Study: Networks Much Tougher On Obama Than McCain

Haters of the mainstream media reheated a bit of conventional wisdom last week.

Barack Obama, they said, was getting a free ride from those insufferable liberals.

...

But now there's additional evidence that casts doubt on the bias claims aimed -- with particular venom -- at three broadcast networks.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[LeviCro]

thats cuz Johnny mac wont be happy till 100% of obams press is negative.. thats about what it would take to get someone like JM elected... good luck with that johnny.. theres a whole bunch of us who are buying nothing your selling...

[yehryte]

What the survey does not take into account is CNN, MSNBC, Associated Press, Public Television, and a host of other outlets - including the internet. All things considered, Obama has not taken on tough questions truthfully. He has a volume of puff pieces, but nothing substantial - because he has no track record. He substance is very ethereal, as Hillary put it - 'an empty suit.'

His well-crafted marketing machine - much like the boy bands of the 80's - have really done a great job at handling an inexperienced minor league politician. If you only do research with any reputable source, you will find that he has campaigned much of the time he held office.

A recent study has Barry's news stories just over 130,000.... McCain's just over 90,000... where is the equity in that?

Gaffes - McCain has made plenty... vetoing beer, geographical, etc... so has Barry... 57 states, being on a non-existent banking committee, 'um ah oo uh um'... it comes with the territory.

[mamacat]

It is pretty obvious that the 4th estate failed us after 9/11. Perhaps now they are trying to make up for not doing their jobs, and not keeping us out of a nutty war.

As the front runner, it is fitting that the media should look very, very carefully at Sen. Obama. Once elected, it will be too late to investigate and quiz the candidates.

I think they are starting to ask hard questions of Sen. McCain as well. This is as it should be.

Neither candidate, not the one we like, nor the one we like less, should be overlooked. Reporters should be looking into every possible nook and cranny of their lives, both personal and public, to vet them for us.

It is true that Obama has been treated roughly by the press. If they didn't, and he later got elected, and we found out that we elected a skunk like Bush, then the MSM will not be accused again of not doing their jobs.

[bibb]

Message to the media:

Stop going soft on McCain! The CBS editing to alter McCain's blunder on the surge was reprehensible! I don't care if you think he's a swell guy because you've been hanging out with him, or that you don't want to upset the former POW. Your unwillingness to fully examine this guy means that the public will be deprived of the complete picture. Both candidates deserve full scrutiny because the stakes are too high. Do your job so we can make an informed decision.

[demfriend]

That someone had to do a survey to know this is a hoot!! Who does not know the GOP Boys are in charge of the majority of the MSM by owning or running the media? Who has not figured out by the recent events that reporters have even said it's hard to write about the wars and get it on the MSM because bush and friends don't want us to know or focus on what is going on there. If this is the case about the wars then why would the Obama being hit hard by the media be a shock? This sunday the shows all were about what lies and crap Mac has put out this last week to get attention because Obama was the media special across the world while Mac went to German markets and did a bit in front of the cheese aisle. That Tom on Meet The Press did the "brooks" show instead of asking real and pertainent questions shows the depth of muck someone once of quality does to help the GOP. Sad to see Tim's old chair being used that way.

[mawrm]

Well, there's a surprise... NOT! Any wonder why we were so "fortunate" to a proud C-student for President for two terms and then watch in amazement as he gleefully goes about destroying what has taken decades to build up? If any other profession with ethics and standards did their job as shoddily as the media does theirs, we'd be screaming bloody murder. But for whatever, the media gets a pass.
Democracy can not survive without competent, professional and impartial investigative journalism and reporting. As our media fails so does our nation.

[RTIII]

No, the media doesn't get a pass - it's just that you don't hear about it because, well, the media doesn't like to advertise their bad behavior or their detractors...
.

[UnknownSoldier]

A similar study was done toward the end of the primary with Hillary. They found that before Hillary started complaining she was actually receiving more favorable coverage than Obama, and after she started to whine about it, the media responded by giving Obama more negative media coverage than anyone in history, ok maybe not as much as Hitler, but outside of him it has been very one sided.

Now McCain is pulling another play out of the Clinton playbook and it is working

[Anonani]

The media is not Obama's friend. Grudging positives are all that he gets.

[Anonani]

And we havent' noticed?

[Dachozen1]

I've been saying that for months. Yes, Obama gets more media coverage but it doesnt mean it's positive coverage. McCain isnt being held to the same standards as Barack. If Barack wouldve made half the gaffes McCain has made, polls wouldve flipped in favor of McCain significantly. There is a backlash from the media, due to this false pretense that Barack is beloved by media. This is a clever strategy to make the media fight the "bias" criticism and attack Obama. No one wants to be the network that is accused of being soft on Barack. The media has been kind to McCain and is shaping the General Election, hence the reason why these polls are so close. McCain hasnt offerent anything new, he has made gaffe after gaffe, his so called strong point(foreign policy) has been fumbled by McCain over and over but somehow Barack is the inexperienced guy. Barack is forming the agenda on the Middle East debate. He has initiated the withdrawal from Iraq, he has initated the debate on sending troops to Afghanistan an George Bush , Iraq president has followed. I agree the media is biased but so far it has been biased towards John McCain. People with hatred in their hearts have found comfort in this false implication that Barack is the media's choice but reality is Barack has more coverage not favorable coverage. The media doesnt hold McCain accountable for anything!!

[chroipahtz]

You'll see they didn't mention they were following Fox News' coverage. I can only conclude that this means Fox News is not news.

[justwaitandsee]

That didn't even take a conclusion

[S1m0n]

John McCain is facing much lower expectations, from everyone. Yes, that means he gets a free ride some of the time. No, that doesn't mean that he has an advantage; it means they're not taking his candidacy all that seriously.

[justwaitandsee]

N O S H I T

[nonconformist2]

What's so annoying about the MSM is that they all sound exactly alike, like clones of each other. You'd think we get a least some divergence of opinion. It's like they are all outfitted with the same neural implant. Do they not know how utterly s.tupid they sound? I've never seen a profession so incapable of self reflection than the MSM. They are smug. If the left, middle and the right criticize them, then they think that is confirmation that they are doing their job. What they fail to see is that a consensus has been reached simply that they are doing a rotten job.

[nonconformist2]

Does the MSM ever bother to get their collective head out of their b.utts long enough to realize that they have a tremendous effect on the outcome of an election? They are one of the main reasons it B.ush was able to be reelected in 2004. There are a lot of "low information" voters out there who get all their news from brief snippets of the MSM. If the MSM want to paint Mc.Cain as a maverick who can be trusted and O as an elitist who is very risky, then that is what the "low information" voter will see.

[RTIII]

You can be sure they know.
.