“President Obama is getting more coverage, and more positive coverage, from the media than his two predecessors,” FNC's Bret Baier related during Monday's “Grapevine” segment in summarizing the hardly-surprising findings from “a new study of his first 50 days in office” completed by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The analysis of the network evening newscasts, Baier recounted, “was judged 58 percent positive for President Obama. That compares to 33 percent for Mr. Bush and 44 percent for Mr. Clinton. NBC was most positive at 61 percent. CBS was 58 percent, ABC 57 percent.”
By comparison, CMPA's press release, “Study Finds President Fares Best in New York Times, Worst on Fox News,” reported that in relation to ABC, CBS and NBC, “he fared far better” in front page New York Times stories, “where nearly three out of four evaluative comments (73%) by sources and reporters were favorable. And he fared far worse on Fox News, where only one out of eight such comments (13%) were favorable.”
(Tim Graham's earlier NB post about Howard Kurtz's take on the numbers.)
The study, released on Monday, “examined all evaluations made by reporters and non-partisan sources, i.e., those not affiliated with either political party.”
The lead item in the April 27 “Grapevine” segment on FNC's Special Report with Bret Baier:
President Obama is getting more coverage, and more positive coverage, from the media than his two predecessors. A new study of his first 50 days in office reveals the network evening newscasts devoted 27 hours, 44 minutes of coverage to his presidency. George W. Bush received just under eight hours in his first 50 days. Bill Clinton: 15 hours. CBS had almost eleven hours. NBC was next with nine and a half. ABC had seven and a third. The study looked at the first half-hour of Special Report on Fox and we had 10 hours, 24 minutes.The coverage on the broadcast nets was judged 58 percent positive for President Obama. That compares to 33 percent for Mr. Bush and 44 percent for Mr. Clinton. NBC was most positive at 61 percent. CBS was 58 percent, ABC 57 percent, and Special Report was at 13 percent.
The study authors described this show — as Fox News Special Report — which “most closely resembles the broadcast network newscasts." The study did not look at CNN or MSNBC.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Obamania on Networks
April 28, 2009 - 05:39 ET by kiwikitNo wonder noone watches them anymore (or subscribes to the newspapers!) This certainly could be the definition of BORING! They never mention the interesting things like his inability to talk unaided by a teleprompter, his inability to distinguish between 'advise' and 'advice,' and his driving the country into the dumper with vastly over enthusiastic spending of OUR MONEY. I know what's going on because I ignore them all and get my news from Internet: DC Examiner, The Evening Bulletin, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, and Washington Times. The reporters working for these publications are journalists with investigating skills so they don't need to be told what to say by the msm's messiah! For truth, I turn to them, for fictional fawning noone is better than old media.
If you break down the
April 28, 2009 - 05:43 ET by ThisnThatIf you break down the numbers, I'll bet the coverage as a President is pretty much the same for Obama as for Bush.
The extra coverage can be placed under his other job categories: chief automaker; banking CEO; messiah.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
hum , predictable.
April 28, 2009 - 09:05 ET by CANCON1cancon1
The study authors described this show — as Fox News Special Report — which “most closely resembles the broadcast network newscasts." The study did not look at CNN or MSNBC.
Is just me or is this just very strange?
Other than that, this is just predictable.
Re No CNN
April 28, 2009 - 10:50 ET by slickwillie2001I noticed that as well. Is this an acknowledgement that Fox News's ratings are comparable to the old networks news show ratings, and CNN et al are not? Or would a number on CNN point out something that CNN wants to hide?
If you take Fox's Fair & Balanced out of the mix...
April 28, 2009 - 10:22 ET by AMR1960If you take Fox's Fair & Balanced out of the mix, how much more skewed do the numbers get?
___________________________
Long Live...THE REPUBLIC !
58 per cent is grossly
April 29, 2009 - 02:05 ET by RR GOP58 per cent is grossly underestimated.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).