What is the Motive for the Media to be Anti-Obama (w/ Update)

There is a very interesting rec'd diary on the front page decying the  media trying to destroy the Obama campaign.  While I do agree witgh most of the sentiment in the diary, the media has handled McCain with kid gloves while being overly critical of McCain, I am not sure I agree with the thinking that they are trying to destroy the Obama campaign.

When making a case describing the actions of anybody you can point to anecdotal evidence in your favor that may seem overwhelming.  But in order to fully understand what is the motive behind those actions, it is a hollow exercise in yelling at clouds.  Why is understanding the motives of the traditional media important?  Because that is how you combat it, you can't fight something unless you know why it is happening.

So I am going to try and determine WHY the MSM is so seemingly so lopsided in it's coverage. BTW, when I talk about MSM or traditional media, I am decidedly NOT talking about FOX, whose bias is highly transparent.

First a couple of reasons I do not think are driving this:

1. The MSM is inherently Conservative and/or anti-liberal
While there are certainly individual journalists who fit this description, I just don't think it is the underlying collective psyche of the MSM (if that makes any sense). Nor do I think they are the opposite, a liberal press.

2. The MSM simply doesn't like Obama and loves McCain  While I think the latter may be true, although I think it is far less true now than it has ever been.  I don't prescribe to the first half of that statement.  Now the press doesn't love Obama like McCain would have us beleive, but I don't buy that they hate him either.

Now for the reasons why I think it is happening:

1. Obama is in the lead
The MSM, espceially the 24-hour news networks, have nothing better to do than to break down the leader in the race and build up the trailer.  They must keep the race interesting to help fill the 24 hour news cycle.

2. The MSM lets the candidates drive the narrative
The MSM are sheep, they do not do the hard work, they just let the candidates give them the talking points.  So what has this meant for weeks and weeks: Obama talking about Obama and McCain talking about Obama. So the media is talking more about Obama, and when Obama talks about Obama it is nothing new, but when McCain talks about Obama it is usually something new.  Why doesn't the media make a greater case of McCain's infedility? Because it is old news. The problem for the media isn't whether or not it is relevant, it is just that it is "old". So the media eats it up when McCain attacks Obama in some new, probably outrageous, but new nonetheless way.  But why aren't they more criitical of the attacks. Point #3...

3. MSM definition of "balance" is anything but
The current state of news reporting is that there must be a talking ahead available to give every side.  What passes for news these days is really a llot of opinion....Joe Blow, Republican Strategist....Jane Doe, Democratic Starategist....Jim Smith Rpeublican Pollster...etc.  This is not news in the best tradition, this is "news" for the 21st century. They would claim they are doing it in the name of "balance", but the reality is they are doing it for entertainment value, opposing talking heads screaming at each other, seeing who can get the best zinger. So even if CNN decided to do a piece on McCain's 7-14 houses, they would be sure to follow that up with various talking heads explaining it away.  So what we are left with is the idea that certain things are up for debate, when they are really questions of fact.

4. We are biased, as well
Make no mistake, we have our own biases, and tend to notice things i a disparrate proportion to what is really happening.  I am not saying the complaints are not valid, far from it.  But while we would rate it an 11 on a scale of 1 (favorin Obama) to 10 (favoring McCain), a more objective observer (assuming there is such an animal) would rate it an 8.

So what does it mean?  Well the fact that Obama is still the main target of media criticism strikes me as indicating that the media is still worried Obama will pull away with the election. It is also a reflection of the McCain campaigns desperation.  They have to get their smears out there, so they are completely playing to the press with their attacks and the media let themselves be used for the campaign purposes.  Not becuasse thye love McCain, but because they love "news".

In my mind the real culprit here is not any particular newsperson or news agency.  It is the comodization and comeercialization of the news that goes for snappy clips, gotcha moments, zinger analysis and political "insight" brought to you by screaming partisan heads.

The news organizations don't suck because they are partisan McCain hacks, they suck simply because they suck as journalists.

UPDATE: Thanks for the comments and discussion.  I am hardly an expert (duh), this was more a stream-of-consciousness diary.  I was just hoping to spark debate about the WHY and not so much the WHAT.  I am sure someone will come along and write a more comprehensive diary on the topic.