It’s All About Obama
The Washington Post should be ashamed of its own reporting of the 2008 campaigns; it now admits that it covered Obama three times more than it covered McCain. That is a horrendous figure for a leading American newspaper, and one that should result in mass lay-offs.
One could argue that Obama got more attention because he deserved it; he was the one who got a real movement going, and whose success was historic in so far that a black man had never before secured the nomination of one of the major political parties in the United States.
Additionally, one could say, more happened around Obama; he traveled to Europe, controversies were often about him, not McCain and… he flip-flopped a bit more.
But that does not exhange the 3-1 coverage on the first page. This page is what gets peoples’ attention. It is the first page they see, and the first page they read. Interesting stories are then followed to other papers. By only giving attention to Obama, the WaPo and other newspapers give people the impression that only his candidacy matters.
To me it is a sign of activist journalism. Journalists who are not activists would try to balance the coverage. Those who are, however, do not care.
The WaPo’s own ombudsman concludes: “Numbers aren’t everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates.”
Indeed. Lets hope this changes now they know just how biased and pro-Obama their coverage was (she also admits that most coverage of Obama was positive).
I think you should have based your post on more of the coverage being positive than negative, as more coverage does NOT need to mean more positive coverage. See this very blog. I daresay you’ve written a LOT more posts with Obama as the centerpiece than McCain…. what proportion were positive, 5%? Hell Fox news probably covers Obama more, anyone want to bet this denotes pro-Obama bias? I understand complaining about bias, but mass layoffs because coverage was disproportionate? Seriously now, how about no non-local TV channel dedicating more than a minute a week to missing blonds, THAT would be a major improvement.
It’s true that pretty much everyone, liberal and conservative, is covering Obama far more than McCain, but it’s also true that this sometimes works out to McCain’s advantage. He has to seriously mess up for someone to notice.
Claudia,
It’s not necessarily an unbiased situation, though. I think if the regular networks did their job better, Fox would have nothing to respond to. When Fox commentators (and radio talk show hosts) push up negative stories on Obama, they’re responding to a situation in the other press, I think Fox is being reactive. Then when something gets big enough, the rest of the press has to follow.
And I could tell you the bias is about the journalists being liberal, but really I just think mainstream journalism–like any individual— has a lot of biases, and one of them is just an angle that unintentially is biased towards liberal issues. For a long time journalism has been about activism, so they press on touchy feely emotional issues. They focus on human issues, sweeping causes, etc. When a candidate is young and good at speeches they’re attracted to him. When the nature of the candidacy is historic, they pile more coverage on it.
Unfortunately, thats not what election coverage should be. It should above all other priorities be motivated by giving voters the information to make a choice, which not only means good time to both candidates, but good time to all candidates who have got their names on the ballot, regardless of their odds on winning.
Simply, because its not about the news story. The news story doesn’t happen until Nov 5. Polls today influence people’s votes more than they reflect them. Voters have to make a choice, not the press.
Their sycophantic coverage of Obama annoys the hell out of me, personally speaking. I’m having the impression that the "gun-loving" and "religion-obsessed" regular American may in fact be feeling like I do. Also the more Hollywood endorsement the candidate has, the more annoyed people tend to become. Our alleged racism and all the sickening identity politics of the Democratic party could be emphasized more clearly (sarcasm). AND Howard Dean should really speak out more, he is and has always been a gift to the "White", I mean the "Republican" Party.
redfish, I agree with pretty much everything you write, though I don’t believe Fox is mostly reactive. No, Fox is very much proactive, and is merely the media wing of the conservative movement. They are as neutral as Air America, though at least Air America openly recognizes that they have an agenda.
But other than that I agree that the REAL issue with media is not liberal or conservative, but lazy and "new-angle" seeking instead of "important" seeking. If they thought for a minute that hyper-homophobic drag queens would get them ratings, Brian Williams would be replaced the next day with Fred Phelps in a dress.
Bias in the Media? When did this happen? You can’t seriously think that OUR 4th estate in this great Republic would be biased. Shame on you.
Please this has been going on since day one with this presidential campaign. They all have their favorites, and will do their best to spin the news in their candiates favor. Do you recall the "Rapper praises Obama" title in the NY times?
The candidates are statistically tied right now. I’d be interested in seeing what happens if McCain pulls forward.
Then we shall see if the media really does cover the frontrunner more.
I think you should do a whole story on "Activist Journalism". It is Rampant and irresponsible. This is not to say there should not be commentary, That is what sites like this and "letters from the editor" are for. But it seems that biased commentary is wedged into each news story to try to sway the voters. Real unvernished news is not easy to come by.
Number of hits for "Obama" on Poligazette: 2,170
Number of hits for "McCain" on Poligazette: 1,780
Number of hits for "Obama" with no mention of McCain: 948
Number of hits for McCain with no mention of Obama: 525
Try coding by positive/negative references also, Elyas, before you accuse us of anything. Good methodology requires thoroughness and a resistance to " playing gotcha".
Jason, I didn’t make any accusations. I just posted some numbers. But surely you’re not suggesting a qualitative analysis would reveal objective coverage on this site? The point is, the election <i>is</i> all about Obama and he’s going to get more coverage, regardless if it’s positive or negative. Even on Poligazette.
Instead of a single columnist from a single newspaper, why not cite researchers at the Center for Media and Public Affairs who have been studying network news for decades? That would be a better source for the good methodology and thoroughness that you’re looking for. They recently concluded that, although Obama has been getting more coverage, McCain’s has generally been more positive.
McCain’s lucky he hasn’t been getting as much press. If the media jumped on his gaffes the way the jump on Obama’s, this election wouldn’t be close.
McCain’s lucky he hasn’t been getting as much press. If the media jumped on his gaffes the way the jump on Obama’s, this election wouldn’t be close.
Oh please. The gaffes of each candidate get plenty of coverage, although Obama supporters always use McCain’s mistakes as a way of introducing smears against his age, even though Obama’s are routinely chalked up as simple verbal slips due to campaign induced fatigue.
The point is, the election <i>is</i> all about Obama and he’s going to get more coverage, regardless if it’s positive or negative. Even on Poligazette.
I don’t disagree with you about blog coverage, but blogs don’t purport to be news agencies. Professional journalists have a responsibility to report on both candidates roughly equally, not to allow the hype of a historically significant candidate to justify a tremendous bias.
I think the bias is very real, but ironically I think it may end up hurting Obama anyway. Overexposure isn’t necessarily a good thing, and people constantly seeing and hearing about his campaign but STILL not feeling that they know his qualifications or positions is only feeding into the seeds of doubt that McCain’s campaign has sown.