Here’s how the so-called liberal media gave Barack Obama a “pass”
June 6th, 2008 at 09:57pm Pat Cunningham
A newly released independent STUDY of media coverage of the primary campaigns shows that the controversy over Barack Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, “was by far the dominant media story of the entire campaign.”
So much for the bogus theory that the media have been soft on Obama.
Over the first five weeks of the year, Hillary Clinton dominated news coverage in two of those weeks, John McCain in two others and Obama in only one.
The Illinois senator got lots of good coverage when he won 10 primaries and caucuses in a row, but that was soon replaced by the negative stuff on Rev. Wright and other matters.
Entry Filed under: Jeremiah Wright, media, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
22 Comments Add your own
1. dave b. | June 7th, 2008 at 8:49 am
As always part of the story. Just b/c it was covered, doesn’t mean it was covered the same way as it would have been if Clinton or Mccain were involved. It was sugar coated for the most part.
2. Menlo Bob | June 7th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Long befoe the Rev. Wright flap took place, anyone–as I did–could access the website for Obama’s church. It was very apparent that further scrutiny was called for because the issues brought forth by Rev. Wright were openly discussed.
Anyone could, but reporters wouldn’t. Reporters refused to look there until Brian Ross of ABC sent for some of their CDs. Apparently Sean Hannity has been discussing the issue for some time before that. Contrast this with the non-stop reporting on non-issues relating to Mitt Romney’s church.
So, yes, Obama’s church was a story that was printed in newspapers who seem disinterested in breaking stories and more interested in avoiding them.
3. Millard Fillmore | June 7th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Pat - I thought you were tired of arguing about this?
As this study points out, coverage of Obama didn’t turn sharply negative until early March — AFTER Sen. Obama had attained an aura of inevitability.
One of the narratives the evolved from this was the “Hillary Can’t Win and is Ruining the Party by Staying in the Race” narrative. You yourself argued this — but at the time this was being argued, the vast majority of superdelegates had not committed.
I will grant you this study is a partial rejoinder to my argument, but I stand by the essential thesis…what mattered in this race is what took place between January and March 1.
4. kaus | June 7th, 2008 at 9:28 am
You can blame some of the skewing of statistics on Rev. Wright himself. A lover of the limelight, he will refuse to fade away until this campaign is over.
5. Pat Cunningham | June 7th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Millie, you’re wrong. You write that Obama “had attained an aura of inevitability” by early March. The story to which I linked said that at that point “the media begins to anoint him as the front-runner, though not the inevitable nominee.” Repeat: NOT THE INEVITABLE NOMINEE. Yes, I said he was the inevitable nominee, but the mainstream media were still casting Hillary’s candidacy as viable. The fact remains, as this study shows, that negative coverage of the Rev. Wright angle “was by far the dominant media story of the entire campaign.” My only intention in emphasizing this point is to counter the utterly silly notion that the media have given Obama a pass, which flies in the face of reality. It’s like saying the sun rises in the West. In truth, the media have been more negative on Obama than Hillary or McCain.
6. Fred | June 7th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Well more of the same biased news from this guy. Obama lover all the way huh? Pat. You are so biased in your comments you should go to work for MSNBC and you and Chris Matthews could fight to see who is more Bias
7. Pat Cunningham | June 7th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Fred says: “(Y)ou and Chris Matthews could fight to see who is more Bias.” Hey, Fred, you and I should fight to see who is more Grammar.
8. Fred | June 7th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Your such a dick. I would love to fight you
9. Pat Cunningham | June 7th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Oooh! Fred’s getting macho. But he can’t properly spell “you’re.”
10. Millard Fillmore | June 7th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Pat, just for the record, I won’t be challening you because I think you are more Fight and would kick my arse.
I will stipulate that Barack Obama has not had rose petals at his feet for the entire duration of the campaign.
However, I stand by my thesis - and disagree with the study, WRT to the moment in which inevitability was conferred. I was reading the same things you were saying in many other outlets.
More importantly, your last statement (more negative on obama than hillary or mccain) is totally contradicted by the last media study you linked to - remember that one? It had Obama receiving 69% positive coverage, Clinton receiving 67% positive — and Sen. McCain 43%.
