Excuse me, Mrs. Greenspan, but, since when are the standards of journalism predicated upon either a campaign's strategy or its congeniality?

The press was harder on Clinton for most of the campaign ... because she was the FRONTRUNNER for most of the campaign.
They ALWAYS are harder on the front-runner. Clinton benefited tremendously from the fact the press bought their meme about her being inevitable. But there were some downsides as well.
That's the nature of politics.
For someone who keeps saying she is ready to fight and she is tough, she seems to complain a lot and present herself as the victim of others.

I'm in agreement with most of these comments. Clinton has been the frontrunner so she of course will get vetted more. That said, Barack Obama's campaign also has been better at dealing with the press. In our ideal world, we'd love for the press to be neutral, fair, and non-judgemental. The problem is, the media consists of people. People who may or may not be swayed by the way a candidate treats them. And by all intesnsive purposes, it seems that the Obama campaign has treated them better.

I do think that Obama's campaign should fight harder and bring to light many of Clinton's controversies in the past. I know he wants to keep the positive message alive - but that's the point of his stump speeches. His campaign should go for the jugular and make sure that the media stay on the Clinton campaign - highlighting her own issues that has been so far uncovered. For example, her not rejecting a donation from a firm run by a disbarred lawyer with criminal charges.

These things matter, and Obama needs to fight a little harder if he wants to deal with the Republican campaign in the fall.

I don't think it's a frontrunner/also-ran dynamic, necessarily. Bush was the GOP frontrunner in 2000, and he got mockery for being, you know, dimwitted, but he wasn't treated as vicious and Machiavellian.

jasin, I think the more than half number is inconclusive, because it comes in an answer to the question about obama. when asked about hillary, only 43% say "the same."

I didn't read the article, but I think that something is getting lost in the "positive/negative" coverage: namely, are they including stories like "Hillary loses Virginia by 20 points" or "Obama raises twice as much money as Hillary in January" as "negative" for Hillary and "positive" for Obama? Because those stories seem negative to me only because the facts are negative for Hillary.

That is not to say that the cable news bloviators don't seem to have a special animus for Hillary and the Clintons in general, or that they have not taken a thinly veiled delight in her downfall. However, as a commenter upthread noted, the audiences for cable news are not that large, and I don't think they have had a huge impact on the campaign. For instance, there is no analogy in this primary, where a negative story with questionable support, like the Swiftboat smear of John Kerry, has been flogged so relentlessly that it bleeds into the mainstream media and general culture.

I am not sure that the Hillary campaign should take much heart in the poll finding that half of the voting democrats think that the press has been harder on Hillary than on Obama. I have felt at times that I could feel the contempt some of the journalists have had for her during their coverage. Unfortunately for her, I feel the same contempt; as do many people I know. I am also certain that the contempt that I feel for her has nothing to do with the press coverage of her. So, while I agree with the half of the poll that says the press has been harder on Hillary than Obama, I am still enthusiastically planning on voting for Obama in my primary.
And come the general election, if she is the Democratic nominee, I'd say that she should count herself lucky that the Republicans are such a disaster right now, because that's really the only reason why I will hold my nose and vote for her.

You want to know why she's gotten less favorable press of late. It's right in the article that Greg linked in this post:

Jonathan Alter, the veteran Newsweek columnist who traveled with the Obama campaign to Dallas on Wednesday, said that the attempt by the Clinton camp to weigh various stories represented a kind of “silly, even-Steven-itis.”

“People got it into their head that if you say something good about a candidate, you have to say something bad about him, and if you don’t, that’s not fair,” Mr. Alter said. “What the Clinton partisans wanted was for us to create a phony balance that was at odds with what our eyes were telling us. That’s not the job of a journalist.”

The most significant element of the coverage that has so rankled the Clinton campaign may be one that cannot responsibly be omitted: her recent win-loss record in nominating contests.

“My role model and mentor at The A.P. was Walter Mears, who recently retired, and he used to say that who wins is part of the story,” said Mike Glover, an Associated Press reporter, as he flew on Mrs. Clinton’s plane on Thursday from Hanging Rock, Ohio, to Houston. “We’re covering a candidate who’s lost 11 straight primaries. They’re covering a candidate who has won 11 straight primaries.”

There's no doubting that if Obama had lost 11 straight contests her press would be decidedly more positive and encouraging. It's highly possible that the press would be treating him much as they do Mike Huckabee, as an after-thought. The fact that she still commands front-page attention is a testament to her resiliency and that the press isn't being as hard on her as they could (and probably should) be.

And then of course was Hillary bringing a bag of bagels to the press bus and they just stood and stared at her without a word. Imagine if Obama showed up the same way? Why can't these people just do their jobs - to report? How many articles reported on Hillary's experience - her work with children, with anti-poverty programs, her work on the Watergate and Mondale labor committee, her law experience? Instead we got a blurb from her college diary, more rehashes from Bernstein about how she didn't stroke vain Senators enough in 1993 and an endless big-to-do about not releasing all her emails from the White House. (Did Al Gore release his emails from the White House? Did Bush or Kerry or Obama release all the records of their government work?)

Meanwhile we got to hear wonderfully painted stories about Obama's childhood - how he learned Indonesian in 6 months (really?), his father's rise from goatherd to transfer student and government official (according to his first wife, Obama Sr. was a clerk in Nairobi from 18 until leaving for Hawaii), about his humble beginnings in Indonesia (did you know his mother taught English at the US Embassy and his stepfather was an oil engineer for Shell?). He went to an expensive prep school starting at 10 - how deprived was this child?

The Miracle of Obama vs. The Baggage of Hillary. That's been the media coverage, give or take a few odd respites.

My full analysis of the media scapegoating (summary: she is full of shit):

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/27451031

And I hate to have to point out the obvious about that poll, but the majority of Democrats DON'T think the media is being harder on her. So why is it a big deal that almost half think they are? There are two candidates here, a fifty-fifty split is NOT news, and if anything it leans in Obama's favor.

Nope. In fact, he would have been toast after 5 straight double digit wins by the clintons. He wouldn't have even made it to 11. Can you imagine if he was blown out in the potomac primaries like she was?

Look, TPM is at least as bad, in fact, probably far worse, in its bias against Hillary as the MSM.

Clean up your own act.

No, and if positions were reversed then Obama would just as strongly be resisting calls for him to quit.
Plus he would be denouncing calls upon him to quit as being a racist slur. Just like fairy tale.

It's amusing to see Obama supporters talking as though press bias in favor of Hillary is some kind of impossibility, because, I suppose, in their eyes, the press is above such things.

But, the worm will turn. Your day will come. And many of us will have a fine laugh at your expense when it does.

It seems to me that a big part of winning elections is winning the media, i.e., winning the hearts and minds of all those people who write about, comment upon, and broadcast the election news. The assumption that these people are or ought to be supremely neutral with regard to their own points of view is completely unrealistic and artificial. If you really want "objectivity" in reporting, then let the reporter make his or her opinion explicit and lay out his or her reasons for having it. Personally I would much rather listen to one of Keith Olbermann's lengthy, emotionally charged arguments slamming George Bush than hear John Gibson play sound bite A in favor and sound bite B against and then smugly (and evasively) invite the audience "to judge for themselves." The latter approach really operates on the assumption that there's no such thing as truth and that the job of the media is constantly to reinforce that assumption. It's all a toss of the coin, a shrug of the shoulders, a scratch of the head -- and a cheery segue into the next commercial. The problem is not that some, most, or all of "the media" prefer Obama over Clinton. The problem is the phony media game of pretending not have an point of view, opinion, or emotion at all. That's where the true deception lies, and of course it's always breaking down and being "exposed" as "hidden bias". Clinton's constant complaint that the media is biased against her reflects nothing more sinister than the fact that she has lost them, just as she has lost at least 60% of the American public. The only valid complaint she can make against the media, it seems to me, is that they haven't put their cards on the table and said in clear and distinct terms: "Hillary, you've lost us - and for these reasons." And of course, not all of the media would actually say that.

Working the refs!!

The press has totally been in the Clinton team's pocket this whole race.

Last year, they bought into the inevitability narrative.

This year, they been putting Clinton's daily barrage of talking points in their headlines almost verbatim.

"Clinton say Obama .... " is the typical daily headline on the NyTimes. It's remarkable she has totally coopted the newscycle and yet still is losing, and still complains about "unfairness"!!!

The NY Times piece is largely an apologia for the press corps, explaining why Clinton deserved the coverage she got.

Typically, Andrea Mitchell blames Clinton for the press' unequal coverage, claiming the Senator and her campaign were "arrogant." Like all the DC villagers, Mitchell makes judgments based on perceived personality and demeanor. So what if Clinton and her campaign were arrogant? What happened to journalists' professional responsibility to be impartial regardless of what they personally think about a candidate? You hear this often about McCain-- his good coverage is because he is very open to the press and allows them a lot of access. In other words, he's a good schmoozer. So Clinton rubbed them the wrong way. The Washington press corps are admitting to being the worst kind of hacks if they allowed such factors to affect their coverage.

Thanks for linking to the actual poll.
On the question of treatment of each by media coverage, compared to other candidates:
harder coverage..... Barack, 14%; Hillary 48%
easier coverage.......Barack, 33%; Hillary 8%
same coverage........Barack, 52%; Hillary 43%
It seems a bit confusing that 48% say Hillary gets harder coverage, yet 43%-52% of the same respondents ALSO opine that the candidates are receiving the 'same coverage'.

I am guessing that a lot of respondents may be conflating 'harder coverage' with the post Super Tuesday drumbeat news reporting of her string of losses. And I believe that Greg Sargent may be conflating the responses to a question about harder/easier coverage with the idea of fairer/less fair coverage.

There was one item in the poll which spoke directly to the red phone duel that made such news yesterday. Respondents to this poll were asked a question about feeling either confident or uneasy with each candidate's potential 'handling of an international crisis'.

Confidence: HC all respondents 39%; BO all respondents 47%
HC primary dems 59% BO primary dems 62%

Uneasy: HC all respondents 56% BO all respondents 47%
HC primary dems 39% BO primary dems 32%

Since the poll was completed Feb 24th, I wonder if these results were actually part of the reason for Hillary's red phone ad????

The difference in the coverage of Clinton vs Obama is the difference of The Old vs. The New. All media, paper or electronic, thrive on novelty, and Obama is a new fresh face. Hillary Clinton has been a fixture of the news since 1992. That is 16 effing years! Obama arrived in the senate in 2004.

Not to mention that he is newsworthy because he has taken on the Clinton machine and taught them a few things about how to run a campaign in 2008. That is big news and worthy of coverage.

If Clinton wants to measure the column-inches she has received in 16 years just in the Times alone, it would swamp Obama's. She is just whining.

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx

I encourage everyone to read this piece from MSNBC - I can't believe they're the only ones to have run this - it's regarding Senator Clinton and a 170,000.00 campaign contribution she has accepted and will not give back from a company where all it's principals are being sued in a massive sexual harrassment suit.

Other politicians who have received contributions have returned the money.

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx

Barb-

All writers must adopt a point of view. It is not possible to write from a completely neutral point of view unless one uses the language of mathematics: the sentence '1 + 1 = 2' is completely free of ambiguity.

However, any sentence in English uses words that are more or less 'loaded' with connotations. Any news reporter must both 'select and order details' and choose words that most closely capture his/her point of view. Of necessity, the report captures the writer's interpretation of events.

Therefore, I offer the following definitions to clarify the mode of discourse:

Point of view: position from which one views a situation.

Bias: point of view that one disagrees with.

Slant: point of view with a hidden agenda.

It is not helpful to 'charge' that Writer X is 'biased' -- i.e., that the writer has a differing view of an event. What would be helpful is to focus on clarifying the ways in which a particular point of view is limited, inaccurate, etc.

A thorough explanation of these points can be found in S.I. Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action -- yes, THAT Hayakawa -- Republican Senator and president of S.F. State during the '60s.

Let's keep our eyes focused on the prize.

The perception Hillary is being treated unfairly, among less than half the Dem populace mostly comprised of her base, stems from a couple things listed below.

It's also backfired with the majority (51%) who think Hillary has been treated fairly or even favorably by the press, and who probably see the complaint as bellyaching and sour grapes. Which has only increased perceptions of her being phony and playing politics.

1) Hillary and Bill have repeated the claim ad nauseum in an attempt to work the refs. Which isn't necessarily a bad strategy, especially considering past swift boating of Democrats in the GE. But it can also backfire if one is disingenuous, as it has against Obama in particular for various reasons including his minority ethnicity, good demeanor, and the remarkably clean campaign he's lead. Which imo was a conscious decision on his part to anticipate Hillary's campaign strategies of "inevitability" "victim hood" and "experience" and counter them with a sort of preemptive political rock, paper, scissors of "insurgency/unlikelihood" and his personal temperament of gratuitous poltical fairness, and superior judgment on past issues. Which have basically shut the Hillary campaign down on all fronts and the poll data over the last several months starkly illustrates the trend.

2) A general sense of victimhood and identity politics resonates with Hillary's base who tend to vote on identity rather than issues and are less informed though probably very politically interested. Which is diminishing all the time as voters become more informed and Hillary's various arguments fall flat, especially the inevitability part.

To be fair, some percentage of African Americans supporting Obama have the same identity issues going, and would also be more inclined to see racial bias against their favorite. However, that's a much smaller fraction of the Obama camp, perhaps 5% max, and it's more than offset by counter balances, such as white women, with whom Obama only trails Hillary by small and diminishing margin, white men who Obama leads with by a large and growing margin, the educated, and Asians. None of whom are necessarily the most supportive of African American males, historically, so the argument they're supporting Obama on anything but merits is rather tenuous.

look, this is silly.

for over a year, the media told us HRC was going to be the nominee.

for over a year, every pundit touted HRC's experience; zero pundits actually questioned what that experience entailed.

