9
   

Coverage of McCain Much More Negative Than That of Obama

 
 
Woiyo9
 
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 05:59 am
By Howard Kurtz
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.

McCain has struggled during this period and slipped in the polls, which is one of the reasons for the more negative assessments by the 48 news outlets studied by the Washington-based group. But the imbalance is striking nonetheless.

Sarah Palin's coverage ricocheted from quite positive to very negative to more mixed, the study says. Overall, 39 percent of the Palin stories were negative, 28 percent were positive and 33 percent neutral. Only 5 percent of the coverage was about her personal life. But McCain's running mate remains a media magnet, drawing three times as much coverage as the Democrats' VP nominee, Joe Biden. He was "nearly the invisible man," the group says, and his coverage was far more negative than Palin's. That may be because Biden tends to make news primarily when he commits gaffes.

The project says McCain's coverage started out positive after the GOP convention but nosedived with his frequently changing reaction to the financial crisis. McCain's character attacks against Obama hurt the Democrat but yielded even more negative coverage for the senator from Arizona.

Obama's coverage since the conventions represents a fall to earth from the early primaries of 2008, when the project found that, horse-race stories aside, positive narratives about Obama were twice as frequent as negative ones, 69 percent to 31 percent.

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.

The most negative element of the Palin coverage involved scrutiny of her record as Alaska governor, with 64 percent of the stories carrying a negative tone and just 7 percent positive. The coverage of her interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson was a wash, but stories about her subsequent sitdown with CBS's Katie Couric were 57 percent negative and 14 percent positive.

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."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/22/study_coverage_of_mccain_much.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 9 • Views: 3,208 • Replies: 44
No top replies

 
Xenoche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 06:36 am
@Woiyo9,
And so the coverage should be negative, hes a puppet.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 07:02 am
The only question I have, "are the news stories truthful?"

I don't expect the same number of good stories as bad stories. I expect facts.

In case you didn't realize it, the number of negative stories about Lehman Brothers and AIG far outweigh the positive stories. But I don't see Kurtz complaining about that.
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 07:22 am
@parados,
Yet, it is the left who complains about the lack of a "so-called" Fairness Doctrine.

If the coverage were accurate (which in the case of Palin it has NOT been), I would take no issue. However, the bias to the left by the media is now apparent and documented.
cjhsa
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 07:37 am
@Woiyo9,
It's time to lock and load.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 07:42 am
@Woiyo9,
You don't seem to have a clue what the "fairness doctrine" is.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 07:43 am
@Woiyo9,
Quote:

If the coverage were accurate (which in the case of Palin it has NOT been)

What news coverage of Palin has not been accurate? Please provide your unfair coverage and a valid refuting source.
cjhsa
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 07:43 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

You don't seem to have a clue what the "fairness doctrine" is.


I think in your mind, it is that that huge bore Al Franken needs equal air time to popular right wing pundits such as Rush, who's actually entertaining.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 07:47 am
@cjhsa,
No, that isn't in my mind.

(Hint for the uninformed - Franken hasn't had a radio program for over a year although he has been on air when the debates for Senate have been broadcast.)
cjhsa
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 07:48 am
@parados,
Why do you think Franken and Air America is off the air?
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 07:56 am
@parados,
Many in the media feel she is unqualified to serve as a VP. We ALL know she has the experience to serve, yet , the media wants to distort those facts.

After seven weeks of the news media deriding Sarah Palin, Brian Williams and Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday night seemed to delight in emphasizing how, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll which led the NBC Nightly News, Palin is hurting McCain as Obama surges ahead. And Williams touted Colin Powell's Sunday endorsement of Barack Obama as “the shot heard 'round the world.” After reciting how the survey of registered voters put Obama up by ten points, 52 to 42 percent, Williams asserted: “Perhaps more dangerous for the GOP ticket, most of those polled do not believe Sarah Palin is qualified to be President, by a margin of 55 percent to 40 percent.”

However, take a look at the PDF of the full poll, which did not pose the same question about Obama, and you learn that despite the media's pounding the public perception of her qualifications has been remarkably consistent across three NBC/WSJ surveys (see question 29d) with more considering her unqualified than qualified not anything new: 40 percent called her “qualified” in the September 19-22 poll, 41 percent replied qualified in the poll conducted October 4-5 and she returned to 40 percent in this new survey. Meanwhile, “not qualified” grew only slightly, from 49 to 50 to the current 55 percent which Williams treated as big news.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/10/21/nbc-nightly-news-trumpets-slight-hike-view-palin-unqualified
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 07:58 am
@parados,
No, I understand fully.

It is you liberals who want to change the current operating environment to force those with broadcast licenses to operate the way YOU want them to.
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 09:16 am
@Woiyo9,
Oh those liberal devils. They are trying to ruin your life.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 09:28 am
of course coverage of McCain is more negative....he's another war monger with no good ideas about the economy and he picked that idiot as a running mate.... you're expecting positive coverage?

Perhaps you'd like a healthnews series about cancer and AIDS with a positive spin as well?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 09:33 am
Yes, I think a 3 to 1 advantage that the media is giving Obama is a huge understatement. I think when it is all analyzed at the end of this campaign 10 to 1 negative versus neutral/postive McCain/Palin coverage will probably be closer.

The so-called Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than Democrats trashing the First Amendment to shut down conservative talk radio. It won't touch the alphabet television networks, all that tilt left, or newspapers most of which also tilt far left in most major markets. It will be targeted only at talk radio which is the last and only bastion for conservative thought and the only consistent place that conservatives have any voice at all.

If re-implemented it will be the most viscious assault on the First Amendment ever perpetuated by any Congress.

And if Obama is elected, it's pretty certain that it will be a done deal.
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 09:41 am
@Foxfyre,
Bush, Mccain, Bush Mccain, Bush Mccain, Bush Mccain. There I just posted four negative posts about Mccain.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 09:51 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:
By Howard Kurtz

the Democrats' VP nominee, Joe Biden. ... <snip> ... his coverage was far more negative than Palin's.


This must stop immediately! the United States right-tilting MSM must be exposed! Is it too much to expect balance?



mmmm negative/positive. I'm more interested in how much of the coverage was truthful vs truthy.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 09:57 am
@Woiyo9,
Quote:
Many in the media feel she is unqualified to serve as a VP. We ALL know she has the experience to serve, yet , the media wants to distort those facts.


You meant to say, 'many in AMERICA feel she is unqualified to be VP.' That would have been more accurate.

It's also false for you to say, 'we ALL know she has the experience to serve.' Most disagree with you, per polling data.

McCain gets more negative media coverage, b/c he's a negative guy running a negative campaign. What do you expect to happen?

Cycloptichorn
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 10:53 am
Quote:
EXCLUSIVE: Newspaper Endorsements for President Since 1940 Show Wide GOP Edge
By Greg Mitchell, from Editor and Publisher

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003877229
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 10:55 am
@Cycloptichorn,
OK wise one.

What are the qualifications needed to run as a VP or President in your mind?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Coverage of McCain Much More Negative Than That of Obama
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/06/2021 at 08:46:45