Media Doesn't Love Obama After All

Barack Obama has not received better media coverage than Hillary Clinton, according to a new study by the research team at Pew/Harvard, the gold standard in nonpartisan media analysis. After reviewing coverage from January to March, when the majority of states voted, researchers determined that Obama simply did not fare better than Clinton. In fact, reporters "began to turn against Obama [even] before questions surfaced about his pastor Jeremiah Wright," the study found. And Clinton's "Saturday Night Live" gambit - when she chided the moderators of a February debate, "maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow" - apparently worked:

Shortly after Clinton criticized the media for being soft on Obama during a debate, the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical--and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself.

In March, The Times reported that Clinton Campaign "practically browbeat" reporters with the SNL skit as evidence that Obama was treated "more gently." The article cited data suggesting the tactic swiftly shifted the "tone" of campaign coverage against Obama. But it's not only reporters worrying that the press is too rough on Clinton.

More voters think the media has been "too hard" on Clinton than on Obama or McCain, according to a Gallup poll released last week:

It's also an article of faith among Clinton supporters -- 56 percent say the media has been too hard on her, while only 29 percent of Obama supporters carry that grievance for their candidate. How did so many voters and reporters end up thinking the Clinton coverage was harsher than it actually was, according to the cumulative data? Here are three related reasons:

1) Media-bashing works. The Clinton Campaign has loudly complained about the media, and it obviously worked.

2) The loser dynamic. Clinton has been steadily losing the race since Super Tuesday, so the loser dynamic has been percolating. Supporters of losing candidates often blame the media, and reporters start second guessing their work as the post-mortem assignments roll in. The Gallup poll, however, only compares public opinion of Clinton's coverage to the presumptive nominees; comparing winners and losers is like apples and oranges. Add in Huckabee or Edwards -- or Ron Paul! -- and complaints about the media would likely spike. Or if Obama were losing, his supporters would be doing more media griping.

3) Offensive Clinton-bashing. The overall data does not capture the intensity of individual incidents of nasty Clinton-bashing. So while the cumulative coverage of Obama and Clinton was clearly similar, a small number of offensive media incidents can still damage a candidate and outrage voters, whether they support her or not. When CNN host Glenn Beck labeled Clinton a "stereotypical b----," for example, or the Washington Post ran an entire article about the senator's "cleavage," (under the absurd headline "Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory"), many people saw her being mistreated and rightly denounced it. The empirical question, for voters and reporters, is how many outrageous incidents are required to conclude that the entire "media" was unfair to her.

If you combine this new data with the infamous incidents of Clinton-bashing, the conventional wisdom about campaign media coverage collapses. Obama did not receive special treatment; Clinton was not generally covered too harshly; but some high-impact, inappropriate media coverage did hurt Clinton and understandably outrage voters. In the end, the candidates still drew better media coverage than actual public policy, which drew only seven percent of all campaign stories.

Ari Melber is the Net movement correspondent for The Nation, where this post first appeared. Check out the Net Movement Politics Facebook Group.

Comments

[ShutUpRob]

My bet is that the statistics would be reversed up if the survey were limited to the 5pm ET - 9pm ET daily Talking Heads timeslots and the Sunday Morning Talking Heads shows. You know, the shows that most political junkies actually watch.

-- Rob

[cdzrom]

an article linking to another article about a study...

Even so, according to the articles linked, Obama and Clinton both got positive stories almost 70 percent of the time. McCain? 43%. There's no liberal bias...nah. Nothing to see here.

[Dachozen1]

Anyone who thinks Obama's media coverage is softer than Hillary's are sadlty mistaken. These past few months have been filled with the Obama show. You have Hillary, Bill, Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity and the list goes on and on who have supporter Hillary while attacking Barack. The funny part is the Clinton people allow these Republicans to give Hillary false sympathy. There only motivation is to divide the part and the Clintonites are sooo blind they eat this up. All of a sudden these Republicans are on Hillary's side???? Why cant the Clinton supporters see how they are being used??

