Despite the fact that John McCain officially clinched the GOP nomination on Tuesday, the three network morning shows on Wednesday devoted almost a full hour of air time to covering the Democratic presidential race and barely nine minutes for the Republicans. Additionally, the Arizona senator did not appear on NBC's "Today" show, ABC's "Good Morning America" or the CBS "Early Show." Democratic Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, however, showed up on all three programs.
The network morning shows featured the Democratic presidential candidates for a grand total of 59 minutes and 12 seconds. McCain and his remaining rival, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, received a mere nine minutes and ten seconds of coverage. Now, obviously, the Democratic race is a close, hard fought contest. So, it's natural that it would receive more attention. However, McCain's very act of winning the nomination should be a well covered event, especially considering the candidate's remarkable rise from the political dead. The networks, apparently, saw it a different way.
In addition to lack of coverage, all three programs featured early stories on Clinton and Obama first and buried McCain coverage at the end of the 7am hour or later. "Good Morning America" didn't get to McCain until 7:30. The "Early Show" waited until the 8am hour to focus on the senator.
On "Good Morning America," while not interviewing McCain, co-host Diane Sawyer found time to pose particularly frivolous questions to Obama. She twice asked whether the senator would like to go back on "Saturday Night Live" and closed the segment by gushing, "On a personal note, because it is always a family campaign as well, what did Mrs. Obama say to you last night?"
All three morning shows had similar ratios of coverage, but "Today" was the most lopsided in favor of the Democrats. A breakdown of the totals follows: "Good Morning America" featured the Democrats for 16 minutes and 45 seconds and the Republicans for three minutes and one second. The "Early Show" offered 19 minutes and 40 seconds to Obama and Clinton and only three minutes and 36 seconds to GOP contenders. Finally, the "Today" show delivered 22 minutes and 47 to the Democrats and a scant two minutes and 33 seconds for McCain and Huckabee.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
IMO this isn't bias, but it will become an excuse.
March 5, 2008 - 14:13 ET by sarcasmoMcCain's win is a ho-hum predetermined event at this point. A Democrat catfight is MUCH more interesting stuff, and the fight probably won't be as damaging to the Democrats' eventual nominee as Texans influenced by Rush Limbaugh to vote for Hillary seem to believe. Republicans should hope for one or the other to win, instead, because a scripted Republican convention is guaranteed to be a snoozefest compared to a Democrat-fight convention, no matter what the outcome. The insidious part is that this will function as a good excuse for coverage-level bias, but maybe it's also "blowback" for our Texas Hillary voters. ;)
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
No Coverage Is Bad?
March 5, 2008 - 21:01 ET by zeestephenDo we actually want people to know that McCain is our nominee?
The only newsworthy event last night was that McCain finally scored over 50% in a state - Texas - that will probably vote Republican in the general election.
re:zeestephen
March 5, 2008 - 21:35 ET by PrairieSkyActually FYI, McCain reached the 50+ % mark of votes received back on Feb.5th, with New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.
I am quite sure with
March 5, 2008 - 14:20 ET by bigtimerI am quite sure with McCain's friendship with the msm if he had wanted to and made himself available he would of been on segment spots in the msm.
Really what is there to say about McCain's win? He sure didn't thank any conservatives in his speech.
As an aside though...here is what happens when a caucus happens with Hill...too funny, she never seems to pull it off when it is a caucus most times...makes one realize a lot about people voting of all varying degrees...and possible cheating to-boot.
savagepolitics.com
March 5, 2008 - 14:20 ET byit is ALL about electability now. Must read for those into American politics!!!! I found some brilliant/awesome analysis on Obama’s current happenings on the campaign trail. I haven’t seen anything like this mentioned anywhere in the MSM. Check out the article “Super Tuesday 2: Revenge of the Clintons” on http://savagepolitic..., “Follow the Money” on http://savagepolitic..., “Bush’s Twin and the G.O.P.” http://savagepolitic... and “Barack Obama’s Apotasy” http://savagepolitic... Check their “Political Analysis” and “Humor” sections for other striking perspectives and comedic analysis on both parties.
McCain is basically it for
March 5, 2008 - 14:24 ET by mattmMcCain is basically it for the GOP at this point.
