Shocker!!! Media Coverate of John McCain Much More Negative Than That of Barack Obama
The latest Duh! story:
Media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama, a new study says.
Fifty-seven percent of the print and broadcast stories about the Republican nominee were decidedly negative, the Project for Excellence in Journalism says in a report out today, while 14 percent were positive. The McCain campaign has repeatedly complained that the mainstream media are biased toward the senator from Illinois.
Obama’s coverage was more balanced during the six-week period from Sept. 8 through last Thursday, with 36 percent of the stories clearly positive, 35 percent neutral or mixed and 29 percent negative.
Gee, it’s not like it was hard to notice the negative coverage of John McCain. Or that the negative coverage of McCain came, oddly, at a time that McCain had pulled ahead of Obama in many national polls. One important number missing from this analysis is the number of stories about each candidate. My bet would be that McCain received far more stories–and far more negative stories–about his campaign than Obama has since the conventions.
The Wall Street meltdown appears to have been a turning point for both candidates. Thirty-four percent of the stories about Obama’s reaction to the crisis were positive, while 18 percent were negative. McCain’s coverage, though, went into a free fall after he initially declared that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.” By the following week, more than half the stories about McCain were negative and only 11 percent positive, just as Obama’s coverage was turning positive by a margin of more than 5 to 1.
But don’t worry. It’s not that there’s a bias or anything.
While some will seize on these findings as evidence that the media are pro-Obama, the study says they actually contain “a strong suggestion that winning in politics begets winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls.
Yeah, I’m sure there isn’t a “MSM perceiving Obama as a winner, so they give him more positive coverage” suggestion. Nah, that couldn’t be it.
UPDATE: This analysis of the study explains at least one thing I had wondered about.
McCain did succeed in erasing one advantage Obama enjoyed earlier in the campaign—the level of media exposure each candidate received. Since the end of August, the two rivals have been in a virtual dead heat in the amount of attention paid, and when vice presidential candidates are added to the mix the Republican ticket has the edge. This is a striking contrast to the pre-convention period, when Obama enjoyed nearly 50% more coverage.
GoldwaterGirl:
I love how they blame McCain for his negative coverage? Basically, “If you weren’t so nasty and racist, we wouldn’t have to give you such negative coverage”
22 October 2008, 11:40 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
It’s possible that that has something to do with McCain’s craven refusal to explain his ties to Al Qaeda.
23 October 2008, 3:34 amDana Pico:
The Cherokee in a time of Okies writes:
Perhaps it’s because some idiotic claims aren’t worth even acknowledging. Senator McCain has no ties to al Qaeda, as you well know. A few of them said that they want John McCain to win, because they figure that’s the best way for them to get votes for Barack Hussein Obama.
23 October 2008, 6:50 amDana Pico:
Maybe if we had papers like The Guardian, which make no pretenses to objectivity, the American people would understand things better.
Our freedom of the press means that anyone can write and publish anything, and that’s good. My biggest complaint is that so many news organizations try to claim that they are unbiased and objective, when they are not.
I mentioned before how The Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed Barack Obama, which I expected, but provided space for the dissenters to express their support for John McCain. On yesterday’s “Letters to the Editor” section were a whole bunch of people combitching about the decision to let the dissenters have a say, as though it was unconscionable that the Inquirer would be anything other than an Obama campaign outlet.
23 October 2008, 6:55 amYorkshire:
Like the Inspector in Casablanca who shocked gambling went on at Rick’s American Cafe, I am as shocked about this also.
23 October 2008, 7:37 amSharon:
It’s possible that that has something to do with McCain’s craven refusal to explain his ties to Al Qaeda.
Nah. There was no increase in Obama’s negatives when terrorists and the Iranian government supports him.
23 October 2008, 9:24 ammike g:
Why must the MSM be so negative and point out how McCain has consistently lagged behind in the polls? Why can’t they just agree with McCain when he says things like “the fundamentals of the economy are strong”?
