Wash Post Ombudsman: Paper's Campaign Coverage Tilted Towards Obama

Washington Post:

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4. Numbers don't tell you everything, but they give you a sense of The Post's priorities.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[swift goat pet for truth]

And the Wall Street Journal always was, and still is for neocon single party rule.

So what?

[georgiaR]

Obama can thank the media for getting him elected. They were really in the tank for him. Most journalists are liberals and they can't help showing their bias. They think the ends justifies the means.
Most polls say that people think the media favors the democrats.

Did you see the Chevy Chase interview where he said when he was on SNL he purposely made Gerald Ford look bad because he wanted Carter to win. (sounds like what they did to Palin) I realize ththis is not hard core news but it's all the same. And SNL is a good way to reach young people.

[DangerWillRobinson]

Nonsense. Fox News, all the right wing radio hosts, Washington Times and a host of others gave McCain a pass on everything. From his health, advisors, wife's drug use and arrest, failure to pay taxes on homes in California.. these from just the top of my head.

McCain lost because Obama was the better candidate. The media couldn't ignore the contrast between the two campaigns. The better man won and the media, reluctantly, carried the story.

[swift goat pet for truth]

And the Wall Street Journal?

BTW, Corporate Media was for Bush for EIGHT Years.

And in MY point of view, MOST of the media was for McCain until he cracked up on Sept 15th.
After that, it was pretty obvious that he was ineffective and rarely coherent.

[StrategicThinker]

You said: "BTW, Corporate Media was for Bush for EIGHT Years."

Okay, and for how many of those years was Bush "PRESIDENT"?

Eight, right?

Exactly.

[harriettubman]

The NY Post is Pro-McCain and didn't care who knew it early on.

[StrategicThinker]

The NY Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch. What do you expect?

Still, the vast majority of the media were in the tank for Obama, just like they were for Bush in 2000 and 2004, probably because Obama had more money to throw at them than the Republican Party did...even though that would still be a CORRUPT REASON to be in the tank for someone.

The media gets a lot of that money in advertising dollars.

If you can BUY MEDIA FAVORABILITY, which Obama did, then you can BUY THE ELECTION, because 3/4ths of the public gets most of their information from television news.

I wanted publicly financed elections BEFORE OBAMA BOUGHT THIS ONE, and I still do, because it's the right thing to do; to stop money and media from DECIDING ELECTIONS. What? It works in the Democrat's favor FOR ONCE, and all of a sudden you all want to change ideals?

If so, you're the hypocrite.

[paxorbis]

Maybe the WaPo coverage was more positive because the actual candidate (Obama) was more positive? C'mon, if the message and the attitude of one candidate is superior than the message and attitude of the other candidate, why is there this belief that the MSM should somehow balance things out?

Counting positive vs negative stories without reference to context is just a shameless reserach exercise!

[Bettysdad]

Maybe WaPo is patriotic, and wanted to see a President that will govern in America's interests, rather than those of Republican Party cronies.

[StrategicThinker]

Is that what the media wanted in 2000 and 2004 when they did for Bush what they did for Obama?

How shortsighted you all are.

[Bettysdad]

When there's a big fire, the media gives positive coverage to the firefighters, not the crowd of bystanders.

[AnalyzeIT]

Bettydad..............In my rush to come up with something to say; and after reading your post, I realized that I did not have too. You summed it up.

Thank you

[Calvincito]

This "revelation" is self-explanatory. Who should receive more favorable coverage? The candidate that attempts to stick to issues and conduct themselves like a serious candidate or the one that suffers from self-inflicted wounds and tosses every absurd and negative invective imaginable at their opponent. It might be more reflecftive of the media trying to wean themselves from their infatuation with equivalency. Equivalency is no substitute for accurate reporting.

[DocJerome]

100% accurate.

[StrategicThinker]

Only for the blindly partisan. See my comments below.

[StrategicThinker]

You mean like Kerry and Gore versus Bush?

You do realize that Kerry and Gore were criticized more in 2000 and 2004 than Bush wa?.

The media say that Gore claimed he invented the internet...HE DIDN'T.

They said Gore claimed that he was the inspiration for Love Story and that he discovered Love Canal...HE DID NEITHER.

The media lied about Kerry's service and defended Bush's attempts to get out of Vietnam.

Kerry and Gore were right in the things that they said, BUT THE MEDIA WANTED BUSH IN OFFICE, so they lied on Kerry and Gore and covered up the STOLEN ELECTIONS by the Bush team.

Get over your Obama affection and FACE THE TRUTH. Whoever the media want elected, THEY TRY TO GET ELECTED, and they criticize the other campaign.

It has more to do with money, I think, but it's still CROOKED.

The Republicans used to have more money than the Democrats for elections. They got more favorable press in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

In 2006, I believe the Democrats finally had more or as much money to spend on the mid-terms than the Republicans did. We heard about Mark Foley, and others.

In 2008, Obama raised more money than anyone else in history and BOUGHT THE MEDIA'S AFFECTION.

Denying that is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.

I wanted publicly financed elections to take the power away from money and media before the election. I STILL DO, because the truth matters more to me than A STUPID TEAM.

[StrategicThinker]

CORRECTION: In 2006, the Democrats closed the money gap and may have "SPENT MORE" over the last few weeks of the campaign than the Republicans did.

[1dogs2]

Did the number-counting take into consideration pieces that appeared during the primaries? The Rev Wright flap? The "bitter clinging" hullabaloo? Did it take into consideration pieces about Joe Biden during the primaries? Palin had had ZERO vetting by the press (or by McCain, it now appears) with only weeks to go in the campaign. It's not as though no one knew anything about Biden before Obama chose him. There are all kinds of perfectly good, politically neutral reasons for a disparity in the numbers.

This sort of "analysis" falls into that category of criticism of the media that starts with the simple-minded and baseless assumption that "there are two sides to every story." In fact, there is only one side to some stories (e.g., the Earth orbits the sun, in spite of the one-fifth of Americans who believe that the sun orbits the Earth); and there are ten or more sides to other stories. As long as journalism schools continue to teach the "two sides" principle rather than the far more difficult task of critical analysis, we're doomed to more media mediocrity and an uninformed, misinformed electorate.

At least the press raised the issue of Palin's fitness for the office she ran for. I don't recall the media raising the issue of Bush's competency in any serious way in 2000 or 2004. Instead, the press was all about Gore's sighs and Kerry's elitism and we got a thoroughly unprepared boob for President.

[xansam]

perhaps he received more positive coverage because he was correct more often, made far less mistakes and really had positive things to say? could that be possible? just curious....

[citadelgrrl05]

THIS IS BULLCRAP THE TRUTH SEE NO PARTY..IF ONE CANDDIATE IS LYING AND RUNNING A DISHONERABLE CAMPAIGN IT IT THE DUTY OF THE REPORTER TO GIVE THE AUDIENCE THE FACT RESPECTIVE OF WHO IT COMES DOWN ON. THAT IS WHAT IS WRING WITH JOURNALIST TODAY. IF CANDIDATE DO SOEMTHING WRONG THEY TRUE TO EQUAVICATE IT EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT. MCCAIN RAN A HORRIBLE LYING CAMPAIGN THAT IS WHY THEY HAD MORE NEGATIVE STORIES. I BET THIS UMSBUDSMAN IS A REOUBLICAN..SO OH PLEASE

[StrategicThinker]

BUSH LIED AND RAN A DISHONORABLE CAMPAIGN IN 2000 AND 2004, and you know what?

The media RIPPED KERRY AND GORE, not Bush...

...because THE MEDIA wanted Bush elected.

They wanted Obama elected to.

That's all that matters. The media INDOCTRINATES the public. The media gets who it wants.

[Stud99]

Bunch of old hippies over there at the post. Thats ok newspapers are becoming irrevelent anyway.

[UWNBM]

Carl Bernstein has become a pathetic joke.

[research]

What conservative BS!

You count Obama getting more coverage as good, then count Palin getting more coverage is bad.

It all has to do with WHAT KIND OF COVERAGE.

[UWNBM]

It's not BS...it's fact...deny it all you like...

[research]

the contradiction in value for coverage of one versus the opposite value for the other doesn't bother you?

[ConsiderChange]

AFP had a similar study done, and I doubt they're conservative.

