Watching network morning show anchors interview the Democratic presidential candidates often makes you wonder if you’ve seen tougher interviews on overnight acne-care infomercials. Their questions are often so simple and promotional that you wish they’d just go ahead and wear their "Hillary!" or "Obama ‘08" buttons on the set.
There is no pretense of political balance. They are actively rooting for a Democratic victory next year, and they have the power to make a real difference. Notwithstanding their overall loss of audience in the last decade, ABC, CBS, and NBC morning shows draw nine times the audience of their cable-news competitors and are geared toward the mostly apolitical mainstream, which makes them an important free-media showcase for presidential hopefuls. A new study shows that if this year’s campaign coverage on the TV morning shows were a primary election, the Democrats would win in a landslide of attention and hyperbole.
Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center assessed all morning-show coverage on the Big Three from January 1 through July 31.
In those 517 campaign segments, the networks offered nearly twice as many segments to Democrats as Republicans, a margin of 284 to 152. (Another 66 stories focused on both parties.) When the sample is narrowed down just to interviews with the candidates or their spouses and staffers, the morning shows gave out nearly three times as much free air time to Democrats (4 hours, 35 minutes) than they gave to Republicans (1 hour and 44 minutes).
ABC’s "Good Morning America" was the worst, with 119 segments on the Democrats to just 51 for the Republicans. And try this for impartiality, ABC-style: the network offered sprawling, positive "town hall" segments to only two presidential candidates so far this year: 38 minutes for John Edwards and 26 minutes for Hillary Clinton.
Hillary’s ABC town meeting was especially scripted, a platform so supportive that a former member of her 1993 health-care nationalization task force just happened to take the microphone to read to her a long softball question about whether she would boldly try, try again to blaze a trail to rescue the uninsured. Anchor Robin Roberts allowed Clinton to carry on (and on) uninterrupted for almost 18 of her 26 minutes with "the people." During some of these long soliloquies, the former First Lady urged viewers to look up her campaign web site. ABC somehow failed to put a toll-free 800 number for Hillary’s campaign on screen to develop the full infomercial effect.
All three Democratic frontrunners received more individual attention than any of the top Republican candidates, with Hillary unsurprisingly receiving the most coverage of anyone, at 61 adoring minutes. The leading Republican was former liberal media darling John McCain, who attracted 31 minutes of coverage, much of it assessing how his campaign was falling apart.
Even Al Gore, a man the morning anchors love so much that CBS’s Harry Smith begged him to put on a Gore for President button, drew 29 minutes on the morning shows this year, giving this unannounced candidate more attention than any announced GOP contender except for McCain.
Rudy Giuliani drew only 26 minutes, and Mitt Romney attracted even less, 19 minutes. Worse still, the Republican segments highlighted problems and controversies, like Romney’s Mormonism and Giuliani’s messy, fractious private life.
By comparison, the babble about Democrats was, and continues to be, embarrassingly giddy. Take ABC’s Claire Shipman describing Hillary and Barack as both "white hot," a diversity-enhanced clash of the titans. Hillary was an "unparalleled star," with a "hot factor" boosted by "her ever-popular husband." But wait, Obama, "with his fairy-tale family, has personal charisma to spare!" Someone needed to urge Shipman to come down off her puffy cloud of hype.
Then there’s the labeling – or better put, the utter lack of it. Not once did network reporters describe Hillary Clinton or John Edwards as a "liberal." ABC’s Jake Tapper once dared to associate the word "liberal" with Barack Obama, but CBS and NBC never did. In an eye-rolling contrast, the three networks did apply the liberal label 12 times to....Rudy Giuliani, who certainly deserves it on the social issues, as did the unanimously pro-abortion, pro-gay Democrats. Except these are the networks, and love means never having to say you’re liberal.
