Proof that the media had pro-Obama bias since early 2007, when he entered the race

[Librado]

A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy broke down the coverage for the different candidates for the presidency in the first five months of 2007.
Here is what they found:

The press also gave some candidates measurably more favorable coverage than others. Democrat Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year—followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running. Arizona Senator John McCain received the most negative coverage—much worse than his main GOP rivals.

Tone of coverage:

Hillary Clinton: 27% positive, 38% negative
Barack Obama: 47% positive, 16% negative
Rudy Giuliani: 28% positive, 37% negative
John McCain: 12% positive, 48% negative:

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

[anonymous171]

1. What's up with Mccain?

Why the negativity? Or is that just in response to the Media's Guiliani love-fest?

[jackson_dem]

5. The msm had no use for when Giuliani was strong

Only when Giuliani tanked did the McCain love-fest return as they needed a plan B. They didn't want Romney or Huckabee to win because they would lose the general. Giuliani was the rethug's strongest candidate and after he flamed out McCain was the best option the rethugs had left.

[Recursion]

2. Why did the New Coke marketing campaign fail?

Anybody know?

[AX10]

3. I have this one bookmarked...

and saved the page too.

[Swamp Rat]

4. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Kurovski]

16. Tim Russet.

I'll never eat another potato for the rest of my life.

The power of art.

[Swamp Rat]

17. LOL!

I just finished that one. :D

:hug:

[scheming daemons]

6. For the most part, the media reflects - not sets - the mood of the people....

...if Obama is getting better press, it is because he is thought positively by the people.

[DURHAM D]

7. Wow - now I have heard everything.

I am going to assume your tongue is shoved squarely into your cheek.

[AX10]

8. The poster is saying that in 2000 the people...

wanted Bush over Gore. :puke:
Just watch the these Obambots squirm when the media turns on Obama in the fall.

[cali]

10. nah. I'm keenly aware that the media will try to destroy Obama

but my money's on Obama being keenly aware of it too, and having a plan to deal with it. And they'll turn against him long before the fall. All you little hillie heathers would love it if the media did take him down. Don't bet on it.

[Taxidermic]

12. Of course, the American people were so angry at Lewinsky's BJ

Granted, Clinton's approval increased during the Lewinsky scandal, but who cares!

And Americans were so angry at Al Gore that the media just HAD to savage him and stop asking Bush questions about dodging the draft.
Hey, those pundits have to give Americans what they want, dont' they.
Why didn't I think of that before.

[donheld]

20. "the media reflects - not sets..."

You've got to be out of your mind. Are you going to tell me the majority of the people wanted the Iraqi war so the media started calling for war? If you were paying the least bit of attention most of the country and the world were screaming no to war, but the media convinced a good number of people the we had to have war. The New York Times, all the TV Networks etc. were all involved in setting that mood. They done it many other times too.

[Johnny__Motown]

9. Maybe the coverage is positive because he is a positive type of guy. No attacks stick to him so how

can there be lots of negative coverage?


This appears to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.


If you looked at coverage of Carl Rove or Scooter Libby I assume you would find a high negative number, because it is Rove/Libby, not because of the media.

[Taxidermic]

11. That's it! Gore was a negative guy, and Bush was a positive guy, and Hillary is a negative girl, and

etcetera etcetera.

I get it now. And we were blaming the media all along. I feel so bad for them.
How dare these Democrats be so negative.

And John Edwards. Those haircut stories? Negative dudes deserve them.

:-)

[emilyg]

13. !!!!

[Recursion]

15. Obama is managing the press. Clinton isn't

Bill Clinton was good at managing the press. Hillary Clinton isn't. George W Bush was good at managing the press. George H W Bush wasn't.

It's a skill that some politicians have.

(PS: If the press had been out to get Big Dog, don't you think some of the Scaiffe BS would have filtered its way up past the $10 VHS tapes being hocked at gun shows? Don't you think somebody in the press would have pointed out that after 1994 all of his "victories" were issues he essentially yanked out from under Gingrich? He managed the press. It's something successful politicians do. You know, the kind of thing a "vetted" candidate with "35 years of experience" is expected to be able to do.)

