Study: Networks Much Tougher On Obama Than McCain

LA Times:

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: LA Times

Comments

[LillianB]

Not a surprise. We knew it all along.

Obama got positive coverage during the primaries (save the Wright story line and certain Michelle O descriptions) whereas Hillary didn't. After she pulled out, the coverage shifted.

Three possible reasons:
The positive: *O was seen as the outsider in the beginning, HRC as sure to win, and the media always highlight the outsider - a profound instinct, these stories make interesting news and interesting contrasts to the establishment (HRC). As soon as O opposed McC instead of HRC, taking a lead, he was no longer the outsider - all of a sudden McC was. Positive coverage shifts, because the media really think BO will win.
The negative: *MSM, leaning Republican, was opposed to Hillary, seeing BO as the "easier" opponent, helping him get the nomination. Soon they realized he was a more competent candidate than they realized in the first place, they sharpened their knives, ready to butcher.
The neutral: Close elections make more exiting news than elections where one candidate is the sure winner. Pragmatic tv networks and newspaper editors want the election to be as close as possible and highlight whatever can give them higher ratings/more readers/higher ad buys.

[tcagle]

McCain is not getting the tough questions because he can't even answer the easy one. Simple.

[Xenopus]

And even with the Press giving McCain a free ride, he still sounds like a bumbling fool. If the press would be honest they would say McCain is running nothing but a negative campaign because he has nothing positive to offer. McCain isn't very bright as far as I can tell, and he has a quick temper, and his tongue is vicious. There is so much to go after McCain about, but his presentations are so boring, that the press would rather deal with Obama. Unfortunately, a lot of the press doesn't seem too bright either. They just keep repeating McCain's assinine statements.

[Mitchell4A]

t's worth noting that the MSM has not been doing a good job on a number of fronts in reporting how the election is actually shaping up. Just look at how it has misleadingly reported recent polls results.

"Media Hype and Election Polls (or the sky is falling)"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/

[LAB10]

More scrutiny on Obama. A fifth grader could have told you that!

[WongChin]

Did we need this study to figure out the obvious?

Where was the outrage when it was being said everywhere in the news that the media love Obama and hate McCain?

What we heard from many so-called Obama surrogates are rationalizations about why Obama is getting all the attention. When asked recently on CNN, one Edwards-la­ter-Clinto­n-and-now-­supposedly Obama supporter (forgotten her name) began with: "Welcome to the frustrations felt by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton ..." Is this really an Obama supporter or another older woman angry at Obama?

All this makes the network-n-cable anchors work even harder to show how tough they are on Obama, and people like Kate Couric and others with personal anti-Obama political agendas feel secure in doing the bizarre, assured nobody would call them out.

Still, there is still a difference between those who bash Obama out of the peer pressure to do so and those who actually want him to fail. People like Couric belong to the second group, though liberal bloggers blame the journalists' antics on "corporate" bosses, relieving the anchors of any personal responsibilities for their conduct. People like Katie Couric do not need any corporate bosses to remind her to derail Obama so that Hillary Clinton can run in 2012.

How can Obama get fair coverage when McCain's supporters are on hand on cable TV to hammer in his talking points and Obama's are often missing?

[ggmome]

TRUE THIS! Were worse when the 'other' candidate was in play!

[RTIII]

This is no news.

But what the STUDY did NOT get into, apparently, has to do with the types of reporting; If they studied THAT, they'd discover a HUGE bias.

Types of reporting that's hugely RIGHT biased include:

- questions - hardball or softball, to borrow that metaphor..­.

- failure to bring up flip-flops or invent them

- failure to cite the truth as a basis for asking questions.­..

There are many more examples.

WE NEED MEDIA DIVESTITURE NOW! It's not a whole solution, but a good start...
.

[nonconformist2]

Sadly, the MSM is going in the other direction. It is a corporation sponsored dog and pony show. The last straw was when they cheerleaded the American people into supporting going to war with Iraq. I expect less than nothing from them.

[AnnieinOR]

the media must live in a bubble if they believe that they are even-hande­d...they have overlooked much of Mc S e n i l e's lies, gaffes, missteps and have gone so far as to cover up and edit footage on his behalf. While putting every word and move that O says or makes under a HUGE microscope and dissecting it to death.

[Budokan]

This is not surprising. The reason they are tougher on Obama is because anyone with a functioning brain-stem knows McCain has little to no hope of winning. Therefore, Obama is being viewed in the light as our (extremely probably) next president and as a result should be judged as such.

It's less a reflection on Obama than it is a certainty by everyone -- even the Repugs themselves -- that McCain has NO hope of winning. By that metric Obama will be, and I argue must be, judged more critically since he will almost certainly be our next president.

Thank God.

[Mitchell4A]

The MSM has dropped the ball in various ways. One of the latest is the obsession with claiming that Obama is in trouble because he is not way ahead in the polls. Nonsense.

"Media Hype and Election Polls (or the sky is falling)"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/

[Wildcatdiva]

crawley, tries only when she knows she can't get away with her bias. cafferty is the only one that shows his contempt for mcnothingright. itchell doesn't care, she'll di e befroe she's objective and the rest of the m s n b c crew follows right behind her with the exception of 0 be man and mad dow

[UnknownSoldier]

Wildcatdiva

Did you catch Candi Crawley's headline caption on CNN's Lou Dobbs show

"Obama Ignores Military Commanders in Iraq" and "Obama Overrules Military"

Those were headlines on CNN

[BatedBreath]

Obama supporters didn't need a study to tell us this. It can be used against all the nincompoops crying liberal media bias,though.

[camipco]

And this study, and all the discussion of "media bias" is assuming that the candidates deserve 50/50 positive statements. The McCain campaign is a constant stream of lies, reversals and gaffes, while the Obama campaign is offering intelligently worded practical proposals. A non-biased media should be giving the McCain campaign far more negative attention. You want to know what an unbiased media looks like, watch Countdown. Of course, whining about the liberal media is a long running right-wing strategy.

[athenasword]

Yet, all we hear about is the overly-adoring press that follows Obama around, giving him such incredible media attention. He is getting a much tougher ride than McSame.

I just wait patiently for the debates. Johnny will be on his own, looking like a deer in the headlights rolling out tired one-liner talking points and sputtering "the Surge, the Surge...."­.