Media 'In the Tank' for Obama? Studies Don't Prove It (So Far) -- And Here's Why

This past Sunday, with the race for the White House finally over, Deborah Howell, the Washington Post ombudsman, examined the results of her paper's study of the fairness of its own election coverage in the past year. Soon articles, or links, relating to her piece were carrying headlines suggesting that the study had found that the Post had clearly "tilted" to Obama (this was Howell's, and HuffPost's, headline) or even showed a "major tilt" to Obama (that's how Mark Halperin at his "The Page" blog at Time.com had it, as did many others, especially conservative outlets).

On top of the widely-publicized results of the recent Project for Excellence in Journalism news coverage survey, this seemed to amount to a slam dunk proving press bias against McCain.

But is that really what these studies show? It's an important question because once any conventional wisdom is set, it is almost impossible to dislodge it.

It may yet turn out that major, exhaustive studies will prove that the media were grossly unfair to John McCain. Bring them on. But the current studies don't do that.

Since it's the latest, let me stick close to Howell's report here.

First, like the PEJ survey, the numbers are thrown off by the fact that both studies found that "horse race" angles (including polling) thoroughly dominated the overall coverage in their samples -- 57% of the stories in the PEJ and much higher than that in the Post's study (1,295 horse-race stories and only 594 "issues" stories).

This disgraceful proportion is worth its own critique about the media's priorities, but the fact is: Except for a week after the end of the GOP convention, before Palin-mania collapsed, Obama was ahead in the polls, eventually by a lot, and he always led in the fundraising (overwhelmingly), in the size of his crowds (ditto), and in putting more states in play. He couldn't help but lead in favorable coverage -- if that coverage was thoroughly dominated by "horse race" angles (and it was). And McCain had to gain mainly "unfavorable" coverage.

My complaint about the Post and PEJ handling of their own results is not that they ignored this but that they did not make that key aspect clear at the very top of their analysis, not a few paragraphs down and without (in my view) enough emphasis. It is unquestionably the single leading factor affecting both studies.

So we will be reading for years about the strong media "bias" against McCain -- look at all those "unfavorable" stories about him -- when it was mainly (although perhaps not completely) a matter of Obama leading the horse race and getting credit for that by reporters who were, surprise, not deaf, dumb and blind. Does anyone doubt that if McCain had roared to the lead in October and stayed ahead until the end that the results of the studies would have been completely different?

Yes, the press is biased -- in favor of recognizing who is winning and stating that (perhaps too often).

Also: Can the media be faulted if one candidate is committing the major share of gaffes or (in this age of fact-check sites) making the most inaccurate statements in speeches and in ads? Is it "bias" to recognize that? Or to vet a candidate for vice president who (we now know) had not been vetted by anyone else?

The Washington Post study did find an editorial/op-ed tilt to Obama, but opinion sections or TV programs (Fox's or MSNBC's primetime lineups) are inherently biased and should be disregarded in judging day-to-day news coverage -- plus, as Howell pointed out, part of the reason for the Post's imbalance was that a number of conservative writers for the paper grew critical of McCain. You can't make pundits who generally support one party back a candidate from that party they think is weak.

Then there's this. Howell dryly relates one seemingly significant gap in the number of news stories on each candidate, going back to last November: 946 stories about Obama compared with McCain's 786. But this can be easily explained by the fact that McCain's primary race ended almost four months before Obama's! Of course, there were more stories about Obama from March to June -- thanks to Hillary Clinton's spirited fight.

Howell does point this out, but buries this crucial explanation. Actually, it's amazing that the gap between Obama and McCain in this one-year period was not far wider.

What about from June 4 (when Obama clinched the nomination) to Election Day? Howell reveals, "the tally was Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both." A "major" tilt?

And more counting: "Obama was in 311 Post photos and McCain in 282... Obama led 133 to 121 in pictures more than three columns wide, 178 to 161 in smaller pictures, and 164 to 133 in color photos. In black and white photos, the nominees were about even, with McCain at 149 and Obama at 147. On Page 1, they were even at 26 each." Again: This is a "major tilt"?

Then there's this example. The New York Times carried a top of the front page piece on Obama one morning in October. A good thing, right? Not exactly. The lengthy story resurrected his Bill Ayers connection. That issue, dormant for months, suddenly revived and, in fact, became a focus of the McCain-Palin campaign for weeks -- with the Times (normally hated by the GOP) cited as the authoritative source. So: a prominent story about a candidate might look swell in some of the tallies but is not necessarily a good thing in reality.

Finally: When one talks about "the media" being "in the tank" for one candidate, what is the definition of "media"? Consider that tens of millions of Americans claim they get virtually all of their news from talk radio. Others rely mainly on Web sites with clear political leanings, or The Daily Show, or SNL. Is this all "media" or does only "elite media" count?

PEJ and the Post can claim that they can only put the tallies out there, they can't control how pundits and reporters interpret or spin them or what they write in their headlines. True enough. But those who produce the findings need to explain clearly, and right at the top, what exactly was tallied, the "horse race" context, and other crucial factors, such as providing a list of which articles were viewed as favorable or unfavorable for a candidate so others can judge their standards.

Strong bias in news coverage of the 2008 campaign may yet be shown -- but it's not proven so far.

Greg Mitchell is editor of Editor & Publisher and its hot new blog. His latest book on Iraq and the media is "So Wrong for So Long." His next book, on the 2008 campaign, will be published in January.

Comments

[ObjectiveRealist]

[
Yes, the press is biased -- in favor of recognizing who is winning and stating that (perhaps too often).
]

This is an excellent piece. I read that ombudsman's report and was similarly unimpressed, and I think that is a common reaction among my demographic. 18 - 29s are more comfortable with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's satires of false equivalences than with what lazy journalists euphemistically call "objectivity" telling "both sides" or "fair and balanced." We don't need that lady or any GOP staffer to agree. We know that McCain received more negative coverage because he ran a more negative campaign and President Obama rose above the smears, by organizing a program for refuting them while maintaining an environment in which everybody knew that no counter-smears would be tolerated.

What was the name of that lady who called Hillary Clinton a monster, and how long did it take before she was fired?

[Emmory]

I like the fact that you can so easily write off all of the bad press McCain received from the MSM as somehow McCains fault.
This in and of itself is a left leaning media bias.

What is the percentage of POSITIVE vs NEGATIVE news stories?

Guess who got more of the negative every time.... Way more.

[ObjectiveRealist]

[
Guess who got more of the negative every time.... Way more.
]

Ron Paul.

[Emmory]

Well sure..
We all like Ron Paul, but I was only talking about Obama and McCain.

[certainot]

not only is talk radio part of the media it has largely been determining what is and what isn't acceptable in the rest of the media. and while it reaches a crowd as large as that that voted for obama with coordinated uncontested repetition of GOP talking pints and framing it has been invisible to those it attacks the most, because it gives them a headache to listen to it. for 20 years since reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine it has been used to take lee atwater's methods national with an invisible 2x4 and while it has taken the GOP to it's lowest point it has also taken the country along. talk radio is not in the bag for obama and it is the only reason he didn't win by 30%. and unless progressives push for some modern Fairness Doctrine or at least a quick acting demonopolization legislation, bipartisanship is impossible and filibusters will become the rule.

[flyers]

I still don't think the media decides election. Since I was born in 1972, the republicans have 6 Pres Elections, and the Dems have won 4. If the liberal press had that much influence, then it would have been 10-0 or atleast 8-2 for dems.

Since the rise of cable television, the networks are more like propaganda for their candidates, as they have found their niche: Preach to the choir! If I turned on Fox during the campaign, they were burying Obama every night, and defending McCain. If I turned on MSNBC, they were burying McCain & Palin and defending Obama. The audience for these shows are partisan people who just want to hear someone defend their side on a nightly basis, and that is the reason I don't watch these shows anymore.