The network morning shows are often attacked for being lighter than air, for ignoring substantive public issues in favor of human-interest stories, celebrity gossip, and food and fashion tips. This study of campaign coverage shows that even in the realm of "hard news," the networks have a problem being equally airy and unchallenging for their audience when "white hot" Democrats grace the set.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
A new study buy the MRC
August 29, 2007 - 14:28 ET by balboaA new study buy the MRC shows the exact kind of results you're looking for...
...shocking.
oh bal - you still
August 29, 2007 - 14:40 ET by TruthMongeroh bal - you still deny?!?!?!?
how about a bribe then...?
I'm much more apt to
August 29, 2007 - 14:46 ET by balboaI'm much more apt to believe it coming from a group that doesn't have a political slant/purpose to it.
Ok, fair comment, so who
August 29, 2007 - 14:50 ET by dscottOk, fair comment, so who do you propose to do this study, the DNC, Moveon.org, Media Matters??
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
Im Sure the MRC study is accurate
August 29, 2007 - 14:58 ET by deerjerkydaveNetwork news covers the Democrats 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 over Republicans. It's hard to fudge these kinds of numbers.
Congress making zero Progress...hard to ignore those #'s
August 29, 2007 - 16:07 ET by JayTeePetraeus is gonna whip butt and take names in Two weeks...one more word from Shillary and Malaki is gonna b..ch slap her and send her husband 92 Virgins..... just to piss her off.
Wait a minute "B..ch slap Hillary", I'm being redundant, Lets just go with Slap....
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Here's an idea: an
August 29, 2007 - 15:02 ET by balboaHere's an idea: an organization with no vested interest in the results. Let's have Switzerland do it.
Lets have Switzerland do it.
August 29, 2007 - 15:08 ET by MightyMouthBad choice bal
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Lol. I trust the Swiss.
August 29, 2007 - 15:10 ET by balboaLol. I trust the Swiss. They make good cocoa, they yodel, and they gave us Heidi (that was Switzerland, wasn't it?).
"I trust the Swiss"
August 29, 2007 - 15:21 ET by MightyMouthCan you really trust a nation who's Army's most effective weapon is a pocket knife? :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Yikes MM
August 29, 2007 - 19:22 ET by SportPoliticsI think you may have convinced balboa since to him that swiss army knife is an illegal weapon and noone should own such a killing device, let alone the USA pushing it and making it famous the world over. So yes, he trusts the Swiss but not the evil American worldwide global corporate communication and sales influence.
It's ok if it's hot cocoa, though, decaf and sugar free or organic.
A Swiss Army Knife
August 30, 2007 - 11:00 ET by Cape Conservativeis now listed in the "Dangerous Book for Boys" as an essential. (Great book for young boys, by the way!) Remember when all boys had jackknives, considered a very special Christmas present, and were so proud of them...showed them off to their friends, even at school??? And how many stabbings were there back then???? NONE!
But by all means, let's blame the knives and guns for today's horrors! Liberals cannot accept PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY as a way of life...must blame society or some inanimate object!!
Really? Switzerland's
August 29, 2007 - 16:37 ET by Del DolemonteReally? Switzerland's history has some aspects that should give eny good "progressive" pause to reconsider.
Despite their perceived neutrality, the Swiss gave Hitler what could be called "protection money" during WW 2. They extended credit to the Third Reich, and also gave them economic concessions.
Women weren't allowed to vote in Switzerland until 1959, with some parts of the country holding out until less than 20 years ago. And they didn't even become a full member of the United Nations until 5 years ago.
And for our liberal gun-grabber friends, they would be shocked to find that Swiss citizens are armed to the teeth.
The womens "right to vote"
August 29, 2007 - 16:41 ET by MightyMouthThe womens "right to vote" thing is pretty understandable... look where it's gotten US :-O
*MM ducking for cover*
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
It's a joke. I'm not
August 29, 2007 - 16:41 ET by balboaIt's a joke. I'm not actually asking Switzerland to start doing studies of our media.
It is a joke balboa,
August 29, 2007 - 19:24 ET by SportPoliticsbut not for that reason. It's a joke because it's your smart aleck method of ducking out from under the question.