11. Pat Cunningham | June 7th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Millie: Two things: 1) As a senior citizen, I think my arse-kicking days — at least in the physical sense of that term — are long over. 2) The earlier study from which you’ve culled those numbers didn’t include anything from April or May. In other words, it didn’t include the massive tide of coverage of the Rev. Wright story — the dominant story of the ENTIRE campaign. But let me repeat my central thesis: All I’m saying is that it’s nonsense to contend that the media have given Obama a pass. It just isn’t true. Rather, they’ve given him a lot of trouble, justifiably or not.
12. Menlo Bob | June 7th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Two things are known; Sauce wins the punctuation contest, and Fred lands a series of blows resulting in a lengthy period of recovery. Let’s call it a draw.
13. hokumboy | June 7th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
It looks like it’s time for Fred to go.
14. Pat Cunningham | June 7th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
You’re right, Hoke. Fred’s latest comment contained a word that went too far, even by our lax standards here at Applesauce, so it was deleted. Fred’s welcome back, but he’ll have to behave himself. (Actually, “welcome” is too strong a word to apply to a guy who seems not to have anything intelligent to say anyway. Let’s just say he’ll be “tolerated” — up to a point.)
15. hokumboy | June 7th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Thanks,
Sure, I use that word often, although it’s really small potatoes in my vocabulary, but not on blogs. I just guess there should be some minimal standards of civility.
On another note:
I saw “The Band Visit” this afternoon. Quirky, but good. I don’t think it’ll get too many comments in Will’s blog. Nothing blew up.
16. Menlo Bob | June 7th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
For a site that tells its readers to expect salty language, you sure seem to be sodium intolerant. Or is that the famous lefty double standard?
17. Millard Fillmore | June 8th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Pat - I still give you odds. It’s your senior citizenship that scares me. And for the record, I see no double standard. There is salty language, and then there’s vulgar and profane. He used a horrible word — one of the worst in the language.
18. Mike Carroll | June 9th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Rasmussen poll on voters’ views of campaign media coverage
——————————————————————————–
Highlights:
“Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of election campaigns. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that four times as many—68%–believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win.”
“The skepticism about reporters cuts across income, racial, gender, and age barriers.”
“Voters have little doubt as to who is benefitting from the media coverage this year—Barack Obama. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Obama has gotten the best coverage so far. Twenty-two percent (22%) say McCain has received the most favorable coverage while 14% say that Hillary got the best treatment.”
Res ipsa loquitor
19. Pat Cunningham | June 9th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Mike: And polls show that most Americans accept creationism over evolution, which doesn’t change the facts of the matter. The Rasmussen Poll you cite is interesting, but it doesn’t stack up to the objective study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. There’s just no way that the avalanche of negative coverage of the Rev. Wright — the biggest story of the campaign season — represents bias in Obama’s favor, no matter the prevailing opinions of Americans in general. Let’s not forget that most Americans also cannot name the two senators who represent their state. Granted, I often cite polls as to which candidate is leading or which position on a certain issue is more widely favored, but I don’t vouch for the intelligence or awareness of the respondents.
20. Mike Carroll | June 9th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Pat-I would counter that the Rev. Wright story was the major story of the campaign season and deserved to be. The public has known, for better or worse, the Clintons and McCain throuhg their long public careers. Obama is/was an unknown and thus stories which revealed his background would trigger more coverage just from a fill in the blanks point of view. Negative sure, but thoroughly understandable.
I don’t think it stands as a counter to the liberal bias MSM theory (in my mind certainty).
Lets face it. We’ll never agree on this issue.
21. Millard Fillmore | June 9th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Pat, I too am prepared to call a truce. But, I would just add that bias is (often) a matter of perception. If the consumer (reader, viewer, etc.) sees it as biased…then it is.
22. Leatherneck | June 9th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
One story that was critical of Obama is far outweighed by the total lack of scrutiny on everything else. There is no balance here. I mean come on now, you don’t think that Obama had a cakewalk? You really are trying to stir up an argument.
The media totally overlooked the string of primaries toward the end where the “unstoppable” Obama had his arse handed to him. (Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and South Dakota)
The media has overlooked Obama being absent from his job as US Senator, (remember the job he pledged to serve out his full term?) and the media has overlooked a lack of credible evidence of any record as US Senator.
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