[Incredulous]

So let's put this absurd notion of media bias against Clinton to rest once and for all. It's not about Clinton. It's about Democrats. The MSM crucifies Democrats and gives Republicans a free ride. Remember back to Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000. Democrats demonized. Republicans cheered on. It's not like this is a new phenomenon. Even after the Republicans have destroyed the economy, America's reputation, and world peace, John McCain is a "maverick". A savior, an agent of change. It doesn't mater that he's a 71 year old dinosaur following the same destructive path as Bush. No, "he's a maverick!" Over and over and over. "McCain's a maverick!" "Obama can't win!" And did I mention Rev. Wright?

[Incredulous]

The media! What a bunch of self-satisfied blow hards, hooked on the sounds of their own voices. Even the revered NYT is just another propaganda rag now. And cable news!!! Where's the news? Cable news is nothing more than a parade of pundits selling books and spouting their "expert" opinions. It's putrid! Bill Kristol? Give me a break! A smug, arrogant fanatic living in a fantasy world, counting his money and dreaming of global domination! He gets it ALL wrong, on every issue, and is rewarded with positions at the NYT and FOX News, as if his own little propaganda rag wasn't disseminating enough bullshit already. And he's just one of legions. They're all the same. They give McCain and the Republicans a "get out of jail card free" card at every turn. MSM is now just a propaganda arm of the Republican Party, and has been ever since Republicans deregulated media ownership, and created a virtually monolithic outlet for Conservative propaganda.

[Rockerbabe]

Too soft, too hard, just right?! Please, give me a break. The media should not be worried about the degree of hardness or lack thereof (unless men are concern about hardness!). The media should be concerned about factual representations of the candidates and the substance of their arguments on the various topics and issues that need addressing. Overt bias and outright prejudice, overt sexism and racism need to be avoided at all cost. The media has bought this issue on themselves with their substituting opinion for reasoned, objective research, marginalizing of women in public positions (dress, assignments, comments, etc), overt sexism, subtle racism (can't get away with overt racism without being fired) and outright complicity with the GOP and their strategy for misleading the citizenry at large. Maybe with the GOP waning, we can get back to a more reasonable, fair and accurate accounting of what is going on in our country and with OUR government.

[dumboldfarmer]

In my opinion, there is media bias based on media spin and a desire for the media to control the thinking of the people, more than just for or against a particular candidate.

This is noticeable. I have major issue with the media and disconnect with mainstream America. Contrary to popular media belief, New York City is not the center of thinking for the United States. I am getting tired of the media acting as though any people outside the city of New York are somehow retarded yokels.

If something happens in Chicago, for example, that is normal for Chicago; the story may be picked up in New York and completely either misinterpreted or blown out of proportion or twisted into some grotesque fairy tale of a story. People in Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Denver, Dallas...you get the idea, don't really care what news pundits in NYC care. I wish that could be understood.

The same measure can also be used for other media centers, such as D.C., Atlanta, or to a lesser degree, Los Angeles.

Understand - heartland America does not care what they think.

[Montanagramma]

You are correct!! I get a real kick out of the AM shows that tell you how to economize by getting shoes for $60. instead of paying $200. at high end stores. (This is just an example.)
A lot of people I know are trying to figure out how to pay for shoes for their family at Walmart, or in some cases thrift stores. They are so out of touch with real people who are struggling through this lousy economy. Same with the news. They need to put a TV network in a rural area, and air today's real news.

[debrouillard]

The reason the public feels as if Obama had a free ride was because to start off with,he was not in the media eye,they ignored him in the start as much as they have done to Ron Paul. But being the talented guy he is,unlike Ron Paul he was able to convert that time off the media in to positive.In other words,he did not rely on the media to go about doing his work,which is where his community organising skills really triumph.

Secondly he is so skillful that he will make media Bashing directed towards him look silly and above all,he trusted the intelligence of the American people particularly his supporters and was able to remind them everytime the media tries to derail them,power of his speeches.

If you follow FOX News then you will understand what i am saying,he made them look stupid. I remember once Joe Scarboroubh on MSN was actually complaining "Why dont these bashing stick" when it comes to Barack.

