http://news.yahoo.com/...
This may or may not come as a shock to those who believe that the news media's primary purpose in this country is something other than to sell Cialis or similar male erectile dysfunction remedies:
During the bruising Republican primaries, there was one candidate whose coverage was more relentlessly negative than the rest. In fact, he did not enjoy a single week where positive treatment by the media outweighed the negative.
His name is Barack Obama.
That is among the findings of a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a Washington nonprofit that examined 52 key newspaper, television, radio, and Web outlets.
In their zeal to churn up product geared to catch enough fickle viewers' eyeballs and please their advertisers, the media seized upon their darling during the primary season:
Overall, it was no contest. From Jan. 2 through April 15, Romney’s coverage was 39 percent positive, 32 percent negative, and 29 percent neutral, the researchers found. Obama’s coverage was 18 percent positive, 34 percent negative, and 34 percent neutral. That means Romney’s depiction by the media was more than twice as positive as the president’s. So much for liberal bias.
The
study, a synopsis of which is available at the optimistically titled site "Journalism.org," also tracks the media's gradual coalescing around Romney as the inevitable GOP candidate, showering him with positive reviews and coverage particularly after the Michigan primary:
One main component of that shift in the narrative is that after Michigan, the news media began to view Romney’s nomination as essentially inevitable. Indeed, a close look at the coverage finds that references to delegate math and the concept of electoral inevitability spiked in the media the week after Michigan, rising twelve fold, for instance, on television news programs. From that point on, the amount of attention in the press to Romney’s candidacy began to overwhelm that of his rivals, and the tone of coverage about him, which had been often mixed or negative before, became solidly positive.
The report also notes that this positive treatment was a voluntary choice by news media, who could as easily have treated it as something less flattering:
The narrow victory also could have been portrayed as a frighteningly close call. In the media narrative, however, it proved to be a decisive moment in his quest for the nomination.
As noted below in Cardinal's
comment, the methodology of the study and the nature of the primary process, with the Republican candidates constantly harping on the evils of Barack Obama, necessarily drives whether the coverage can be characterized as "positive," negative" or "neutral." So while it tells us a lot of how the President was actually covered (favorable vs unfavorable) it is
not necessarily indicative of bias.
The study is quite detailed and divided into segments reflecting the coverage afforded each GOP primary candidate, as well as President Obama. In the analysis of coverage pertaining to the President, the report notes that the vying GOP candidates' characterization of the Administration's positions on various issues drove the "negative" coverage.
Several factors drove Obama’s negative coverage in recent weeks. One of them was the continued rise in gas prices, which triggered criticism of the administration’s energy policy. Another was the uncertainty surrounding the health care legislation as the Supreme Court held hearings on the law in late March.
Still another element was the accidental open mic comment when Obama was overheard telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” in dealing with the Russian-U.S. relations “after my election.” That comment quickly became part of the campaign narrative with Romney characterizing it as “alarming” and “troubling.”
Other than tone, what distinguished Obama’s coverage most from his rivals’ was considerably more focus on the issues—not surprising given that he is the sitting president. Domestic and foreign policy matters accounted for 21% of his coverage compared with 8% for Romney, 7% for Santorum, 6% for Gingrich and 9% for Paul.
While it is not necessarily surprising that the news media would tend to focus on issues that actually matter to Americans in their coverage of a sitting President (who is, after all, actually responsible for handling those issues) the study also notes that Mr. Romney received a remarkably forgiving treatment on those same "critical" issues during the entire 15-weeks reviewed in the study:
For the full 15-week primary period, 74% of the coverage of Romney was focused on strategy, tactics, advertising and fundraising; 8% on his policy positions; 6% on his public record; and 6% on his personal background.
One of the weaknesses of this study is that it never really explains why the media makes the choice to focus on certain subjects as opposed to others. I suppose that would be an altogether different type of study.
David Axelrod was recently quoted as saying the voters do not yet know Mitt Romney and what he represents, particularly with regard to his economic policy which is essentially a reiteration of George W. Bush's two terms.
This study goes a long way in explaining why that is, and why the focus of the Obama campaign will now turn to:
ma[king] sure that voters learn about GOP plans to cut taxes for the rich, reduce regulations on Wall Street, and cut government programs for education and energy.
Those proposals echo those of George W. Bush, Axelrod said, calling them "backward looking and a repeat of what got us into this mess in the first place."
You can donate to President Obama's re-election campaign
here.