(i could go on about what such an examination could have revealed, and i'm not even talking about the sex stuff or many scandals, i'm talking about things like: she worked for the children's defense fund after law school for less than 1 year which contradicts her boastings on the stump; or, she claims to brought healthcare to millions of children (ostensibly through SCHIP)...well, she wasnt in the Senate when that bill was passed. she was first lady; she didnt vote on it, she "supported" it. and today she tries to own it) et cetera.

but let's leave aside the problems for HRC with this idea and look at BHO.

what has the coverage of BHO been since he announced AND AND AND where did the talking points on him come from?

> is he black enough black?
> did he study at Madrassa?
> he is such a novelty (legitimate) black candidate
> he is eloquent therefore he must be shallow
> he has no experience
> is he patriotic enough
> his supporters are cultish

from the start, this is the framework from which BHO has been spoken about by the media. i defy anyone to find a line of discussion on obama that doesnt begin or end with one of these

All the "glowing praise" clinton supporters complain about fits into the "he is such a novelty" line of thought. But even with that, the novelty (favorable) stories were rarely ever linked to talk about his policy work either in Ill or DC. It was usually personal anecdotes (non substantive)

sometimes, sometimes left leaning blogs look to the actual records of Clinton and Obama from the Senate and compare the bills passed, authored and signed into law; but no such substantive conversation has EVER been made for Obama in the MSM...but it's always been assumed for HRC, and that is the difference.

and one more thing: (sorry this is so long), but if anyone is wondering why HRC wont release her tax returns or allow access to her schedules as first lady, its pretty simple: its about plausible deniability. she wants us to already be in bed with her as our nominee when that stuff comes out; that way, any attacks on her "35 years of experience" can be rebutted as "the same old right wing attack machine" politics. the clinton's have made a career on conditioning us to be suspect of criticisms of their record coming from the right. if the public had access to her tax returns, access to these presidential records we dont know what we'd find. but we do know that it would infintitely harder for HRC to defend against a democrat than a republican on these matters because a democrat would be thought to have more credibility.

i would have liked to see that fight, but alas it will not happen. and we have our spectacularly "ANTI-HILLARY" main stream media to thank for that.

that is all.

That's hilarious!

I really enjoyed that.

The media has not been harder on Clinton when it comes to her positions or her past. They have not picked apart her policies more, or brought up her past scandals more, or criticized her personal story more. As a candidate they have been easier on her than Obama: they accepted her experience meme and have pushed her as the policy wonk.

But what they have also done, is showed, each in turn, his dislike for the woman, not the candidate. They have criticized her personally: her personality, her character, her motivations, her appearance, etc. This is a case of reporters being unable to keep their personal feelings in check when reporting. It is failure at dispassionate journalism.

This is news in itself. What does this say that one candidate is so disliked by a community with whom she has had such a long history?

I don't support her, didn't vote for her so I have no pro-Hillary bias of any kind. Having said that it seems quite clear to me that any observer can see that even when the media was all on the "Hillary is the inevitable nominee" bandwagon that they are most certainly harder on her. Contrast that with the fawning coverage of Obama (who I also didn't vote for)and the media's bias against Hillary is glaring. That doesn't mean that her team was or is without enough skill to get the media to do some reporting as they'd like to see it, but it couldn't be clearer that they don't like her and their coverage of her is highly negative.

Question:

If Chris Matthews' contribution to the campaign were removed, could Clinton still be considered to have received more negative coverage than Obama?

That is the key point.

The presence of one idiot with an axe to grind does not justify an accusation of bias against every single news organization. Nor does it justify everyone else handling his target with kid gloves in an effort to balance it out.

Clinton has taken a certain amount of negative coverage because her campaign has deserved a certain amount of negative coverage. Responsible news organizations cannot hide from that just because Chris Matthews (and a couple of others) are orgasming over the idea of the Clintons going down.

oh lord, I am so disillusioned with our media. Biased, are you shitting me, the bias is so overt and so obscene. We are in a tremedously male dominated country,and any one who thinks otherwise is a fool. Men own all the media corps, and virtually all the msm reproters are men. Look at htis blog for example. I am very saddened by this. I have stopped watching and reading many shows and newspapers during this election. I tell you, this will spark a new wave of active feminism, look out!

