Shocker: Media Is Kind To Obama/Hillary, Unkind To McCain

You’re stunned, I’m sure.

If campaigns for president are in part a battle for control of the master narrative about character, Democrat Barack Obama has not enjoyed a better ride in the press than rival Hillary Clinton, according to a new study of primary coverage by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University.
From January 1, just before the Iowa caucuses, through March 9, following the Texas and Ohio contests, the height of the primary season, the dominant personal narratives in the media about Obama and Clinton were almost identical in tone, and were both twice as positive as negative, according to the study, which examined the coverage of the candidates’ character, history, leadership and appeal—apart from the electoral results and the tactics of their campaigns. …
On the Republican side, John McCain, the candidate who quickly clinched his party’s nomination, has had a harder time controlling his message in the press. Fully 57% of the narratives studied about him were critical in nature, though a look back through 2007 reveals the storyline about the Republican nominee has steadily improved with time.

I like how the spin here from Pew, who did the study, is that McCain had trouble “controlling his message in the press.” The problem isn’t that McCain and his people weren’t deft enough to handle the media (an idea alarming enough in its own right) but rather that the press doesn’t like McCain.
Because he’s a Republican, and ostensibly a “conservative” on some issues. They do, however, like Hillary and Obama. Because while the two may have differences, they’re both liberals in good standing and thus good people as far as the press corps is concerned.

Tags: , , ,


«
»
  • http://Array leciaramelle

    I might be cynical, but I wonder why this study is being published now. I can almost believe that the coverage of Clinton and Obama – until 9 March – was equally positive, but after that date it gradually worsened for Clinton. And saying that the qualification of Obama as “young and inexperienced” is just as negative as the qualification “bitch”, “liar”, “delusional”, and “divisive monster”, “she-devil”, as I have read in your newspaper and in the Washingtonpost – supposedly democratic papers – (I can only imagine what the more conservative papers have written about Hillary) seems to me another attempt to belittle Hillary, to downplay the overwhelming role of media in the defeat of Hillary during this campaign. One should also remember that on the scales there should also be all the advertisements posted by the Obama campaign (who is outspending Hillary by 5 to 1), so that even assuming that the ‘media’ were neutral (which is not the case), Obama has in his favour all the brainwashing done through the ads posted by his campaign. And judging by the number of pundits who blindily support him and do the job for him, and not only for him, but also for the republicans, in carrying out a “character assassination” of his rival in the party nomination, one can only conclude that commercial advertising and ‘spin’ can always beat facts and common sense.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development