
Tired of seeing Hillary Clinton in virtually every political media report?
Well, that's not surprising, for according to a new Pew Research Center poll, the junior senator from New York was named by 42 percent of respondents as being the candidate "heard the MOST about in the news lately."
The next nearest was Barack Obama, who was named 22 percent of the time.
By contrast, the top Republican candidates - John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and the not yet announced Fred Thompson - were each only named by two percent of the respondents.
As reported in the poll summary (emphasis added, grateful h/t to unknown e-mailer):
Democratic candidates continue to have a clear advantage over Republican candidates in terms of visibility. When asked which candidates they have been hearing the most about in the news recently, 67% of the public named a Democrat while only 8% named a Republican. Even Republicans themselves name Democratic candidates more readily than GOP candidates by a better than two-to-one margin (54% name a Democratic candidate, 21% name a GOP candidate).
Hillary Clinton leads the pack as the candidate Americans have heard the most about in the news lately. More than four-in-ten (42%) name Clinton, while 22% name Barack Obama. Only 2% name John Edwards. The gap between Clinton and Obama has widened since last month when Clinton was named by 32% of the public and Obama by 20%.
Think this might be helping Clinton's campaign to be perceived as getting twice the amount of press coverage as her closest Democrat competitor?
Now, look at how much the public perceives Republican candidates are being covered:
The major Republican presidential candidates remain at the periphery: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson were each named by only 2% of the public.
Yet, the public's view is not totally supported by the facts, as the actual coverage has not been anywhere near as lopsided:
For the month of June, 43% of the campaign coverage on national news outlets focused on Democratic candidates, 34% focused on Republicans (another 9% focused on both parties).
As the summary explained, this could be due to Republican voters' current apathy regarding the campaign. After all, Election Day is still more than fifteen months away:
Not only are Republican candidates lagging behind in terms of visibility, GOP loyalists are less engaged in the campaign and more critical of campaign coverage. Throughout the year, Democrats have consistently paid closer attention than Republicans to campaign news. In addition, Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to believe the presidential campaign is being over-covered by the media. Four-in-ten Republicans say news organizations are giving too much coverage to the campaign. Only 19% of Democrats feel the same way. Among Democrats, a majority (56%) say news organizations are giving the right amount of coverage to the campaign, and one-in-five say they are giving it too little coverage. Independents are closer to Republicans in their views about campaign coverage - 37% say the campaign is receiving too much coverage, 21% say it's getting too little coverage, and 34% say the coverage has been about right.
Something the poll and the summary didn't address was the possibility that the public's perception of coverage has something to do with the reports' positive or negative view of the candidate in question. It is, after all, possible that the public perceives Democrats and Clinton getting more coverage because reports about them are more favorable than those dealing with GOP candidates.
This certainly bears watching as the elections draw closer.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Fairness Doctrine
July 30, 2007 - 12:17 ET by deerjerkydaveAnd they want to sick the fairness doctrine on talk radio?!! Give me a break! I bet Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are more fair and
balanced than these broadcast "journalists". Just by the mere fact that
they can devote much more time to subjects gives them the opportunity
tell the full truth about a story as opposed to managed informational
sound bytes from reporters.
It doesn't get more clear than this
July 30, 2007 - 12:16 ET by Dee BunkAnyone who looks at this and still thinks there is no media bias or a right wing media bias should see a psychiatrist for deprogramming. This is proof of perception, andt I'm sure if the MRC did one of their tabulations it would show the same thing in actuality.
One could also question
July 30, 2007 - 12:44 ET by dscottOne could also question where the most of the actual reporting occurs. Does Fox, CNN, MSNBC and the other alphabet networks equally show each of the candidates in number of times never mind the amount of time devoted or whether it was negative or positive spin? I think not. Does one news outlet show each of the candidates equally? Each network has it's core audience so we are not comparing apples to apples. Btw- let's say CBS shows a Rudy spot, was it during prime time or was it when most people were asleep or at work? There are easy ways to jigger the gross numbers and again who are we talking about? The MSM has a long sordid track record of obfuscation, so any claim that the viewers perception is out of sync with reality may not necessarily be correct. The MSM is all about perception and if people are perceiving Hillary getting the lion's share of coverage, then this may be close to the truth of the matter since maybe much of her air time is in prime time.
I think the McCain Feingold law should be enforced on the MSM, they are giving Hillary free air time, that time is worth big money in terms of contrabutions because Hillary didn't have to spend the money in advertising. This is no different than Air America giving 100% positive air time to Dem candidates and zero air time to Repubs, not even an offer. At least on the talk radio shows, if a Dem wants to talk they could but they had better be prepared for real questions not the soft ball pitches of the MSM. Do any of you think Rush or one of the other talk show hosts would miss an opportunity to interview a Dem candidate???? Not on your life! Do any of you think any Dem would dare to go on with Rush knowing that they would have to answer questions and be held to answer them? Not on your life!!! But once again we see the Law enforced selectively.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
I have a very large screen
July 30, 2007 - 17:45 ET by JDWI have a very large screen upon which the print size has been increased yet I still cannot see your post very well.
I am curious how the Iraq news media retreat will play out, for sen Clinton as well. The most interesting aspect about her is the fact that one can never take anything about her for granted, it's all calculated.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
This is just another clear
July 30, 2007 - 13:06 ET by BeowulfThis is just another clear example of the Liberal mentality of "ignore it and it will go away". It's analogous to a child hiding his head under the covers as protection from the monsters in the closet. I guess to Democrats the Republicans are monsters. Not that that is much of a surprise...
It's also another prime demonstration of their "tolerance" of disparate views... <sarc off>
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
The MSM hacks are still
July 30, 2007 - 13:26 ET by rustylynnThe MSM hacks are still encouraged by their perceived 2006 mid term success.
Greetings to all, first post here. I am honored to chime in with the intellectual giants that lurk around this place.
I feel I need to comment on a somewhat related subject last week. Did anyone else notice in the Boob-Tube debate last week that Anderson Cooper never let the big three, Hillary, B. Hussein Obama, or Edwards answer the questions that came from the middle or right. Sorry, but I don’t think that Kusinich’s or Richardson’s opinion on gay marriage or gun control will ever be relevant. Did CNN cover for Hillary and her ticket partner or what?