Quill, a monthly magazine of the Society of Professional Journalists, carries an April cover story on media coverage of the 2008 election. The table of contents asked: "Was the media coverage of Barack Obama more favorable than Bush’s campaign in 2000?" Is this very difficult to determine? Writer Scott Leadingham explored the very tip of the iceberg of media coverage and declared "the answer is nearly impossible to determine, if there really is a correct answer at all." His comparison of Bush vs. Obama – for example, the difference in Time and Newsweek cover stories around their inaugurations – showed a stark contrast. But still, Leadingham dismissed the evidence:
In the end, it’s true that "the media" covered this election differently than that of 2000, or any other election for that matter. But it’s a safe bet that would be true if a woman or Muslim or gay person had won. The first of anything is an extraordinary achievement. More coverage doesn’t necessarily mean softer coverage. Flashier graphics and commemorative sections don’t equal sympathetic journalists.
If there is a bias here, it’s distinctly apolitical. It’s a human bias, wanting to be a part of something unique. Journalists are still telling the same story they’ve always told. This year they merely packaged it with a little more zest for those who demanded to own and preserve a part of history.
Leadingham seems unwilling to consider that electing a Democrat or a Republican with the excuse that they are the "first" anything is a distinctly political business. If everyone in the media rooted for the "first" black president, they also rooted for the Democrat.
Clearly the first black president is a newsworthy and historic event, but that says nothing about the tone of coverage. Even the Quill article’s cursory evidence demonstrates a much greater fascination with Obama, and a willingness to immediately consider him a figure who already invites comparisons to Franklin Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln. I enjoyed the news magazine cover contrast.
Newsweek on Bush’s inauguration: Two apolitical covers and one anti-Ashcroft cover titled "Holy War." Newsweek on Obama’s inauguration: Six Obama covers (Barack and/or Michelle) between election and inauguration issues, including one comparing Obama to Lincoln.
Or check out Leadingham's comparison of The New York Times on 1/20/01 vs 1/20/09:
Jan. 20, 2001 (inauguration of Bush) — Headline above fold reads "Exiting Job, Clinton Accepts Immunity Deal." A headline also on the front page reads "G.O.P. Celebrates Beginning and an End," referring to Bush’s inauguration and Clinton’s exit. The only headline on the page with Bush’s name is below the fold. The story is titled, "At Hearings, Cracks Appear in Bush’s Party Line" and is about the incoming president’s cabinet nominees who have diverging views from the president on certain issues, such as abortion. The first actual picture of Bush is on page A14 in the special section "Transition in Washington," an eight-page inauguration section attached to the main section of the paper. Roughly half of the coverage in the section is about the outgoing Clinton administration.
Jan. 20, 2009 (inauguration of Obama) — Headline above fold reads, "On Eve of History, Obama Follows Low-Key Path." A six-page inside section titled "The 44th President" reviews Obama’s leadership, bipartisan efforts and health policy and the first lady.
The first half of that comparison suggests the Times almost seemed to be pretending that Bush wasn't really worth noticing. Even in what the author admitted was an "unscientific, brief, and very anecdotal review," you can see a dramatic contrast.
Leadingham was generous enough to acknowledge there were people who believed there was a liberal bias, and cited the MRC and NewsBusters by name. But no experts of any stripe were consulted in the piece.
