, those sympathetic anecdotes have vanished from the airwaves — a huge favor to Obama and the Democrats."
If the Fox News article doesn't convince you, an op-ed by Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center in today's Investor's Business Daily should. He writes that the "media stay in the bag for Obama during 2012 election." His lede paragraphs:
"Throughout the very long presidential election cycle, two trends remained consistent: The media lauded Obama no matter how horrendous his record, and they savaged Obama's Republican contenders as ridiculous pretenders.
"From the start of the Republican race in 2011, every candidate who took the lead took an unfair beating. They even slimed Sarah Palin in case she decided to run. Martin Bashir announced she was "vacuous, crass, and, according to almost every biographer, vindictive, too."
Bozell even cites a New York Times article that essentially admits as much, concluding:
"This passage from Peter Baker of the New York Times says it all about Obama's press avoidance all the way to Election Day: "Nor has Mr. Obama faced many tough questions lately, like those about the response to the attack in Benghazi, Libya, since he generally does not take questions from the reporters who trail him everywhere.
"Instead, he sticks to generally friendlier broadcast interviews, sometimes giving seven minutes to a local television station or calling in to drive-time radio disc jockeys with nicknames like Road Kill.""How can you read that and not think journalism is road kill?"
So, did the mainstream media influence the election? Read both articles in their entirety, and then, as Fox News likes to say, "We report, you decide."