Even the covers of TIME were biased. If it'wasn't Obama, then the head shot chosen for the other candidate was either "non-Photoshopped", or of an unbecoming pose or portrait. I know that race may have palyed a part of the campaign, but age did as well, and quite unflatteringly at that!
Of course, these studies are coming in (or being directly state) AFTER the election ;). I should basically say one word, either "Yawn" or "REALLY?".

[research]

They also had more NEGATIVE coverage of Obama.

None of you seems to have bothered to read the whole article either. It is full of self contradictory methods of valuation.

Besides, if one candidate makes more news than the other, that's tough. Free enterprise, news covers what it wants to.

It was the bias that they should count, but that is inherently a partisan analysis. The GOP continues to cling to it's lies and deceptions.

[StrategicThinker]

THE NONPARTISAN CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS SAID THE SAME THING.

To deny it IS IGNORANT.

[ishok]

Maybe if you do mostly positive things... and run a mostly positive campaign... reports will tend to be mostly positive about you and your campaign.

This isn't rocket science.

[UWNBM]

I know that Obama's supporters are pie in the sky idealists who wouldn't know what practicality is from the get-go, but you really are shoveling it here.

[naeldwyck]

boohoohoo

[Bettysdad]

The guys that wrote the Declaration of Independence were also pie in the sky idealists, and look what it got them?

If you're not a pie in the sky idealist, you end up with, oh let's see, McCain Bush 41, Bush 43, Reagan, Ford and Nixon.

I'll take the dreamers.

[StrategicThinker]

Did Bush do those things, because HE GOT MOSTLY POSITIVE COVERAGE in 2000 and 2004.

Wake the hell up.

Whichever candidate the media wants elected GETS BETTER COVERAGE than the other, and as long as 3/4ths of the public gets most of their information from the television set, THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

[wanj]

Obama didn't eff up, hence no drama to report.....

[UWNBM]

That wasn't the problem, it was the media who allowed him not to eff up...he made many stupid, idiotic blunders, but like when the media ignored Bush's gaffes, they ignored his dumb blunders.

[StillIRise]

What 'dumb blunders" of Obama did they ignore? Like his bitter, clinging misstep? Oh ... wait! That coverage lasted about a month, didn't it? Maybe when he didn't wear a flag pin or place his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem? But, no ... that was covered pretty efficiently. Could it be when Michelle made her "For the first time in my adult life ..." comment? No! What about when he allegedly "played the race card" by warning his supporters of the racial onslaught that would be coming his way? No, that couldn't be among the things they ignored, or I wouldn't know about it! His trip overseas and his decision not to exploit the wounded troops? No, that wasn't ignored. In fact John McCain use it in his ad. I'm at a loss here!!! Exactly what gaffes WERE ignored?

[Nonpartay]

Many stupid, idiotic blunders? Wow. In case you haven't noticed, President-Elect Obama is way smart. For all the speeches he made over 20 months and all the coverage he got, there were darned few things he ever said that could be considered stupid, idiotic, or any kind of blunder. Wishful thinking on your part, perhaps? Apparently, most of the American people didn't hear much of anything that could have been considered stupid either since they voted for him with extreme enthusiasm. I think it's time to do what McCain advised and support him, as he is our President-elect, and he will need America behind him if he is to get anything done to help this country.

[Bettysdad]

Why don't you list them all, and how you learned of them from something other than the media.

[StrategicThinker]

THE MEDIA DOES NOT COVER DRAMA ABOUT ANYONE THEY WANT TO GET ELECTED.

Bush "EFFED UP" in 2000 and 2004. Not many in the public new about it because THE MEDIA DIDN'T WANT THEM TO KNOW ABOUT IT.

The favorable coverage for Bush in 2000 and 2004 overrides any of the STUPID AFFECTION that you all have for Obama.

It's all about the media.

[ibsteve2u]

My criteria for the media is that they report the truth, and they distinguish between their opinion and the truth. And the truth is there simply were many more negative stories available to be printed about McCain and Palin.

The ONLY way that any media source could have avoided the accusation of "You run more negative stories about M/P than you do about O/B!!!" would be to intentionally either minimalize the negative M/P stories, or dwell on the negative O/B stories, or both.

Face it: There can only be one Fox.

[UWNBM]

Nonsense.

[naeldwyck]

Not so much, and even Fox has turned out to become something of an embarrassment to its owner.