Reporting on the fact that John McCain has run a ineffective campaign and has made some boneheaded remarks is not a liberal media conspiracy, folks.
23 October 2008, 9:26 amSharon:
Reporting on the fact that John McCain has run a ineffective campaign and has made some boneheaded remarks is not a liberal media conspiracy, folks.
True. But cutting off Joe Biden’s apocalyptic prediction about the first six months of a Barack Obama administration is.
23 October 2008, 9:54 ammike g:
Oh my, how could I ever disagree with the New York Post!
Do you watch cable news outside of FOX, Sharon? Joe Biden’s gaffe was all over MSNBC and CNN last night. The Situation Room had a segment on it as did Countdown and Rachel Maddow. I didn’t even know about the gaffe before I heard Blitzer mention it while I was cooking for our work Food Day. What you gobbled up and regurgitated was a meta-story about how NOBODY WAS REPORTING ON THE BIDEN GAFFE when in fact it was being talked about in unflattering terms on what I’m sure you would consider the mostest librul of all the MSM.
23 October 2008, 10:34 amSharon:
Umm, Mike? MSM covered it. But they cut off the quote so that it didn’t include the body of his speech.
23 October 2008, 10:55 amSharon:
BTW, mike, why don’t you try using an argument that doesn’t require a strawman. I didn’t say “nobody was covering” Biden’s gaffe.
23 October 2008, 10:56 ammike g:
I’m sorry, Sharon, but they played the clip and the general reaction could be summed up as “WTF?”
What form of coverage would have sufficed? Should it have been inflated to “Al Gore said he invented the Internet!!!” proportions? Apparently the press reaction was substantial enough to cause Obama to address Biden’s gaffe at a press conference.
23 October 2008, 11:12 ammike g:
I also forgot to mention that I heard the clip on The Bill Press Show (librul) this morning when I was driving to work and their reaction was the same as mine and everybody elses; confusion and bewilderment.
23 October 2008, 11:38 ammike g:
Conveniently left out of the article by Sharon:
While some will seize on these findings as evidence that the media are pro-Obama, the study says they actually contain “a strong suggestion that winning in politics begets winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls … Obama’s numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago, and McCain’s numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore.
So, basically, Sharon intentionally distorted the findings of the report to fit her own crack-pot assumptions. I’ll say it again; reporting on the fact that John McCain has run an ineffective campaign and has made some boneheaded remarks is not a liberal media conspiracy.
23 October 2008, 11:48 ammike g:
From the article:
While some will seize on these findings as evidence that the media are pro-Obama, the study says they actually contain “a strong suggestion that winning in politics begets winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls … Obama’s numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago, and McCain’s numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore.”
So, basically, Sharon distorted the findings of the study to fit her own crack-pot assumptions. I’d say that the above quote validates my point in comment #7.
23 October 2008, 11:53 amPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Senator McCain has no ties to al Qaeda, as you well know.
He’s their favoured candidate! There are obvious questions that must be asked, and McCain’s inability to answer them speaks volumes about his agenda.
John McCain - objectively pro-terrorist!
23 October 2008, 11:59 amArt Downs:
There are players and there are critics.
Many of the critics are mouse-potatoes who have never knocked on a door in a political campaign nor dared to work long hours in a political campaign or put their name on a ballot.
Those who have observed the process close up cannot deny the bias of media. One can even lie with a camera by selecting the camera angle that will assure the desired slant.
23 October 2008, 12:01 pmJeff:
Our freedom of the press means that anyone can write and publish anything, and that’s good. My biggest complaint is that so many news organizations try to claim that they are unbiased and objective, when they are not.
As a dedicated Economist reader, I agree. The problem is that most people expect the news to be objective, so they’ll just credulously accept whatever Fox News or MSNBC feeds them without asking questions. The reason I read The Economist is that I know the news therein comes from a center-right perspective, and so I can get a general idea of what facts they’re emphasizing and what facts they’re leaving out.