[jackson_dem]

25. What happened to Gore and Kerry?

They got great press in the primaries. Did they just forget how to manage the press during the general or did the rethug bias just manifest itself in the general?

[Recursion]

30. No they didn't

I think they got horrible press in the primaries.

[jackson_dem]

34. Really?

Gore was coronated by the msm after one primary that he won by a mere two points.

[2008]

14. Barack Obama 47% positive ... John McCain 48% negative

The numbers tell me that, if media bias has any sway over the voters, beating McCain in the general election should be even easier than beating Hillary for the nomination.

:spray::party::toast::bounce::rofl::woohoo:

[maximusveritas]

18. That doesn't prove any bias. Obama deserved that positive coverage based on his fundraising

and moving up in the polls against Hillary. Meanwhile, McCain was struggling to raise money and falling way back in the polls.

This is like saying the media has an anti-Bush bias because most of the stories about him have been negative. No, it's because most of what Bush has done has been negative.

Of course, you'll believe what you want and use whatever BS you want to justify it.

[jackson_dem]

24. How did a senator who hadn't completed 2 years in DC become so popular?

Look at his poll numbers before he even began running for president. How did he get so popular? Word of mouth? Or was it because the msm had breathlessly been clamoring for the savior to run from at least November of 2006?



The graph shows Obama trailed Hillary by about 20 while Edwards was about 10 behind him early in 2007. Yet Obama got nearly as much coverage as Hillary while Edwards got less than 1/6 the coverage Obama did and even much of that was only for his wife's cancer announcement. Why was this? It blows the "Obama earned it based on poll numbers" theory to shreds. Obama was selected by the msm and the money and support came as a result, not the other way around.

[KittyWampus]

37. how do you log on here every day yet fail to learn Obama has a professional quality grassroots

campaign with professional organizers training activists?

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. How many of you....." Democrats" saw he speak at the 2004 convention

And said to yourselves, who the fuck is this guy?

I did, and thought it was amazing for someone we haven't
heard before?

Friends, you are witnessing a ground up campaign
that we can truly change for the good of progressives.

Because Progressives are already there.

[jackson_dem]

21. More proof

These are from the first five months of the campaign. If anyone has a newer study post it. There is little reason to believe the tenor of reporting changed from that point until Iowa. Since then as the sniping has escalating the positive numbers for each candidate must have dropped, with the brief exception of the media orgasm for Obama after Iowa and McCain's favorable coverage since New Hampshire.

-snip-

Hillary Clinton is getting the worst press and Barack Obama the best press of any major presidential candidate

-snip-

Sen. Barack Obama has led the race for good press and Sen. Hillary Clinton has lagged the farthest behind. From Dec 16 through Jan 27 five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84%) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51%) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton.

-snip-

The gap in good press has widened since the New Hampshire primary, with Clinton dropping to 47% positive comments and Obama holding steady at 83% positive.

http://www.cmpa.com/election%20news%202_1_08.htm

Newspaper endorsements (as of January)



Obama leads 17-4, a rate of 81% to 19%, when you exclude predictable home state endorsements.c

[casus belli]

22. What you are seeing is called Karma.

Those who have a positive outlook and carry themselves with optimism have a tendency to be treated better by others. So, I have no doubt he has been treated well by the media. The question you should be asking yourself is - what can we learn from that? Trying to tear it down, or call into question his legitimacy only serves to empower his message.

[TheDonkey]

23. Um... so now we wish the media hated Obama more???? Wtf is wrong with you people

We bitch that the media is biased against us, now we bitch when they aren't sliming our candidate.

[jackson_dem]

26. The corporate media didn't select Obama for fun or by chance

We need to find out why they selected him...

[dcindian]

27. Ignorant journalism there

Good people and popular people get treated better that does not prove bias. If a person has negatives to show they will be shown in the media.

It happens all the time and does not indicate bias is the only thing at work here.


Britney Spears = bad press
Lindsay Lohan = bad press
Michelle Ryan = good press


Is the press biased?

[sniffa]

28. SNL is all the proof you need

[KoKo]

29. K&R

[Scriptor Ignotus]

31. it's called PR (public relations)

good PR manages the media effectively. Bad PR is unable to spin bad news and unable to hype the good news.

There are other factors at play of course, but the role of a campaign's PR department shouldnt' be overlooked.

Obama's PR team appears to be knocking it out of the park.

[Avalux]

32. So why is that a bad thing? Obama is a likeable guy with a positive message.

He's a Democrat, so we should be happy the media gives him favorable coverage, especially in contrast to McCain, who he will face in the GE.

I don't get the outrage.

[AtomicKitten]

33. Obama IS positive ergo the coverage of him reflects that.

Hillary on the other hand is the architect of a series of low blow attacks. Reporting on her negative campaigning isn't bias, it's the news she's creating by her own hand.

[KittyWampus]

38. He has a professional organization, trained activists, amazing fundraising, mostly positive message

[rinsd]

39. So what negative attacks was Hillary launching in the 1st half of 2007?

For anyone to deny Obama has benefited from documented positive coverage that was far in excess compared to other candidates is laughable.

[KittyWampus]

35. Did they count the media padding Clinton's delegate count by including supers?

did they include the many times a pundit said "never rule out a Clinton" even after she lost 11 primaries in a row?

[rinsd]

40. The study is based on the 1st half of 2007.

[high density]

36. Well when a campaign makes as many missteps and errors as the Clinton campaign

of course the coverage is going to be more negative.

The people whining about this sound like the Republicans complaining that no good news is being reported in Iraq.

[Cha]

41. And what is there "postitive" to write

about hilary? Name one thing.

[surf4peace]

42. Would tend to agree...

That being said, we will need to unify at some point, be it Hilary or Obama. Why waste barbs here when we can save them for McCain?
On the media setting the agenda. Certainly there is a strong element of that. On soft issues, the media gives us what we appear to want (American Idol, more sex, more violence et al), but on seminal or political issues, we need to look no further than the ratio of progressives versus conservatives on talk shows ranging from TV to radio. Typically, the best we progressives can get is a centrist type willing to argue both sides of the question (whoopee doo). Pan over to the other side of the debate and you have a host leaning right, and two more conservative pundits. What gives? Too, how is it that anyone or anything from the Washington Times gets any airtime? No bias there right? How is it that we're apparently "succeeding" in Iraq doesn't get challenged by the media? The media sets the mood, the tone, the paradigm for political discourse for a majority of our country. An inability to recognize that is like trusting the current administration to tell us the truth about say... Guantanamo? Or how about the unsubstantiated claims of the Swiftboaters? Or how Gore "invented" the internet. If over 3/4s of Americans want out of Iraq, why is Iraq coverage getting buried in the news of late? Hmmmm...
Now back to Obama... there are various angles to look at why Obama received preferential coverage.
1. He's new.... while Hilary has been around... (on to 6. for a continuation)
2. He's African American... while Hilary is quite obviously not.
3. He's marketable (can sell newspapers).... Let's face it, novelty sells.
... and here's the more sinister part.
4. He creates the potential for a more divisive/ambiguous election. Can you imagine a reporter asking, "Would you vote for a black man?" Just the mere mention of that can cause many to second guess their initial impressions. You can apply that to gender as well, but somehow Hilary just appears tough (just my impression).
5. He can create a plausible reason for why we may (I stress may) lose yet again this year. Potential quote "American doesn't seem ready to have a black president..." Now, think about that. Is that so hard to believe? Apply that to Hilary and we see why both got the nod from the media in the first place. It almost becomes a "painless loss" where you get a pat on the shoulder for just trying to make history.
6. Doesn't the potential for the unknown just make for great stories? Why put forth Obama? Perhaps because the potential for new contrived scandals can sell papers while helping McCain and the Repubs... Just a thought.