During his first 100 days as President, Barack Obama has pushed an audaciously liberal agenda which, if enacted, would have radical consequences for America for decades. With Democrats enjoying monopoly control of the House and Senate, the news media have a professional duty to scrutinize those policies, and give audiences both sides of the story — not just the perspective of a powerful Chief Executive.
Unfortunately, a Media Research Center analysis of ABC, CBS and NBC evening news coverage of President Obama’s first 100 days in office shows network reporters have failed as watchdogs. The networks have raised few doubts about Obama’s left-wing agenda and showered each of Obama’s major policy initiatives with positive press.
MRC analysts looked at all 982 broadcast evening news stories about Obama and his administration from Inauguration Day (January 20) through April 29. Key findings:
- Obama’s first 100 days were defined by massive spending, aggressive intervention in the private sector and proposals for a huge expansion of the federal government. Yet none of the networks aired a single story on whether Obama’s policies were pushing the U.S. toward socialism, and no reporter used the term “socialist” to describe Obama.
- Not only that, network reporters never used the word “liberal” to describe either Barack Obama or his agenda during the first 100 days.
- The networks lavished good press on every major initiative of the early Obama administration, including the massive stimulus package, all of the various bailouts, health care, stem cells, the environment and foreign policy.
- In the days before the President unveiled his unprecedented $3.5 trillion budget — with a record-shattering $1.75 trillion deficit — four out of five statements on the evening newscasts parroted the White House spin that Obama was a deficit fighter.
- Reporters treated Obama’s hugely expensive $787 billion stimulus bill to mainly positive coverage (58 percent positive, 42 percent negative).
- The networks applauded Obama’s decision to use taxpayer money to fund embryo-destroying stem cell research (82% positive coverage).
- Network coverage of Obama’s mortgage bailout was also positive — 59% of statements supported the bailout or wanted even more intervention, compared to 41% who opposed the bailout as unfair to responsible homeowners.
- Reporters heavily skewed their coverage in favor of the President’s actions on global warming (78% positive).
- President Obama’s decision to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan was greeted by nearly unanimous (91%) positive coverage — a far cry from the highly negative coverage of President Bush’s successful troop surge in Iraq two years ago.
- Like Obama and the Democrats, the networks went on a feeding frenzy against big corporate bonuses. The networks aired six times more statements forwarding the “infuriated” reaction to business (104) than criticized politicians’ grandstanding (16).
- The networks spent days decrying AIG’s $165 million bonuses, but hardly mentioned the $210 million in bonuses handed out by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the bailed-out mortgage giants with strong Democratic ties). ABC and NBC completely ignored the Fannie and Freddie bonuses, while the CBS Evening News gave it 27 seconds.
Such highly promotional coverage is not part of the normal “honeymoon” that exists between journalists and new Presidents. Rather, it seems to be a symptom of how few network reporters evidently see their professional role as operating on the public’s behalf as a check on whoever is in the White House.
The longstanding liberalism of network reporters made them aggressive adversaries of the Bush White House over the past eight years. The evidence from Barack Obama’s first 100 days is that that same liberal mindset has crippled reporters’ ability to be effective watchdogs on behalf of the public.
The once-fierce media watchdogs have become Barack Obama’s drooling, tail-wagging lapdogs.
Read the full report here.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
MRC study - compared to Bush's 1st 100 days
May 11, 2009 - 14:43 ET by Gary HallMRC study - compared to Bush's 1st 100 days?
Not only that, network reporters never used the word “liberal” to describe either Barack Obama or his agenda during the first 100 days.
It's a given, even amongst the left, that Obama is leading much more to the liberal side than did Bill Clinton. It's also a given, to the left, that Bush was leading more to the conservative side. Would be very interesting to find out how many times the network reporters used the word, " conservative," during Bush's 1st 100 days to describe (well, actually they would have been attacking) his agenda. I'm going to guess it was often. (:~> gary
Don't you know????
May 11, 2009 - 21:30 ET by motherbeltObama is a "centrist"....as are all his appointments, and all his policies!
Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one -Abraham Lincoln
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
Budget
May 11, 2009 - 14:50 ET by JDWWhat are we borrowing, 50%? Revolution?
JDW
DAILY WAVE
When people fear their government there is tyranny.
When government fears the people there is liberty.
Dire Prediction
May 11, 2009 - 16:38 ET by bradbenj5952If this continues, which I have no doubt it will, Obama will become America's Hugo Chavez. We will have a very difficult time unseating this guy and the socialist majority in the legislature.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
Fidel Obama
May 11, 2009 - 18:38 ET by pickerseniorI remember the media fawning over Fidel castro as the saviour of Cuba, Before they knew it, it was too late, and they realized he was a Marxist.
This Fidel Obama can do the same thing in a matter of a few more months with the fawning media we now have that is too dumb to read history. Seems that history always repeats itself.
"If liberals didn't live it, it doesn't exist!"
NewsBusters is out of a job.
May 11, 2009 - 16:45 ET by JWFIt is not bias any more. They are running cover for their man.
bias - b: an inclination of temperament or outlook ; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice c: an instance of such prejudice d (1): deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2): systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others (merriam webster)
We need to rename the site NewBattlers - Exposing and combating liberal media partisanship.
partisanship - 1: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person ; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance 2 a: a member of a body of detached light troops making forays and harassing an enemy b: a member of a guerrilla band operating within enemy lines (merriam-webster)
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
I have a better idea
May 11, 2009 - 17:50 ET by gopcongressSimply call Newsbusters and Fox News the Mainstream Media, while ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBC is referred to as the Fringe Media.
______________________
Moderate... Democrat... Liberal... Progressive... Socialist... Communist—The progression is clear as day.
No offense, NB Staff, but do we really need a study to tell us..
May 11, 2009 - 19:59 ET by R D Helm...that the MSM wankers are in the tank up to their eyebrows for Obama?
LOL-I can hardly pass by a TV without seeing that man on the screen.
I think its time for NewsBusters to change its name to HackBusters, or ShillBusters, or ObamagandaBusters, or whatever, because what we are getting from the MSM regarding Obama these days isn't news, but propaganda that would put a smile on the face of Joseph Goebbels.
-Dave
The statists aren't coming, they are already here.
Dave... A smile from ear to
May 11, 2009 - 20:13 ET by bigtimerDave...
A smile from ear to ear.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
bt,
May 11, 2009 - 21:13 ET by R D HelmThis Obama worship has gone far beyond merely pathetic, and is now swimming in the deep end of the pool of total insanity.
-Dave
The statists aren't coming, they are already here.
Dave, At times I am
May 11, 2009 - 21:19 ET by bigtimerDave,
At times I am beyond words, and what I really want to say I can't.
We are at such a crossroads in this county, I never thought I'd see what I am seeing take place....ever.
Break-neck speed is putting it mildly anymore....and things are happening that can't be undone before complete collapse.
Fear and heartbreak are two words I will leave this post with...I had such hopes.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Be nice if at least half of
May 12, 2009 - 04:47 ET by RR GOPBe nice if at least half of the 20 million Rush listeners show up for the next tea parties.
At the very least, Dems need to start losing their positions in 2010.
If one of the above two don't happen, this will merely continue far into the future.
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!?).
Boycott these propagandists
May 12, 2009 - 15:46 ET by OhioladNBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and PBS are nothing more than shills and propagandists for the socialists who now have the reins of power in Washington. Anyone who still believes in liberty and is against the fascist tyranny we are quickly falling into should boycott all the liberal MSM and every company connected to them, indefinitely.