Phoe - Some guy on McCain’s staff has apparently met with dictators before. You know what that means - McCain is going to institute a police state and kill us all indiscriminately. EVERYBODY PANIC!
23 October 2008, 12:25 pmmike g:
I think that the public has a right to know the relationship between John McCain and his ties with Al Qaeda.
23 October 2008, 12:39 pmErnesto:
Please consider posting this video and passing it along, it’s amazing. It’s great at showing the distinction between MaCain and Obama in regards to the abortion issue. Please pass this along to everyone you know. We have to get McCain elected… E
http://americaschoicenow.com/
“Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.”
23 October 2008, 12:46 pmRonald Reagan
mike g:
I think the American public needs to know about McCain’s ties to the terrorist who orchestrated 9/11:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/mccain-transition-chief-a_n_134595.html
Ernesto> You should be ashamed of yourself. Troops are dying in Iraq defending your right to kill unborn babies and here you are belittling their cause by posting anti-Constitutional rhetoric all over the internets.
23 October 2008, 12:59 pmSharon:
Conveniently left out of the article by Sharon
Yeah, Mike. I was trying so hard to cover up what the article said that I not only linked to the whole thing, but I also blockquoted 3/4 of what you did. I left off the sentence comparing Obama’s numbers to Kerry and McCain’s to Algore because it doesn’t add anything to the earlier part of the paragraph.
There’s no distortion there, Mike. It’s not like chopping off Joe Biden’s quote so we don’t hear him tell us how liberals need to rally around Obama because his policies regarding the “testing” are going to frighten or anger the electorate.
I know it makes it easier for you to dismiss charges of bias to claim that this is all hyperbole, but it would work better if you actually read a post before complaining about it.
23 October 2008, 1:00 pmmike g:
It would help if you actually took the finding of the study seriously, Sharon, instead of starting with an assumption and then looking for evidence to support it.
23 October 2008, 1:26 pmmike g:
I fail to see how a sentence saying that similar trends have happened to both Republicans and Democrats has no bearing on your liberal media conspiracy theory.
23 October 2008, 1:56 pmmike g:
In fact, YOU are the one drawing the conclusions, not the study. As far as the quote; I heard it on left wing radio and I saw it on the so-called left wing cable channels. I suppose that doesn’t count because you have a link to Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, right? Bullshit. All of the whining in the world about liberal media bias isn’t going to change the fact that John McCain ran a shitty operation that, as the study points out, got negative coverage after he started campaigning negatively. Here’s a thought, why don’t you sore losers start rethinking your belief that a message built on WRIGHT/REZKO/ACORN/AYERS smears would deliver John McCain a win considering the exact opposite appears to be true.
23 October 2008, 2:40 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Here’s a thought, why don’t you sore losers start rethinking your belief that a message built on WRIGHT/REZKO/ACORN/AYERS smears would deliver John McCain a win considering the exact opposite appears to be true.
Number of Americans killed by Wright/Rezko/ACORN/Ayers = 0.
Number of Americans killed by John McCain’s political sponsor, Osama bin Laden, 3000+…
Why is John McCain pals with terrorists?
23 October 2008, 7:43 pmSharon:
I fail to see how a sentence saying that similar trends have happened to both Republicans and Democrats has no bearing on your liberal media conspiracy theory.
The sentence you are whining over compares 3 Democrats and 1 Republican, Mike. That hardly compares apples to apples.
More to the point, the entire block quote is cover for any perceived bias that recent coverage might support. Your argument that I, somehow, distorted the story by linking to the entire thing then quoting a passage that opposes my view point is, well, stupid.
Of course, the post was about the fact that if you think John McCain has gotten hammered by the MSM in the last six weeks, it’s because he has. This study supports that.
23 October 2008, 8:51 pmmike g:
Of course, the post was about the fact that if you think John McCain has gotten hammered by the MSM in the last six weeks, it’s because he has. This study supports that.
Your post suggested that the study lends credence to your liberal media conspiracy theories. That is false assumption. The study supports the fact that John McCain got hammered with negative coverage after he started running a negative campaign. That’s not a liberal media conspiracy, Sharon, that’s what one would naturally expect. Not for you, apparently, and like the typical idealogue you started with a conclusion and went looking for evidence to support it.
It’s not a liberal media conspiracy when:
-it is pointed out that John McCain has less money than Barack Obama
-it is pointed out that the fundamentals of the economy are not strong
-it is pointed out that John McCain is running a negative campaign
-it is pointed out that Sarah Palin falls over her words in unscripted interviews
You wanted McCain to go negative because you thought that it was the only avenue he could take to turn his sagging campaign around. It turns out that you were absolutely wrong. It’s time to start owning up to your mistakes.
24 October 2008, 9:12 amDana Pico:
So, if “John McCain got hammered with negative coverage after he started running a negative campaign,” we should see Barack Obama getting hammered with negative coverage, because he, too, is running a very negative campaign. I don’t know what the ads running in Iowa are like, but Mr Obama is running very negative ads in Pennsylvania.
24 October 2008, 9:32 amSharon:
Your post suggested that the study lends credence to your liberal media conspiracy theories. That is false assumption. The study supports the fact that John McCain got hammered with negative coverage after he started running a negative campaign.
This is wrong on a couple of points. First of all, I chose the title of this post because the obvious negative press McCain has received would only shock those who willfully believe that press coverage was equal. It has not been at all. Secondly, negative coverage of John McCain has been relentless since the end of the Republican primaries, as other studies I’ve posted about over the past several months indicate. In other words, it isn’t like the MSM just suddenly started writing more negative than positive stories about John McCain “because he went negative,” as you suggest. The coverage became negative to John McCain as he became the Republican nominee.
You choose to believe there’s no liberal media. You’ve stated this relentlessly, even when there has been evidence that journalists vote overwhelmingly Democrat in every election and when they have stated this publicly. It’s your choice to ignore the facts, but not your choice to argue that the rest of us must, as well.
As for what is a liberal media conspiracy (or, at the very least, willful media blindness) is:
–A distinct incuriosity regarding Barack Obama’s past associations and how those associations affect his political philosophy.
–A distinct incuriosity regarding Barack Obama’s missing transcripts, medical histories, and papers.
–Unwillingness to ask Obama tough questions (and follow up questions) regarding his policies, philosophies and influences.
–A willingness to accept as fact every Obama flip-flop of this election cycle, even when such have been clear.
–A willingness to overscrutinize Republicans but let every gaffe by Obama and Biden get the “one day” treatment.
–Focusing on McCain’s negative ads while either not covering Obama’s lies and smears (such as the infamous Spanish language Rush Limbaugh ad) or downplaying such advertising.
I wanted McCain to go negative because the press has not done its job during this election cycle regarding Barack Obama. They have been extremely reluctant to cover negative aspects of Obama’s past or present–including his connections to the Fannie/Freddie mess, his pork barrel politics, and more. That any person with Obama’s paper-thin resume would be elected president in the country is disgraceful. Obama is exemplary of the rampant marketing of a candidate and the terrible results of that. That the MSM have been complicit–because they want a black man to be president so desperately–shows how happy they are to shirk their watchdog role to get the results they want (this is called “advocacy journalism” these days, although major news organizations will deny they do this).
But don’t worry, Mike. If Obama is elected, the press will turn on him and roast his failed presidency on a spit. Oh, he’ll get about a year of fawning coverage, but as things get worse, they’ll do what they usually do. And then you’ll be slobbering to tell me that they aren’t so liberal after all.
24 October 2008, 10:26 amSharon:
Excellent post describing how the MSM has determinedly not covered Barack Obama the way they cover John McCain.
24 October 2008, 10:48 ammike g:
Sour grapes. You wanted 24/7 coverage of your Barack Obama conspiracy theories (which you got on FOX News so stop bitching) and you didn’t get it so now it’s the fault of the media that a black man is going to be president.
Obama has been campaigning for twenty months. During that time his background and policy positions have been gone over with a fine tooth comb time and time again. His policy positions have been laid out for all to see. We’ve had three debates, countless interviews and non-stop coverage. Because the press didn’t devote EVEN MORE time to Reverand Wright or Bill Ayers is not a liberal media conspiracy. You wanted it to go your way. You didn’t get your way. Now you’re looking to use that old canard “The Librul (Jew) Media” to explain away the fact that your own media darling candidate John McCain ran a poor campaign. You want each and every election to run like it has since 1996 and now that things aren’t going your way 100% you’re throwing a temper tantrum. Look in the mirror. You ran a dated campaign on a dated platform with a dated candidate against a far better organized opponent.
Dana> McCain ran a smear, guilt-by-association campaign that, obviously by looking at the polls, mainstream America thought was unsavory. The proof is in the pudding. Stop looking for other people to blame for your mistakes.
24 October 2008, 11:36 amSharon:
Dana, I had a comment thrown into moderation (it has a link in it) and I can’t get it right now. Could you do that, please?
Sour grapes. You wanted 24/7 coverage of your Barack Obama conspiracy theories (which you got on FOX News so stop bitching) and you didn’t get it so now it’s the fault of the media that a black man is going to be president.
ROFLMAO. No, Mike. First, Fox News has not run conspiracy theories regarding Barack Obama 24/7. Nobody on television has spent time asking the questions I’ve pointed out. And if Barack Obama becomes president, it won’t be just that the MSM didn’t do their job. It will be because so many Americans want to believe that it doesn’t matter what Obama has done or hasn’t done, nor that he has spent his adult life crafting a story that hides the questionable parts and highlights the positives. It will be because, like my son’s schoolteacher, a lot of people are in love with the idea of “making history,” not worrying about what that history will do to the country later.
During that time his background and policy positions have been gone over with a fine tooth comb time and time again.
If that were true, why doesn’t Obama release transcripts, etc.? The MSM hasn’t bothered with those inconvenient facts because they like the Obama story.
His policy positions have been laid out for all to see.
Which version?
We’ve had three debates, countless interviews and non-stop coverage.
You mean fawning coverage of Obama speaking to the world? Or the cover of People magazine? That coverage?
Because the press didn’t devote EVEN MORE time to Reverand Wright or Bill Ayers is not a liberal media conspiracy.
Really? So, you think if John McCain had attended a white supremacist church for 20 years (”11 a.m., every Sunday!”) that it wouldn’t have been hammered in every interview? Sarah Palin wasn’t a member of the AIP, yet we had nonstop questions about that.
You didn’t get your way. Now you’re looking to use that old canard “The Librul (Jew) Media” to explain away the fact that your own media darling candidate John McCain ran a poor campaign.
Why are you blaming Jewish people?
And, no, Mike, I don’t blame the MSM for McCain’s poor campaign decisions. In fact, I’ve documented many times my disappointment with the way the McCain campaign has gone. But McCain’s lousy campaign doesn’t explain the gooey, lovey attention Obama has been given, complete with the “don’t confuse us with the facts” coverups. Or not calling Obama on his lies (such as his abortion record).
You want each and every election to run like it has since 1996 and now that things aren’t going your way 100% you’re throwing a temper tantrum.
Well, I wasn’t real happy with the 1996 election, so I don’t quite know what that has to do with anything. And temper tantrum? Puh-lease. I know pointing out that Teh One has no clothes isn’t PC, but it’s not a temper tantrum.
24 October 2008, 12:15 pmmike g:
As an asside I’d like to point out that The Daily Shows first segment was devoted to the Biden quote that you say the media is trying to cover up.
Sharon, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. Where you see fawning coverage and a vast left wing conspiracy to cover up the many crimes of Obama I see relatively fair (though at times empty headed) journalism. You think that phantom transcripts are an admission of guilt. I don’t think that there is anything there. You think that Obama’s win can be blamed on white-guilt. I don’t think so and neither does your candidate.
I do disagree with your statement that you have expressed dismay with the way McCain has run his campaign because from what I can surmise your only problem with the guy was that he wasn’t running dirty enough for your liking. That or other pie-in-the-sky theories like he doesn’t want to win.
I feel that you ran a dated campaign on a dated platform with a dated candidate against a far better organized opponent. You don’t think so and there’s nothing I can say to change your mind.
24 October 2008, 12:31 pmmike g:
Dana, I had a comment thrown into moderation (it has a link in it) and I can’t get it right now. Could you do that, please?
I sure hope it’s a link to a study PROVING that the media is LIBERAL because reporters vote for Dems!
I know, I know, it’s not a conspiracy theory because you, Sharon, have accepted it as fact.
24 October 2008, 12:38 pmmike g:
>Why are you blaming Jewish people?
What am I blaming them for?
24 October 2008, 12:56 pmSharon:
As an asside I’d like to point out that The Daily Shows first segment was devoted to the Biden quote that you say the media is trying to cover up.
So, you think The Daily Show is comparable to nightly news broadcasts or newspapers now? I’m not arguing that viewers of The Daily Show aren’t considered informed, just as Rush Limbaugh’s listeners are. But I don’t put either into the category of news organizations.
And you are right about agreeing to disagree. I’ve been amazed at the lack of hard-hitting coverage Barack Obama has received by the MSM, not just compared to John McCain, but to Hillary Clinton and the other GOP candidates from the primaries. The coverage of this campaign shows that the excitement of “this moment” has been more important than casting a jaundiced eye at a skillful politician.
This isn’t saying Obama hasn’t run a very well done campaign. I’ve been fascinated by some of the places he has gone to advertise. But, as Aphrael once put it, Obama is the mirror and everyone sees what they want to see in him. His lack of executive experience (and his avoidance of hard votes) makes me highly skeptical that he will do well when forced to act. Perhaps that’s what Joe Biden was referring to.
Now, you like a lot of the ideas Obama and Democrats will want to enact. I don’t. And so there, we will simply disagree with what is best for the country. But that isn’t my argument. I would make those arguments had Hillary Clinton been your nominee.
As for John McCain, I endorsed McCain in January because I thought he was the best option the Republicans had. That’s not the same as saying I agreed with everything he stands for or that he would want to do. But you are right; I think McCain tried far too hard to be nice to Obama earlly on and wouldn’t call him out on the lies and exaggerations from his campaign or for the disasterous policies Obama endorses. But that’s a problem of approach; perhaps McCain was counseled that if he ripped into Obama, he would be seen as “too temperamental”. God knows, we’ve heard about his legendary temper enough.
But the race is not over and I still see McCain with a chance. But either way, I won’t be keying cars, ripping up signs, or bashing people with their signs because they don’t support my candidate. And if Obama is elected, he will be my president, too.
What am I blaming them for?
You called it “The Librul (Jew) Media.”
24 October 2008, 1:36 pmThomas Tallis:
Gonna save you some trouble here, friend. Every time you’re having these troubles, just copy and paste this:
Waaaahhh! Boo hoo! Liberal media!
Alternately, nominate candidates who won’t say stuff as staggeringly dumb as “the fundamentals of our economy our strong” in time of crisis and watch their coverage get more positive.
24 October 2008, 6:07 pmSharon:
Yes, because presidential candidates should talk down the economy so it will get worse. The faster the economy crashes, the more presidential the candidate looks!
24 October 2008, 7:28 pm