[Snowball]

This is going to be a big issue for the next four years and if Democrats aren't on top of it, they will be blindsided by the upcoming Corporate Media all-out assault on the Obama administration and Democratic Congress.

HuffPo needs to do a structural analysis of the Corporate Media and its inherent political bias based on its economic interests. The media is corporate after all, not traditional, mainstream, or Liberal (as it itself likes to claim). Who is it that keeps the myth of the "Liberal Media" alive but the same talking heads, ombudsmen and media analysts such as Debra Howell and Howie Kurtz that work for those same corporations. It's their job to convince the public that the corporations they work for have a Liberal bias, so they can tilt their coverage to the right through propaganda techniques of false balance, omission, and inference. Notice how Debra Howell claims that the WaPo should have focused more on Obama's admitted drug use (marijuana really, so what?) and his "associations" with Rezko, Ayers, and Wright (as if they're really relevant in any way other than to smear).

A Corporate Media that has been asleep for the last eight years on covering the crimes of the Bush regime, is now at attention promising to hold Obama's administration and the Democrats accountable. Expect many non-scandals to erupt as the media makes mountains out of molehills.

"The media is only as Liberal as the corporations that own it."

[SethBLiNK]

It's all about equivalence.

Obama would talk about his plans for America and McCain would deride Obama's plans for America and the press was expected to treat them both as equivalent statements.

Obama would criticize the last eight years of governance and Palin would criticize the last eight weeks of MSM coverage and the press was expected to treat both statements as equal.

Obama would run a "negative" ad about McCain's Senate voting record and McCain would run a negative ad about Obama's "friendship" with William Ayers and the media scored them both as negative attack ads.

The media needs to overlook the unreasonable demands for inaccurate equivalence to be truly fair, and I actually think they did a decent job of it this time around... though I agree the over-dependence of stories about polls rather than issues was quite disturbing.

[johnnyclueless]

It seems to me that the Republicans got used to their "2 + 2 = 5, the Earth is flat, the check is in the mail" arguments being given equal time. Now that the media has finally caught on (somewhat) to their nonsense, they're bellyaching about media bias.

[1will]

The media was in the tank for Obama. A 250 word limit would not even scratch the surface in trying to sum up examples. Obama won. Lefties rejoice. Those that are honest will admit the media has shown a huge bias in their reporting during this election. If a few journalists (and I grudgingly use that term) want to try to justify their actions at this late date, so be it. You're not convincing anyone other than the Obama faithful who will believe anything you write or air (as long as it's positive about The One).
It will take the MSM a long time to rebuild the credibility they threw away in this election cycle.

[research]

Versus Air America?

[Stoyver]

As I understand it, McCain had difficulty getting people to attend his rallys. His message was so offensive and wrongheaded, that even Republicans stayed away. Lack of interesting footage was the probable cause of the perceived airtime imbalance of Obama and McCain during the election cycle. Our wonderful corporate media is all about making money! McCain simply gave them little to work with. Now Sarah... whats her name, that is a different story, she still gets more airtime than Obama.

[Kingbreaker]

As John Stuart said,

"LIFE has a liberal bias."

The reason that the press covered Obama more favorably was because most people with brains could tell he was a better candidate. The truth hurts.

[SethBLiNK]

250 words won't make your case, but two will make mine:

Prove it.

That he won is not a proof of bias. Are sports reporters biased when Lance Armstrong wins year after year?

[Emmory]

Are you blind?
How much proof do you need?

[papapj]

Just one example will do.

Do try to prove your case before you squawk in defence of it, otherwise it just sounds like more neo-cons backasswardness....

[Emmory]

There is no need to prove what is so obviously true.
Saying there is no liberal media bias doesn't change the truth.
The reason you think there is no liberal bias is because you're used to it being this way.
That also doesn't change the truth.

[Mercy8 om]

Bias...everyone has it...the problem is that we can no longer engage in substantive discussions but stoop insults, lies, destortions, inuendo, and junk food journalism instead ...I don't care if fox gets the real news out to me or if it's msnbc...just so long as we stop bullshi##ing each other about what 's going on in our country and the world. Having differing opinions about the facts and what we should do about the facts is one thing but distorting facts for our own purposes destroys the fabric of our lives.

The day that Rush or Sean can have a calm conversation while disagreeing without yelling down the person with the other point of view or ahnging up on them we will have really made progress in this country. These guys are polluting the minds of Americans not so much with what they are saying...while the stuff they say is questionable because a lot of really silly drivel leaks out of their mouths ...but they don't ever have to be accountable for their opinions and the line of thinking that produced them because they bully anyone who might ask them a reasonably thoughtful question. The ideas are not the problem...the rage and bullying and divisiveness and antagonism is making Americans fearful and too angry to think and talk thoughtfully about anything.

[charlesrfd2003]

The neo-conservative wing of American politics is searching for something to blame. Right now they are a circle firing squad. Some of them have are truly afraid of Obama and they should be. Not only does he represent just the opposite of many things, he is very capable. Rush Limbaugh called Obama's presidency "the first Saul Alinsky White House." This is one time I hope Rush is right.

Rush also blames the Democrats (?) and the drive by media (radio, television and newspapers) for nominating John McCain, who he described as a loser.

It is fun to watch the right wing media seek to blame everyone except themselves for their loss. You cannot fool all the people all the time. There was no conspiracy by the media.

[Badbone]

Slate magazine, a day before the election, admitted that every single writer on their staff, except for one person, was voting for Obama. They also admitted that better than 70% of their stories portrayed Obama in a "good light".

They were honest enough to admit their bias. Is anyone else?

[noamjunior]

if one candidate runs an effective , truthful camapiagn based on providing realistic, specific solutions to problems,
and another runs an ineffective, decietful campaign based on fear by association
shouldn't the media favor the truthful, practicle campaign?
or should they just call them equal?

[Badbone]

It's not the media's job to "call" it anything. Reportage is neutral. Or at least it should be.

[Seattle34]

But why, for example, did the NYT run a 6th article on Cindy McCain's drug use on the front page weeks before the election while running NO articles on Obama's own admitted drug use?

Why not track down the dealers Obama wrote about in his books and talk to them? Why not try to find Obama's critical college buddies and see what he was like in college? They did that with George Bush.

The media did not try, at all, to find anything bad about Obama. They also did not try to find anything bad about the war in 2001. When the media stops looking for bad things to report on, bad things can happen.

[pikebishop]

Didn't Washingpost Post endorse Barack Obama? That seems to be a little bit of a lean towards him...

[georgiaR]

Nearly 2/3's of thoses respondents who detected bias in the media (64%) said the media leans left, while 28% said they see a conservative bias

Source: www.zogby.com/news/readnews.dbm?ID=1262

[research]

So they have been fooled by the Republican Noise Machine.

Compare Air America to these so called Left media

and get back to us.

[EasyCheese]

Air America was farther left...but it failed...nobody wanted to listen to that...

That doesnt mean that the media can't be biased to the left...just not as far left

[BassMonk]

Bet you more than 2/3 couldn't tell you what liberal or conservative mean.

[Seattle34]

And as we saw on Howard Stern, most Obama voters believed his choice of Sarah Palin was a good choice.

Please, let's not debate which side is smarter. The left would lose.

[noamjunior]

esablishing fact by poll now are we?

[Snowball]

That's only because people are regurgitating the big lie that the Corporate (not Liberal) Media have spoon fed them for years.

[Beachrunner]

Have you heard the latest? The NYT is changing its name to "Pravda."

[noamjunior]

no, I have heard the "latest" lame joke from 1982

[noamjunior]

Do cons also think the sports page is biased in favor of the Phillies over the Pirates becasue of all the positive stories on the Phillies this Fall compared to the Pirates?