Who Does the Media "Like" for President?

I know, I know, it is a silly question. After all, the media support for Barack Obama has been nothing short of breathtaking. Seasoned journalists look at Obama and they sigh like teenagers over their favorite Hollywood star. He "looks so Presidential." He is "brilliant and capable." He is the new Messiah. Okay, I might be exaggerating a little, but you get my point.

By Republican standards, McCain has always largely received a fair shake by the media and that may have been due to the liberal friends he spends so much time with. There is Senator Russ Feingold whom McCain worked with to curtail free speech in the name of campaign finance reform. Than there is Senator Ted Kennedy, whom he partnered with in the passing of an immigration bill that did little to insure US security. Furthermore, McCain's candor and often folksy style resonated with journalists. But he has nothing on Obama.

McCain is old, fatherly, and moderate. Obama, on the other hand, is young, charismatic, and liberal. I mean really liberal. So much so the media swoons. The media isn't giving Obama love with words alone or in merely censuring McCain (like the New York Times recently did when he was to write an editorial about the war in Iraq), but also with money. According to Investors Business Daily's William Tate, the media favors Obama at a rate of 100 to 1 in donations. Tate notes that "An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans."

Tate continues, "Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain." But the enthusiasm isn't only in the number of journalists who are donating to Democrats in general and Obama in particular, but in the amount of those donations. "The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain," according to Tate. If one goes further and subtracts the dollars that went to New York favorite (where most of the media survey are from) Rudy Giuliani and liberal's favorite Republican, Ron Paul, GOP contributions add up to a mere $3.150.

$315,533 to $3,150, that is 100 to 1. I suggest keeping those numbers in mind when you watch or read the news. If you sense a bias, it is likely there.

Would you like to get a periodical email of the best of Kevin Price's political and economic content? Subscribe to the Houston Business Review at Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Can Charlie Black's Statements be Defended?

Charlie Black has a reputation of dirty politics and anyone who has been in politics as many years as he has will find it hard to stay "Mr. Clean." Considered a favorite of moderate Republicans running for office, Black knows a great deal about his trade and how to get people elected.

Black, the strategist for the John McCain campaign, recently told Fortune Magazine that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto last year was an "unfortunate event." "But his (McCain's) knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." In an equally candid moment of honesty, Black discussed the possibility of another terrorist attack on US soil and discussed how it would effect John McCain's Presidential aspirations. "Certainly," he said, "it would be a big advantage to him," said Black.

These comments have, some how, created a shock wave in both media and politics. Black was attacked for his cynicism by Barack Obama and his own boss, Senator McCain, has disavowed the comments and said they were not reflective of his own views. My questions is, shouldn't they be?

Honestly, which party and candidate do people want when it comes to security -- McCain and Republicans or Obama and Democrats? Yesterday, Investors Business Daily published a summary of opinions among our enemies regarding the upcoming Presidential campaign. North Korea's Kim Jong-il has said "We will see a better relationship between the U.S. and the Korean Peninsula with Obama, who sternly criticizes Bush and who would meet the leader of Chosun without preconditions." Libya's Moammar Gadhafi has said that Obama should "be proud of himself as a black and feel that all Africa is behind him." Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega is arguing that Obama is "laying the foundations for a revolutionary change" in the United States. Finally, Cuba's Fidel Castro is stating that Obama is "the man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency." Such comments should have a chilling effect on voters.

Maybe it was impolite. It was certainly politically incorrect. However, the statements by Charlie Black seem to be fairly reasonable in the eyes of many and are quietly being spoken by individuals around the water coolers where people congregate to solve our nation's problems.

Tired of the plain old business news? Ready for practical information to change your business and even your life? Visit HoustonBusinessReview.com and sign up for this important weekly ezine.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.