I guess the conservatives here needed help understanding your humor. Gee thanks so much for helping us get it.
Swiss Care
August 29, 2007 - 15:43 ET by JDWAgreed.
The Swiss live under a government controlled system. All residents are required to participate and it has been compared to Hillary Care.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Yes, but they are a small
August 29, 2007 - 15:49 ET by dscottYes, but they are a small country that is organized like clockwork.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
Organized
August 29, 2007 - 16:18 ET by JDWThe libs are not?
Imagine the war room which creates talking points and emails them for tonight's and tomorrow's news media.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
You mean like the SEJ is
August 30, 2007 - 08:54 ET by dscottYou mean like the SEJ is for AGW propaganda? Might be a plausable conspiracy theory, Soros has lots of money...
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
The hits
August 30, 2007 - 09:17 ET by JDWHow often does one find similar/the same story, adverb... in one days news media and/or evening talk news flush?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
...
August 29, 2007 - 15:10 ET by mattmExcept when it comes to the MSM which has "political slant/purpose to it."
Everything with a grain of
August 29, 2007 - 15:11 ET by balboaEverything with a grain of salt. But a study from MRC? Salt lick is more like it.
...
August 29, 2007 - 15:24 ET by mattmAs if the MSM doesn't have a political slant/purpose!
No doubt this slant/purpose warrants skepticism, but it doesn't make the claims false. The veracity of the claims stand or falls on the facts - so, unless you can debunk the claims on a factual basis, then your slant/purpose argument is meaningless.
Don't really have that kind
August 29, 2007 - 16:03 ET by balboaDon't really have that kind of time.
...
August 29, 2007 - 16:32 ET by mattmWell, "consider the source" is a great time saver, and it does work much of the time...
...but not always, and it only works if there's a clear track record error behind it...which the MRC does not have...
balboa
August 29, 2007 - 15:51 ET by well99You dont address the issue you address the source.Ok take away the study do you believe that these shows are trying to give both sides equal or close to the same amount of time?Do you think that they are pushing their own agenda or not?
I have no idea, really, but
August 29, 2007 - 16:08 ET by balboaI have no idea, really, but I'm not going to take MRC's word for what's going on.
Really
August 29, 2007 - 17:34 ET by well99So you dont watch any morning shows?You havent checked out the videos posted here or other websites?Take MRC out of the picture.You have no sense of the morning shows on the networks pushing one party over the other?
Sadly, I have no time for
August 29, 2007 - 19:05 ET by balboaSadly, I have no time for morning shows. If I'm around in the morning, I'm watching SportsCenter.
wel99
August 29, 2007 - 19:30 ET by SportPoliticsGlory in the uncommon idiocy of the smart aleck lib. It's quite amazing. A clear denouncement of his political enemy where he hangs out endlessly, and then the final admission of his complete ignorance in the matter, and utter self-righteous adornment over it.
It's just amazing. The glaring stupidity of it is a wonder to behold. The self-revelation of utter incompetence in the matter is beyond pale and reaches for the effervescent height of weightless opinion.
" I am a completely moronic blank slate, but I know you're lying ".
Weeeeeeeeeee!!!
August 29, 2007 - 19:41 ET by balboaWeeeeeeeeeee!!!
I agree SportPolitics
August 29, 2007 - 23:06 ET by well99I dont mind someone with a different opinion than me.That is fine.I will just take it that he comes to a board where politics is discussed and he has no clue what is going one.As many videos on this site and others where you actually see how the media pushes a agenda.It is there for your viewing so you can form your own idea.If you disagree express your opinion but dont try feeding me a line.Balboa may honestly have no idea of the media's intent.I dont believe it but oh well.
I see the videos here, I
August 29, 2007 - 23:13 ET by balboaI see the videos here, I read the articles. But I don't know what else is presented on the shows.
