The Media Research Center has just released a comprehensive study of the broadcast networks coverage of Barack Obama since he arrived on the national stage just four years ago. The bottom line: TV reporters adored Obama, and the celebratory coverage of the “rock star” candidate provided him with a huge advantage and almost certainly the margin of victory in the extremely close Democratic race. The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz has an item about our study posted here.
We looked at 1,365 network news stories from the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts through Clinton’s exit from the Democratic race in early June. Here are the key findings:
- The three broadcast networks treated Obama to nearly seven times more good press than bad — 462 positive stories (34% of the total), compared with only 70 stories (just 5%) that were critical.
- NBC Nightly News was the most lopsided, with 179 pro-Obama reports (37%), more than ten times the number of anti-Obama stories (17, or 3%). The CBS Evening News was nearly as skewed, with 156 stories spun in favor of Obama (38%), compared to a mere 21 anti-Obama reports (5%). ABC's World News was the least slanted, but still tilted roughly four-to-one in Obama's favor (127 stories to 32, or 27% to 7%).
- Barack Obama received his best press when it mattered most, as he debuted on the national scene. All of the networks lavished him with praise when he was keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and did not produce a single negative story about Obama (out of 81 total reports) prior to the start of his presidential campaign in early 2007.
- The networks downplayed or ignored major Obama gaffes and scandals. Obama's relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only two full reports (one each on ABC and NBC) and mentioned in just 15 other stories. CBS and NBC also initially downplayed controversial statements from Obama's longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, but heavily praised Obama's March 18 speech on race relations.
- While Obama's worst media coverage came during the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, even then the networks offered two positive stories for every one that carried a negative spin (21% to 9%). Obama's best press of the year came after he won the North Carolina primary on May 6 — after that, 43 percent of stories were favorable to Obama, compared to just one percent that were critical.
- The networks minimized Obama's liberal ideology, only referring to him as a "liberal" 14 times in four years. In contrast, reporters found twice as many occasions (29) to refer to Obama as either a "rock star," "rising star" or "superstar" during the same period.
- In covering the campaign, network reporters highlighted voters who offered favorable opinions about Obama. Of 147 average citizens who expressed an on-camera opinion about Obama, 114 (78%) were pro-Obama, compared to just 28 (19%) that had a negative view, with the remaining five offering a mixed opinion.
Perhaps if he had faced serious journalistic scrutiny instead of media cheerleading, Barack Obama might still have won his party's nomination. But the tremendously positive coverage that the networks bestowed upon his campaign was of incalculable value. The early celebrity coverage helped make Obama a nationally-known figure with a near-perfect media image. The protectiveness that reporters showed during the early primaries made it difficult for his rivals to effectively criticize him. And when it came to controversies such as the Wright affair, network reporters acted more as defenders than as journalists in an adversarial relationship. If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama, they surely made it a whole lot easier.
At the very least, Obama ought to at least thank the press corps next week when he gives his acceptance speech.
—Rich Noyes is Research Director at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
good stats but just curious
August 20, 2008 - 10:54 ET by Insane Chipmunkgood stats but just curious here...how were Clinton's numbers during that time period? I'm assuming less favorable, but wondering by how much
If this is the kind of crap
August 20, 2008 - 10:56 ET by marvlIf this is the kind of crap we can expect from a "free" press, then perhaps it shouldn't be so free. At the very least, they should be required to end every report with Dennis Miller's old line, "Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."
O'bot media
August 20, 2008 - 10:58 ET by Dagny TaggartIt's just as bad here in Canada, where it's all Obama, all the time. Even the Sun chain of newspapers, which was once right-leaning, has drunk the Kool-Aid, and all the reporting is glowing stories of the saviour Obama. McCain apparently doesn't even exist; there doesn't seem to be an election race of any kind happening at all, and there is zero reporting of Obama's gaffes or negative points.
Two examples:
The Toronto Star, Sat Aug 16, 2008, World & Comment section - page 1 & 2: The Making of a President, all about Obama.
The Toronto Sun has a regular column regarding the American election, written by one Lisa van Dusen. Unfortunately, her column is nothing but a hymn to St. O, the messiah, with occasional smears against John McCain , and verbatim spouting of DNC talking points masquerading as objective reporting.
The whitewash that's been applied is so thorough that not a single person I've spoken to here is aware of any controversy whatsoever.
Thank G-d for the blogosphere, otherwise I would have no access at all to more than one side of a story.
Yeh!
August 20, 2008 - 11:10 ET by cvgbuckeyeYeh! Fairness Doctrine huh! More like Pravda Doctrine.
I hope we all like the kind of government that is elected solely by the MSM, Hollywood, Atheists and Liberal Socialists. the old Soviet Union would be more preferable-----and I'm dead serious!
You are Right!
August 20, 2008 - 12:21 ET by JoelCTWow, you are correct. I checked the Lisa van Dusen columns out. Listen to this horrible person. She belongs on Air America!
"McCain, the candidate who coasted leisurely through June and early July like he was on an Elderhostel tour, is now running as though someone spiked his Ovaltine with crystal meth -- using drive-by attack ads, snarky put-downs and party favours to make Barack Obama's strengths seem ridiculous and his own weaknesses beside the point.
The point, according to the McCain campaign, is that nobody knows Obama and too many people are enamoured of him despite that fact for all the wrong reasons.
This is a line of attack that resonates with the same white, working-class voters who are suspicious of Obama's "otherness" based on his name, his skin colour and his exotic background, and who, the McCain campaign hopes, will now count "celebutante" as one more strike against him."
Now, that's what I call BIAS!
Her Cred
August 20, 2008 - 12:25 ET by JoelCTCheck out Lisa's credentials, especially the last line:
"Lisa Van Dusen has been a columnist on US politics and foreign affairs for more than a decade, first from Washington for the Ottawa Citizen beginning during the second term of the Clinton presidency and, since January 2008, for Sun Media covering the US presidential elections. From 1997 to 2000, she worked on the news desk at United Press International in Washington, then at Associated Press in New York, where she was nominally on the national desk but also edited international stories on the sly. She spent a year at ABC as international news writer for the late Peter Jennings before returning to Montreal in 2001 with her daughter, Grace. An Anglo-Quebecoise by background, she speaks French fluently and has studied Arabic and Hebrew. Van Dusen began her journalism career at 19 in Ottawa's Parliamentary Press Gallery and, at 21, was press assistant to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. She spent January, 2008, volunteering in South Carolina for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. "
Is it just me...
August 21, 2008 - 08:40 ET by Tom1969caIs it just me, or is that the sort of thing that should be disclosed somewhere in van Dusen's columns?
(As a former journalist, I'll tell you that the answer is an unequivocal "yes"; in fact, she should be pulled from covering US politics until the election is over, as this line in her resume puts her in a clear conflict-of-interest.)
==
Conservation doesn't get us more energy. It's as if we were running out of food and the Democrats were telling us: "Just eat a little less every day!"
--Anne Coulter
How so Tom?
August 21, 2008 - 08:46 ET by Cool ArrowT he rest of the MSM is volunteering off the record, but it's no big secret.
I ♣ my seal
Why aren't the press
August 20, 2008 - 11:04 ET by BenderWhy aren't the press required to register as campaign aides for Obama with the FEC? Surely, it is obvious to the most partisan reader that the press is in the tank for Obama. The press has stopped being the press and have become free advertising for his campagin.
On the Drudge Report today,
August 20, 2008 - 11:05 ET by jdhawkOn the Drudge Report today, there is story about bambi's (aka 57 states) brother. bambi really takes care of his own - being a millionaire and all. His brother is living in Kenya shanty!
Now, let's see how much this story is covered by the drive by media.
I am betting about as much as bambi's voting record on the infanticide bill or host of other issues that cast the candidate in an ugly light.
Shantygate is going to be
August 20, 2008 - 11:24 ET by SickofLibsShantygate is going to be great! Perfect timing, too.
I just googled shantygate and it didn't come up, so I claim ownership of it -
- Senator Sick O'Libs first to coin term 'shantygate'
jdhawk - that story is interesting
August 20, 2008 - 11:30 ET by Dee BunkIt claims he's a "long lost" half brother but in the very same article describes how Obama met him briefly 2006 when he visited Kenya. I guess he was "long lost" to the media only. Two years is is hardly "long lost" when you just intentionally don't keep in contact. His brother is in the same place as he was when Obama met him. What a joke.
Rush was talking about that
August 20, 2008 - 11:48 ET by motherbeltRush was talking about that today, and referenced Obama's supposed favorite Bible quote "Whatsoever you do to the least of My brothers, that you do unto Me."
Apparently that means everyong but the least of Obama's (half-) brothers.
Ahead of the curve
August 20, 2008 - 20:25 ET by ReaverAs usual Rush was way ahead of the curve on this. He's been saying for months that the biggest contributors to the Obama campaign would be the MSM. When he talks about layoffs and job cuts in the media he calls it cuts in the Obama campaign staff.
I read about his brother
August 20, 2008 - 12:11 ET by bigtimerI read about his brother this morning too....living in poverty...
Now lets see...if this was any republican candidate this would be breaking news, they would hound said candidate until he answered their questions about how could you possibly let your brother live in this squalor...blah blah blah...you wrote about him in your book and yet you seemed not to give a rats rear..blah blah blah...
but heck, he is a democrat, a messiah, he walks on water...he does no wrong...
Of course his brother may be hoping for change...from his bro.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
"The networks minimized
August 20, 2008 - 11:11 ET by SickofLibs"The networks minimized Obama's liberal ideology, only referring to him as a "liberal" 14 times in four years"
That is it in a nutshell. The Senate's #1 most liberal member. That's not minimizing, that's proactively hiding the real facts from the American people (at least those who are dumb enough to only rely on what the MSM feeds them). There is no other word for it other than conspiracy. (OK, maybe criminal).
Hopefully the citizens appear to awakening from their dizzying drunken stupor.
I agree SOL - how many times did they say "left wing extremist"
August 20, 2008 - 11:34 ET by Dee Bunkor "radical liberal"? I'm guessing zero. Obama's not just a liberal, he's a far left one.
Quod Erat
August 20, 2008 - 11:11 ET by motherbeltQuod Erat Demonstratum.
Not much else to say.
As aggravating and
August 20, 2008 - 11:42 ET by bigtimerAs aggravating and infuriating as the msm is with their constant lovefest for their messiah with their biased coverage...I hope they keep it up...it is helping to do the empty suit in....and seriously, the more Obama talks the less he is liked.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Yeoman's Work
August 20, 2008 - 11:49 ET by Captain KirockThe good folks at MRC are doing a great job pulling all this information together and deserve our thanks. How in the world they can handle watching the networks' nightly news casts is beyond me. I suppose patience is the key.
The Obama Myth, pure and
August 20, 2008 - 12:01 ET by wiwfThe Obama Myth, pure and simple.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Outstanding...
August 20, 2008 - 12:46 ET by unkeeafThis is just the type of information the general public needs to see to realize what a dispicable lot the MSM truly are. Those of us who frequent this site aren't surprised by these numbers, however, the average Joe who may think the media is "slightly" biased, might be shocked to learn the truth.
I'd love to see the Hillary and McCain comparison.
MSM = PR firm for the Democrat Party
Cheerleaders in the Media
August 20, 2008 - 12:55 ET by gordonThe thing is, if the media keeps feeding people ad nauseum about how simply fantastic the Obama is, eventually people get fed up with all the sugar. Its like eating a gallon of ice cream all in one sitting - it makes you sick. I suspect many will vote for McCain simply because they are constantly being told how great Obama is, and they are simply sick of it. Additionally, when people think someone is an angel and that person does something that shows the angel has feet of clay, people usually cast the person out. Its not rational, but it happens. Think Jerry Falwell.
This is fantastic work,
August 20, 2008 - 13:15 ET by motherbeltThis is fantastic work, Newsbuster staff! Thank you so much!
The problem is, you could shove this right under the noses of the heads of all the network news heads, and they would still deny bias! They would claim that he got more coverage because he's new, being the first serious black (notice how his white half has disappeared?) candidate is different....everything but the fact that they have all been enamored of him and have been pulling for him.
1st BLOGGER TO PREDICT OBAMA WILL LOSE WAS....
August 20, 2008 - 13:57 ET by reelman46UPSET SPECIAL: B. H. OBAMA WILL LOSE
Remember
where you heard it first..its July 21, 2008 and BHO is being hailed by
the lib-media and their fellow socialist pacifists like the coming of
the “political Jesus”. The pandering, the fawning, the stilted
covering, the backing and filling has broken biased records thought out
of sight.
But, alas, the voters are not quite at ease as the pundit herd thinks.
The same pundit herd that was so convinced Kerry was “in for 8 years”.
Terrorism, gas prices, higher taxes plus more lefty nuts on the SC have
many millions worried. BHO soars to new levels of arrogance weekly. BHO
takes flights of frightful foreign policy fancy (a la Jimmah C). The
second highest corporate tax rate in the world and BHO wants to hit
them again? The Bush tax cuts for half the wage earners taken back by
BHO?
Time is not on BHO’s side and neither are the debates. These will
reveal even more of this empty-suited rookie. McCain will fumble around
but still score big points on major concerns like terror, taxes, the
surge and energy. BHO has no real alternatives except the failed
expensive old liberal non-solutions.
The polls were the same in June as versus Kerry. In July the polls
indicated a tie. Democrats always peak early on because the simple
fantasy non-solutions by their Monday morning QB seem (key word seem)
just so do-able, so real, so possible….seem until the fog of emotion
slowly lifts. The live debates will bypass the biased media and that
will decay BHO support also. He will be challenged. He can’t kiss it
off or walk of the stage. Pacifist secular socialism will have to be
defended. Jimmah C scammed us all with it. Then he was crushed and his
party was crushed again four years later. How can growing gov-ment,
raising taxes on half of the voters and exploding the budget be easily
defended? Many voters are not in the mood for more fluff and smiling
deception. Class warfare, wealth envy, victim worship yada yada
recycled again.
BHO is not a debate guy, he is a pontificator, an arrogant smiling
radical lecturer who cannot stand up under serial questioning. BHO is a
certified coward who will not go on Fox News but only goes to the
fawning networks of like mind. What does this tell you? Listening to
kooks with money to get a nomination is not the same as telling ALL
voters you will do kooky things to their country, to their lives, to
their futures. As BHO is revealed to be the radical socialist he
is…many millions will get that “gut feeling” this guy is dangerous.
Horndog Klinton faced two weak inept mushy Repubs but still could not get 50% of the vote. What does that tell you?
I see the results as JM 48%-ish BHO 47%-ish and the rest 5%.
(Fall back position: Democrats in congress get creamed in 2010 with BHO
hammering your pocketbook and trashing your values then MR shames BHO
with a 45 state rout in 2012 due to a NG game plan as the
implementation of strident secular socialism once again horrifies a
country into sanity)
Posted on July 21st, 2008 by Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
~
August 20, 2008 - 14:09 ET by mandrake~
Nope. I did, May 8th.
August 20, 2008 - 20:57 ET by ELCoreFrom Early "Congratulations" to Mainstream Media: