Reality vs. myth on media coverage of McCain, Clinton and Obama
May 31st, 2008 at 08:03am Pat Cunningham
David Broder can still nail it on occasion, as he does HERE.
POSTSCRIPT: Take note, please, of the paragraph in which Broder says that authors of the study to which he refers “don’t have figures for April and May, but they strongly suspect that the Jeremiah Wright flap and other issues have continued to erode Obama’s ratings, while McCain has continued to gain.”
Hmmm. That doesn’t fit the distorted narrative advanced by some of the regular commenters here at Applesauce.
Entry Filed under: John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
5 Comments Add your own
1. Menlo Bob | May 31st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
2-1 positive to negative coverage of Democrats. The press demonstrates how useless they are at vetting candidates. Only now do we learn about OBOMB-A and his network of flaky friends.
2. Millard Fillmore | May 31st, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Well Pat,
Was going to leave it alone but since you seem to want to keep at this, I can’t help but take the bait.
My previous comments really had little to do with a comparative analysis. Thus, as a result, this study supports - rather than debunks - my “distorted narrative.” The first line of the Obama section says it all: “Overall, the coverage of Obama has been far more positive than not. During the height of the primary season, January 1 through March 9, 2008, fully 69% of the prominent personal narratives studied about Obama carried a positive message.” It was during this period that he became the “inevitable” nominee.
This has been a rather fascinating day in politics, so I am sure your interests have moved to other events, so I will just quickly note that it is is interesting …
… That you do not highlight in your commentary the great disparities between Democratic positive coverage and Republican positive coverage: (69% Obama, 67% Clinton, 43% McCain) and;
…. and that you still have not given your take on the “Straight Talk Express” over the top coverage from ‘00. Can we at least agree that McCain would NOT be the nominee today without that fawning coverage?
3. Millard Fillmore | June 1st, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Pat, you are awfully quiet about these numbers: Obama 69%, Clinton 67%…..McCain 43% Should I be surprised?
4. Pat Cunningham | June 2nd, 2008 at 8:11 am
Millie: My point all along is that the media HAVE NOT given Obama a pass, as evidenced by all the coverage of Rev. Wright, flag pins, Bill Ayers, etc. If you don’t see that, you’re blind. For example, you seem not to have noticed the paragraph cited in my postscript above, which states that this latest study of media coverage DOES NOT include the past two months, during which the media went bananas over the Rev. Wright. Oh, well. I’m tired of arguing this point.
5. Millard Fillmore | June 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
If you are talking about in comparison to Hillary’s coverage - all right, I grant you your point.
However, you seem to be blind to the fact that the negative coverage you cite came well after he became the ‘inevitable’ nominee.
And to the fact that the media has been 2:1 positive, Dems over Republicans.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed