Your “liberal” media in action (part 486)
July 28th, 2008 at 09:46am Pat Cunningham
It’s an article of faith among conservatives that the mainstream media give more favorable coverage to Barack Obama than to John McCain.
It’s also not true, as THIS STUDY shows.
I think the reason conservatives tend to be mistaken on this score is that they recognize, perhaps only subconsciously, that photos and video of Obama are more visually appealing than those of McCain and that Obama is a better speaker.
Those factors might seem unreasonable and irrelevant in terms of the relative qualifications of the two men. But they also may help explain why Obama has survived an almost relentless onslaught of attacks over his background, his middle name, his religion, his acquaintances, his patriotism, his wife, his shifts on certain issues, etc., when candidates of lesser charms would long ago have fallen by the wayside.
If you doubt my theory, consider this story the late Sen. Paul Simon once told me:
Simon was speaking at a luncheon meeting of some club, maybe it was Rotary, and he asked for shows of hands by the people there on whom they voted for in the 1984 presidential race, Ronald Reagan or Walter Mondale. Nearly everyone in the audience had voted for Reagan.
Then he asked for a show of hands on whether those who voted for Reagan would have voted differently if Reagan and Mondale had completely switched their positions on the issues — with Mondale backing the conservative agenda and Reagan pushing the liberal agenda.
None of the Reagan backers in the audience would have changed their votes.
In other words, fairly or unfairly, personality and charm count.
Entry Filed under: Walter Mondale, media, John McCain, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama
9 Comments Add your own
1. Optimistic1 | July 28th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Pat - Are you saying the score for this election alone or are you pointing out historically that conservatives are mistaken on media bias?
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569
http://journalism.org/node/12013
Do you really expect us to believe that people don’t put their mouths where their political donations go? Equal time doesn’t say much to me if the time Sen Obama gets in the media is spent with reporters playing defense attorney for him and smoothing over those bumps in the road because of their bias for him. A story dismissing a negative allegation about Obama was counted as a negative story I imagine? When in all reailty, a biased reporter worked for free for him doing the same job Obama would have hired a political ad to do coming to his rescue on a topic he needed help on.
Sen Obama is certainly the more charming candidate, no argument here. I just get sick of the “We aren’t biased” argument the media feels the need to throw out there, if there isn’t a problem, why the defense? The media IS biased. They are human just like everyone else, and they tend to heavily lean left history shows us. Are you asking me to believe they are above showing this because of their advanced training in journalism from left leaning institutions of learning? Are you going to run an article on how “Fair and Balanced” College Professors are also? Good luck. Let’s just call a spade a spade shall we? Obama is a “Dreamboat”, your side is gushing, and I don’t blame them.
2. Kaus | July 28th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Any statistician will tell you that 20 years of analysis skews the numbers. Tell me what the 3 networks (sans FOX I see) have done in the last 12 months. And regarding bias against Republicans, you’ll be eating crow when they finally have to report on the Love Child….and I’m not talking about Diana Ross…..
3. Pat Cunningham | July 28th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Twenty years of analysis? What are you talking about? McCain and Obama have been candidates for president only in the current election cycle.
4. Millard Fillmore | July 28th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Pat: If you ask me, this study is pretty shaky. According to the LA Times story it’s based on people coding statements as “positive” or “negative.” I’d be interested in knowing what guidance the coders were given to distinguish between “positive” and “negative” — but more importantly, I’d be interested in knowing how much consideration they gave to context.
For instance, the article gives this as an example:
“When NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama “has problems” with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.”
OK. On it’s face…negative. Won’t argue with that.
But what if the pretext to the comment was based on polling data that clearly supports the point?
Wouldn’t that turn the statement from a “negative” opinion into a analysis based on reporting?
And…please. Stop with the “relentless onslaught” whine. The man is running for president. He might just have to answer a few difficult questions along the way.
5. Pat Cunningham | July 29th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Millard: Whether a negative story on Obama or McCain is justifiable is not the point. The study focused on negative vs. positive vs. neutral stories on the candidates. For example, a story on McCain or Obama flip-flopping might be fully supported by the facts and demonstrated by video clips. But it’s still negative. By the same token, a story that shows Obama drawing huge crowds or McCain gaining warm praise from somebody or other might also be fully supported by the facts, but it’s still positive. The study doesn’t necessarily concentrate on the legitimacy of the negativity or positivity of the media coverage. A network might choose to run only fully legitimate positive stories on either of the candidates, or fully legitimate negative stories. In either case, the network is accurate. Again, the study is not about accuracy. It’s about the percentages of positive and negative stories.Those percentages don’t necessarily reflect bias one way or the other. If one candidate embarrassingly screws up big-time day after day or gets involved in some huge scandal — while the other candidate skates along with no big gaffes or problems — there’s going to be an imbalance of negative and positive stories on the networks. That’s just the way it is. What this study demonstrates is that the media are not nearly as positive in their coverage of Obama as some people seem to think.
6. Millard Fillmore | July 29th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Pat - according to the article the study codes “statements” as positive or negative…not stories. My point is, coding individual statements without considering context really is nonsensical. And also, that there can be differing standards on “positive” and “negative” depending on who is doing the coding.
7. Pat Cunningham | July 29th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Millard: A certain amount of subjectivity is unavoidable in an exercise like this, just as it is in your own formulation of opinion on such matters.
8. Millard Fillmore | July 29th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Well that’s true, and subjectivity is often in the eye of the beholder. But here they are using a subjective assessment to make an objective point. Hardly the scientific point the survey writers claim to have made.
9. Scott | November 3rd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
quite possibly one of the dumbest articles ever posted…then again, it does explain how JFK, Clinton, and potentially Obama could get elected….ALL style and NO substance…saxophone, boxer shorts and CHOPE.
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