CNN Runs More Stories on Cain 'Scandal' in Six Days Than it Did Obama's Ties to Ayers, Rezko and Wright Combined

CNN Runs More Stories on Cain 'Scandal' in Six Days Than it Did Obama's Ties to Ayers, Rezko and Wright Combined

Noel Sheppard
NewsBusters.com
November 05, 2011

If you needed any more evidence of the political leaning of CNN, consider that much like Politico, it has in the last six days done at least 94 reports on the sexual harassment allegations involving Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.

Substantially more shocking, according to LexisNexis, the supposedly most trusted name in news only did 77 total stories on Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's ties to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, convicted real estate developer Tony Rezko, and America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Shortly after the Politico story broke Sunday evening, CNN's Don Lemon began the 10PM installment of CNN Newsroom:

DON LEMON: Good evening. I'm Don Lemon. Thanks for joining us.

Those stories and more, but first we're going to start with some breaking political news. Herman Cain's campaign for president under scrutiny tonight over a report that could tarnish his carefully, cultivated image.

"Politico" reports that during Cain's time as a restaurant's industries chief lobbyist, at least two women complained of inappropriate behavior, specifically suggestive sexual behavior. Both women reportedly left the association with payouts in the five figures and agreed not to talk about it.

This was followed by at least eighteen reports on the subject each of the next five days and three already on Saturday giving us a grand total of 94. I say at least because there could be numerous reports on this matter each hour the subject is raised.

By contrast, prior to Election Day 2008, CNN did 25 reports on Obama's ties to Ayers, thirteen for his connection to Rezko, and 39 on his association with Wright.

As Obama first put his name into the presidential ring in February 2007, this means his combined "scandals" got roughly four reports a month from CNN.

By comparison, the so-called most trusted name in news has devoted almost 16 stories a day to as yet unproven sexual harassment allegations aimed at Cain.

How might the executives at CNN explain this glaring disparity?

Maybe more importantly, would Obama be president today if CNN had covered his scandals with the same gusto it's now reporting Cain's?

Not surprising at all, the media protected Obama and spent most of their time trying to trash the GOP and trying to destroy and smear Sarah Palin every day of the week. Journalism officially died in 08. If I may this is a quote from foobar from SP on media coverage I thought sums it up about bias:


"And yes, there would have had to be a conspiracy of some sort, because there's no way the ENTIRE media, no matter how biased you think they are, would not have someone looking for some juicy story to make the big time and goose their ratings. We are still capitalists.

As for the disparity, a relative unknown picked for the vice presidential candidate just a few months before the election, who turns out to be a bit of a media (can't say whore, that'll bring a shitstorm) enthusiast. And also not very knowledgeable of national or world politics, which becomes very apparent right away with very little effort required on the media's part. You throw a helpless deer into a river full of piranha, you get a feeding frenzy. I'd lay it more on laziness than anything else".
_________________________

Actually, foob is wrong here.

There did not need to be a conspiracy amongst the media to supress negative coverage of Obama.

The MSM are Democrats. They register and vote Democrat by a far greater percentage than the general public. They are very nearly monolithically aligned with the Democratic Party and its agenda. And there are well documented polls to attest to these facts.

To say that it would require a conspiracy for the MSM to go easy on Obama completely ignores the facts above.

Furthermore, foob contends that the disparate treatment of Palin is attributable to her relative anonymity on the national political stage coupled with her "ignorance" of various political issues and the laziness of the MSM.

I contend that this is just utter nonsense. Again, we have two factors at work here; the MSM's near monolithic alignment with the Democrats, and the fact that Palin single-handedly resuscitated the Republican race because she was a real conservative and thus wildly popular and thus a real threat to the Obama campaign. McCain being a RINO, the MSM knew he alone would be no threat - but when Palin came onboard, all bets were off.

And remember, the "dumb" moniker has been given by the MSM to every single Republican presidential candidate since Ford (if not longer).