[TommyMcCarthy]

You can stack up "new studies by....." like cordwood and you'll never convince any one who has followed the campaign AT ALL that Obama has not recieved disproportionately positive coverage and Clinton the oppposite.....................................................................tm

[knighthowl]

I have followed the campaign, originally as a Hillary supporter. From my own perspective, Obama got more negative coverage by far. You have your opinion, I have mine. Unfortunately for you, an independent study rejects your conclusion. To be fair, the study does not support my impression, but I am willing to accept fair, independent assessments. Why can't Hillary supporters accept facts?

[americanwomaninpa]

I don't call a "study" a fact. There are "studies" that say otherwise.

[ClareP]

I have followed the campaign very closely, and strongly felt that Hillary got disproportionate coverage and had her talking points quoted without question or comment frequently, while Obama was typically cast into doubt and while ridiculously irrelevant stuff was brought up against him & kept alive artificially. case in point- Bosnia (a serious story) died quickly, as did the RFK incident (which had to be referred to more than once before it was even reported), but how long did we have to here about Ayres, a story that had zero importance and credibility? Or, way back at the beginning, Obama's kindergarten ambitions? I am not at all surprised at the results of this study.

[kristycu]

not only that, when she said that we could totally "Obliterate Iran" you hardly heard anything about it

[elbzee]

Let's take our lead from Barack. It's the high road, up there. No more whining. No more "sticks and stones." No more "not fairs." It's time to grow up, wipe our noses and tears, and get to work. We have a nation to reclaim. That's what matters.

[legalgirl]

Isn't this the 24/7 political campaign Rove designed? This way, we're distractred from looking at the failing government, economy, wars, personal fortunes, etc. that NOT paying attention has gotten us. And it's not entirely our fault (or maybe it is) because we've gotten the news we deserve. Networks decided to treat it like entertainment years ago (not long after Paddy predicted) and it's been downhill ever since. So, now what? The internet has filled the gap some and I hope will do even more, because really, networks are just big distribution companies that aren't very good at content. I KNOW we can do better. We just have to stop following the leader and break out of this very silly paradigm.

[CindyV]

I look at the late night comics for media bias. Leno, Letterman and the other GUYS made tons of anti-Clinton jokes. Some at least 10 per monologue. Obama jokes? None. Maybe one or two a week. They tore her up one side and down another.

And let's not forget the pundit chatterers. they called Hillary a b*tch. The said Chelsea was "pimping for her mom" as if it was bad for the child of a candidate to speak on behalf of a parent. (Michelle Obama is seen often with her kids, but she's not pimping them.) Need I go on?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the media has been unfair to Hillary. They've given a free pass to Obama. They wanted the drama of a young, black man against the old, white maverick. And that's what they'll get.

[Jules1]

I live in a dream world, it say's that media reamins unbiased and "Do no Harm", damn! I just woke up and realized that the media is totally biased and has done far too much harm.................

[knighthowl]

Too much harm indeed! By giving Bush and McCain unwarranted uncritical support!

[PioneerKing]

ARI:

The media loves McCain or as Chuck Todd likes to say "John McCain can say the things that he does and get away with it because he has plenty in the bank with the media," and a Russert, Matthews and all of the rest say "McCain is such an American hero, his story is beyond reproach, who wouldn't love the guy."

[XME]

It seems that Clinton has little ability to view things objectively. ANY time the media say anything negative about her, she accused them of being unfair. What I found most interesting was how easily swayed the media was by Clinton...they pretty much allowed her to set THEIR agenda. As soon as she repeated the joke about giving Obama a pillow, the media went on the attack after Obama. When she made the "bitter" remarks into such a huge issue, the media jumped on it like attack dogs. Either Clinton is just very good at setting their agenda, or the media is way too worried about perceptions.

[chrisbee]

I have been watching SO much fox, msnbc, cnn that I always believed Obama got picked on MORE. I never understood this "media" bias... good to see that I was right.