Left-leaning Journalism Group Admits McCain Gets Worse Media Treatment

Photo of Matthew Sheffield.

Over the course of this presidential campaign, we've released a number of studies showing how the Democratic presidential candidates have received softer coverage compared to Republicans, it's refreshing to see however, when a left-leaning journalism foundation admits the truth as the Project for Excellence in Journalism did in a comprehensive study released today:

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.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

The trajectory of the coverage, however, began to turn against Obama, and did so well before questions surfaced about his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Shortly after Clinton criticized the media for being soft on Obama during a debate, the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical—and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself. What’s more, an additional analysis of more general campaign topics suggests the Obama narrative became even more negative later in March, April and May.

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.

Hat tip to Ed Morrissey whose point below is right on the money:

Glenn Greenwald crowed yesterday that Scott McClellan’s book somehow disproved the existence of liberal-media bias. He spoke a day too soon. In this case, the media doesn’t have the fig leaf of claiming that the bias comes from the natural role of the media to challenge the government. All three candidates are members of the same body, the Senate, which now runs under Democratic control, not Republican. That excuse for prior studies by Pew showing the same negative bias about Republicans can now be discarded entirely.

—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Now that is bad, Matt. When

Now that is bad, Matt. When even the liberals see the bias, its got to be real bad. Liberals are not blind, they just need real thick glasses.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

These polls are interesting

These polls are interesting but not definitive.  They do not (or can not) factor in the "negativeness" or "positiveness" of actual events.  And who decided what constitutes 'negative' for the poll?

Is a story about Obama's 57 states gaffe a negative story, or is it simply a fact?  Also, is emphasis of coverage positive or negative?  And how about what comparative coverage says about the media?

The media should be concerned with accuracy and thoroughness.  If this was their concern, fairness, objectivity and even-handedness would be the norm.  But their own poll demonstrates that their concern is with promoting a particular ideology.

left/liberal press not worthy of America

Countless solidiers have bled and died for a free press, among other freedoms Americans enjoy. The goal of those who wrote the Bill of Rights was a free press that told the truth. The left/liberal press, and they know who they are, are not worthy of America because of the pack of lies they tell every day.

This study is still bogus - Murdoch has endorsed Obama

not out right but he pretty much says he'll win in a landslide and is wonderful and Bush sucks and so does McCain. Here is the article

Murdoch loves Obama

That's the kind of Extreme right wing bias we get. Our supposedly bias network was founded by a guy who loves a radically left wing Obama. The best we can even hope for is fair and balanced Fox who has left wing ownership.

This study shows that they were trying their hardest to show that the media was fair and yet this was the very best they could do.

There is no way in hell that the coverage of Obama and Hillary is equally favorable. I can see how the methodology lead them to their conclusions because they focused on narratives and yes the press give them both favorable narratives and they give a much less favorable one for McCain.

I don't think there is any way that this adequately shows the difference in how the candidates are treated. The strength of the negatives is ignored and also tone and other things. For example, there was that study that showed if a news anchor smiled more when mentioning a candidates name people were much more likely to have a favorable opinion of that candidate. This study didn't account for the hero worship glassy eyed way the press has treated Obama let alone how often they smiled

It also appears that they didn't take into account the debates and I'm sure it missed a lot of other things because of the way they did it.

One thing I do agree with is that they do pick up and follow narratives. That's what they did to Bush. The Dems screamed and yelled and called him a liar (he wasn't) said he attacked their patriotism (he didn't) said he would listen to opposing views (he did) and lots of other things that were not true and yet the press portrayed him exactly the way the Dems set the narratives.