Of course they're biased in Obama's favor. A male corporate whore wins with them...even a black one cuz its much easier to be a misogynist in this country than a racist.

They always take the path of least resistance.

Duh.

Nearly Half = Less than Half.

Look at his update on the other link.

Update: Some readers point out that a larger number -- 51% -- think the coverage has been the same or easier on her. I don't think this diminishes the larger point here. Nearly four times as many respondents (48%) think the press has been harder on Hillary than think it has been harder on Obama (13%).

Greg is spinning hard for HRC.

The media went easy on George W. Bush in 2000. It was harder on Al Gore.

But who should we blame for Bush having gotten elected? The media? Or, you know, the people who swallowed all that crap and voted for him?

In a democracy, voters have a responsibility to think critically for themselves and evalulate the candidates using the criteria most important to them.

It's interesting that despite the supposed media bias against Hillary Clinton, the polls in Texas and Ohio are still pretty close. Given the way recent primaries and caucuses have gone, one would expect her to be way out of the running by now. This must mean that (1) either the media has given each candidate a mixture of positive and negative coverage; (2) voters are thinking for themselves; or (3) both.

The media have a responsibility, yes. But voters are not mindless automatons. They think for themselves. The media are not completely to blame if one candidate wins and another candidate loses.

The voters are.

Considering your misguided logic, could one then conclude that 87% of the media is in the tank for Obama since only 13% believe that the press has been harder on him? Spin this one...

Wait. The MSM does a story on the MSM, the 2nd paragraph of which references a Saturday Night Live skit.

How thoughtful and objective do we really think such an article is likely to be?

No, seriously. What are the odds?

Answer: There was absolutely no self-reflection in the entire piece! That's because the media is incapable of seeing itself. The reporters only managed to look at the two candidates (in this case, Hillary and Barack; apparently John McCain is not being covered by the MSM), and end up blaming the candidates for how they are covered!

Why did you do a story on this spectacularly lame non-article? Who CARES what the MSM thinks of itself?

Media gender bias against HRC? The opposite. No male candidate would have it so easy. Vetted? She's gone 0-11 in primaries (would Biden/Dodd/Edwards still be in the race?). Refused to release her tax returns. Declined to explain her failed role in 90s healthcare reform. And what about the secrecy on the Clinton Foundation and library? Or the massive accumulation of wealth since Bill left office?

Looks like the media have been too hands-off because she's a woman. If this were a man, they'd be all over these issues. She's got more free passes than any man could ever envision. And this double standard doesn't go outnoticed by the constituency she can't reach -- white males.

And her campaign has been marked by incompetence, misjudgments and desperation tactics. Conversely, Obama campaign has been masterful. That invites media scrutiny. An "experienced" candiate with a poorly managed campaigned? Or a novice upstart managing a well-oiled machine that's shocked Ms. Inevitable?

Moreover, HRC has showcased a wide range of personalites -- the tearful, softside who found her voice, the I'm-proud-to-be-on this stage with Obama, the angry "shame-on-you scold, the theatrical "celestial" woman, the 3 a.m. guardian of our safety, and the SNL comic. Conversely, Obama has shown a consistent, calm temperment. Which personalities or personality would you rather have answering the call at 3 a.m.?

In the end, it's not about gender. It's about which candidate comes off as more competent, steady and trustworth with the best temperment to lead.

If you do not think the media has been CLEARLY biased against HRC and pro Obama, then you are either in denial or haven't been watching and reading.

To me, what's remarkable about the much larger number, relatively, of Democratic primary voters who think that Hillary's getting far harder treatment than Obama is how much of that sentiment surely pre-existed anything that Hillary or SNL or anyone else might have said about it. It's highly unlikely that such a large number of voters -- essentially half -- would have followed the mostly inside-baseball commentary on this point. Pretty clearly, they have mostly come to that conclusion independently of any discussion in the media about it.

So Hillary's campaign is obviously tapping into a pretty powerful underlying sentiment there. It generally doesn't take a lot of argument to make an effective case when the underlying emotion is already so strong in one direction. Simply articulating the problem forcefully can get many more to join in on the sentiment, and to note consciously what they may have only sensed subconsciously before. It's unfortunately not so likely that they can get that message out, given all the other important messages they must communicate. But there are a good number of undecided primary voters who, if they are otherwise on the fence, would in fact be inclined to vote against what they consider unfair treatment.

Republicans have forever been able to "run against the media" quite successfully. It's again too bad that Hillary won't have more time to develop this theme.

On the other hand, even a swing of a few percentage in the vote could be pretty decisive, given the closeness of the races. Perhaps she'll be able to reach that many.

We'll see how this plays out.