Address the facts on the coverage, you asshole.
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/obama/obama.asp
Methodology. For each story, analysts noted the topics discussed (i.e.,
Obama’s background; positions on policy issues; or his position in the
campaign "horse race"), and any soundbites discussing Obama and whether
those soundbites conveyed a clearly positive or negative evaluation of
Obama. The analysts were also instructed to record the overall "spin" of
the story, based on the cumulative information provided in the report
and any editorial evaluations made by the reporter or anchor.
Ideally, every straight news report would have a "neutral" spin, with
journalists matter-of-factly narrating the key events from the campaign
trail and the rival candidates getting roughly equal time to get their
points across. But as journalists succumb to the urge to not just report
the news but also interpret and analyze it, their commentary frequently
imputes a positive or negative spin to the news.
Journalists can provide such direction through their own use of language
— on January 6, for example, ABC’s Jake Tapper spoke positively of how
Obama "seems to have captured the imagination of independent voters,"
while on March 7 his colleague David Wright struck the opposite tone,
telling viewers that day that "Obama was struggling to recalibrate his
message." (Emphasis added.) Alternatively, the reporter can include the
opinions of a designated expert or man on the street to contribute an
editorial judgment, as CBS reporter Dean Reynolds did in a January 8
piece quoting a New Hampshire voter gushing about Obama: "He’s been able
to really bring out the whole young voter core, and really kind of get
people excited about getting involved in it."
Analysts reviewing these stories were instructed to look at all of these
factors, and then only assign a story a "positive" or "negative" score
if the content tilted in one direction by at least a two-to-one margin.
Thus, a score of "positive" was recorded if the total pro-Obama content
(support for his policy proposals; positive portrayals of his background
and past public service; enthusiastic reaction from the public; and
campaign successes such as endorsements and primary victories)
outweighed any anti-Obama content (criticism of his policy proposals;
negative portrayals of his background and past service; sour reaction
from the public; and campaign setbacks) by at least a two-to-one margin.
If the negative material outweighed the positive by two-to-one, the item
was scored "negative." If the content was largely neutral, or the
positive and negative elements were in rough balance, the story was
scored as "mixed" or "neutral."
Spinning for Obama. Using these criteria, more than seven times as many
Obama stories (34%%) were classified as favoring the candidate, compared
to just five percent that reflected a negative spin. (See chart.) The
remaining three-fifths of the coverage (61%%) was categorized as mixed or
neutral — although, as one might expect, more than half of the neutral
items were those that only briefly mentioned Obama. Of stories that
focused most heavily on Obama, 42 percent conveyed a positive spin,
compared to seven percent that conveyed a negative spin. Of stories
merely mentioning Obama, 27 percent were positive and four percent
negative; more than a third of those brief anchor items (34%%) were
pro-Obama, with just six percent delivering bad news.
As the chart at the below shows, the ratio of positive to negative
stories is almost exactly the same for all three categories of stories —
between six and seven times more good press than bad press. What differs
is the percentage of neutral stories, with those stories that offered
the least discussion of Obama naturally incorporating the least spin.
Thus, the categories are interchangeable as far as measuring the degree
of pro- or anti-Obama tilt.
All three of the broadcast networks showered Obama with far more
positive than negative press. ABC’s World News was the least skewed,
although they produced nearly four times more pro-Obama stories than
negative pieces. (See chart.) The CBS Evening News tilted more than
seven-to-one in Obama’s direction, while Obama was treated to more than
ten times as many positive than negative stories on the NBC Nightly
News. The significant differences in each network’s coverage indicate
that Obama’s good press was not merely the consequence of events (i.e.,
gaining endorsements or winning primaries), but also the journalistic
interpretation of these events. ABC’s reporters covered the same news
events as NBC’s journalists, but produced significantly fewer stories
that were promotional of Obama — and more critical stories — than their
competition.
The numbers, however, tell only part of the story. A review of the
coverage shows the broadcast networks aided Obama with positive
publicity at crucial moments of his campaign — especially in its
earliest phases — even as TV reporters took a decidedly non-adversarial
approach to many of the personal controversies that might have
threatened Obama’s viability. As tight as the 2008 Democratic primaries
turned out to be, the media’s celebratory approach to Obama gave him an
invaluable advantage as he competed for his party’s presidential nomination.