And where is McCain -
August 29, 2007 - 14:41 ET by dscottAnd where is McCain - Feingold when you need it????? IMO, Free positive air time has a dollar value, and that should be counted as a campaign contribution. I believe their $2,500 limit per candidate has already been used up. Who's minding the store here, who's supposed to be enforcing the Law?????
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives, is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
Thanks Brent
August 29, 2007 - 14:54 ET by deerjerkydaveThanks Brent for highlighiting this information. As I've stated before, in the eyes of big media, the Republican party is just getting in the way of their utopian one party state. So the Republicans are now getting third party treatment. I boycott network news these days they have so little credibility with me. I don't trust them one bit.
I look forward to the day when their viewership drops so low that they have to cancel their news programs. I'm sure that they would rather go to their graves with no viewers, clutching their liberal ideology than become fair and balanced and attract conservative viewers.
You are absolutelt right.
August 29, 2007 - 15:41 ET by superconSo is Brent.Network news might as well just get it over with and put on the campaign buttons and wear them openly.They need to come out of the closet.Look at how Dan Rather threw away his career just to take down George Bush.Look at how CNN gave two Kerry campaigners the Crossfire show and they pounded Bush with it everyday until the election was over.It was just an infomercial for Kerry 2004.I've said before that the agenda driven news isn't just a bias driven flare up but is now the standard by which all network news is produced.
They have no intention of trying to be neutral anymore.To them the stakes are too great and they can't let the WhiteHouse slip away from them again.
Democrats captured the Congress and the Senate with the non-stop media negative media blitz that the MSM laid on the Republicans.Wouldn't you agree that maccaca amd Mark Foley filled your T.V.every night if you watch the networks.The Culture of Corruption wasn't a slogan as much as it was a media campaign.
Don't expect Brian Williams and Katie Couric to lament over media bias as they attend Hillary's nomination ceremony.They are on board and in the bag.
The sooner Republicans realize that the better.To be honest they suck at public relations and if they think that being right or fairness should matter the closest that they will get to the White House will be the sidewalk on Pennsylvania Ave.They need to have their own media quick reactionary force to immediately counter any negative press.Whining about media bias will get you no where.
I'm sorry but those are the new rules now and fairness has nothing to do with it.
Victory in Iraq.
Newt for President.
supercon...maybe you're
August 29, 2007 - 19:59 ET by Jersupercon...maybe you're referring to some other Crossfire on some other network, but the one on CNN was hosted by Kerry supporters, Begala and Carville, and Bush supporters, Carlson and Novak. There was equal opportunity 'bashing'. Fair and balanced.
Jer
Socialism and retreat
August 29, 2007 - 15:12 ET by JDWWhat else is on the lib agenda?
white hot
Where would Obama be today if he were white?
personal charisma to spare
The states are moving up their primaries. I am not aware of a candidate campaigning without their spouse by their side. In sen Clinton's case it's Bubba who supplies the allure, what are the chances he will be there for some nine months?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Unless
August 29, 2007 - 19:37 ET by BlondeUnless Hil's preggers, none.
She'd flame out so badly without Bill....and I've just never twigged to the allure.
Flame city, soon, I hope.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Bill Clinton, come on down!
August 29, 2007 - 23:16 ET by nkviking75Bill made a few campaign stops with Hillary in Iowa this summer, one dangerously close to where I live. Notice that didn't last long. Maybe it's because some women in Clear Lake mistook Bubba for Bob Barker.
My nephew goes to school in Clear Lake. I hope none of those women will be teaching him.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Liberal Media
August 29, 2007 - 17:55 ET by mbs6I think the success of talk radio, the Internet, and Fox News has caused the Old Media to become more shrill in its leftist positions. Whereas before they merely had to control the content that most Americans received, they now feel that they have to go even harder left to counterbalance the inroads conservatives have made in sources of content. What's funny is that they try to do this while maintaining the delusion they are not biased! To a certain extent they are handcuffed by their own no-bias ruse!