Heh...
March 5, 2008 - 14:29 ET by sarcasmoI like the different interpretations that come to mind for "it," but I'm left wondering which one of them you mean?!?!! ;)
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
While I would normally...
March 5, 2008 - 16:35 ET by PrairieSkynot hesitate to point out the MSM's bias in political coverage, in this instance, I don't think that last night's lopsided coverage is such an example. Let's face it...The Democratic race is, at the moment, more interesting than the Republican race. Our nominee is in place, and we managed to do it in a mostly respectful, dignified manner. The ongoing soap opera and the likely inevitable bloodbath to come on the Democrat side is (are) more compelling to watch, and therefore have and will continue to receive more coverage.
Not Too Bad
March 5, 2008 - 16:15 ET by deerjerkydaveThe liberal media love to talk about the Democrats so here is a perfect chance for them to go on and on about the Democrats with a good excuse that it is the only contested race. The liberal media is demonstrably biased in the amount of coverage and the amount of positive coverage they give to the Democrats. The Pew research center last year found that the media was giving more attention to the Democrats by a ratio of 2 to 1. AND they were even giving Bill Clinton more coverage than any of the Republican candidates! This is why I don't watch mainstream news anymore, or what I call, DNC-TV.
You folks can speak for
March 5, 2008 - 16:53 ET by marvlYou folks can speak for yourselves, obviously. As for me, I am so overdosed on coverage of Obama and Clinton that I can scarcely contain the urge to puke everytime I turn on the TV or a computer. This is interesting? I say enough already.
As far as I'm concerned, this is bias that is so blatant that it can't really be grasped. The Fox News website, for instance, pissed me off with their coverage: huge pictures of Hillary, both arms outspread like some messiah. Crammed into the lower right in the small remaining space, a small picture of McCain, and not even showing all of him. Subtle message? Yeah, if a bull in a china shop is subtle.
I just hope the American people can see through this classic propaganda job when it comes time to vote. Anyone with a shred of common sense, a shred of a sense of duty, a shred of concern for America will vote Republican. Let Obama and Clinton pass into history recreating the roles of Wilbur and Carol Post, with Al Gore in the title role of a talking horse('s ass). It is an endeavor suited to their meager talents, and will cause no harm to America.
re:marvl
March 5, 2008 - 18:10 ET by PrairieSkyPoint made, however, please don't misunderstand what I think most of us meant by saying that the Democratic race is more "interesting". Although I do find some of the machinations going on in the Dem race to be interesting, I am as sick of all the blather about (and from) Clinton and Obama as you are. I believe that the assumption is that the Dem race is more interesting to the general public, who is tuned into the ongoings of the primary races at the moment. As far as the FoxNews website and its coverage involving the picture of Hillary Clinton is concerned, I think you might be reading more into it than was intended. From the standpoint of the media, Fox included, Clinton and her perceived "comeback" was the big story last night, and I think that the picture in question was representative of that. I don't think anyone can seriously believe that FoxNews has or ever will consciously do anything to promote Hillary Clinton.
I think the real point to
March 5, 2008 - 18:27 ET by marvlI think the real point to be made is that the media is unjustly influencing politics in this country. What happened to just reporting the facts? The media and news outlets are now in the influence peddling business and are driven by ratings.
The Founding Fathers would be taking up arms and heading out to TV studios across America. I just wish they were all still here.
re:marvl
March 5, 2008 - 19:11 ET by PrairieSkyOn this point, I agree with you 100%. Early on, when the media began it's wrong turn into biased reporting, it was somewhat subtle, and appeared to be mainly below the radar. As the years have gone by, it has become increasingly obvious and egregious. The MSM really went off the deep end when President Bush (43), was elected. Now, when it comes to reporting from the MSM, I don't take anything at face value. My antennae are always up and looking for the hidden agenda behind the story. It is really sad to see journalism in this country descend to the level that it has. It no longer performs a service to the people of America, by keeping us informed by, as you said, "...just reporting the facts". Unfortunately for our country, mainstream journalism has largely been corrupted by allowing itself to lose all objectivity in its reporting of the issues.