Despite what right-wingers say, the media are giving Obama a pretty hard time of late

Your typical wingnut who thinks Rush Limbaugh is a font of wisdom is never going to give up the notion that the mainstream media are in Barack Obama’s hip pocket.

Not even THIS EVIDENCE to the contrary will convince such a person:

[A] study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism finds that, in the past five months…Obama has received the most unremittingly negative press of any of the presidential candidates by a wide margin, with negative assessments outweighing positive ones by four to one.

Pew found that just 9 percent of the president’s coverage was positive, while 34 percent was negative — a stark contrast to the 32 percent positive coverage and 20 percent negative that it found Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the most covered Republican, received.

“His coverage has been substantially more negative in every one of the last 23 weeks of the last five months — even the week that Bin Laden was killed,” Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said of the president’s treatment in the media compared with that of the GOP field.



  1. You may want to restate your opening sentence? “Mainstream media”? I hardly think so:

    “The Pew study analyzed daily coverage in more than 11,500 news outlets – including news websites and transcripts of radio and television broadcasts, at both the local and national levels – as well as hundreds of thousands of blogs.”

    11,500 new outlets? Hundreds of thousands of blogs? The results of such a study could not possibly indicate how the “mainstream media” (i.e. the ones that actually reach a substantial audience) treat the president. Beyond that, the study used a computer algorithm to determine positive vs. negative press.

    This article does a great job of dissecting the study – I know you may dismiss it because of its source, but I would challenge you to find anything incorrect in its conclusions:


    There are a lot of things that can be argued in this forum, Pat, but to argue that the mainstream media is not now or has not always been in the tank for President Obama isn’t one of them. Frankly, you just sound silly when you do so.

  2. OK, Jaybo: Why don’t you show me a statistical study that proves the wingnut theory that Obama gets mostly favorable treatment from the mainstream media?

    If the methodology in the Pew study is faulty, so be it. But where’s the scientific study that upholds the opposite contention?

    Ah, but Newsbusters.org., to which you’ve linked, doesn’t go much for science, as evidenced by its frequent denialism of global warming and evolution.

  3. I wasn’t claiming there is a statistical study that proves the opposite contention – I was simply pointing out the HUGE flaws in the one you referenced.

    Let me ask you this, Pat. You call it a “wingnut theory” that Obama gets mostly favorable treatment from the mainstream media. Does that mean that you truly, in your heart-of-hearts, do not think that he gets mostly favorable treatment? That in fact, the majority of coverage of Obama is unfavorable? That there is no bias by omission in the refusal of the press to even cover certain stories or to significantly downplay others? From a press that self-identifies as liberal over conservative somewhere between 3-1 and 4-1? A press that couldn’t be bothered to adequately vet candidate Obama’s qualification for office? If so, then we should just agree to disagree.

    But, since you asked, it seems that at least candidate Obama was treated pretty well: http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_12_2_08.htm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *