Study: Obama's Overseas Trip Sucked Up Huge Amount Of Media Attention
You won't be surprised to learn that Obama's trip abroad got lots of media attention, but a new Project for Excellence in Journalism study details just how much attention it got, and the numbers are pretty extraordinary:
According to the study, which analyzes journalism from a huge range of news sources, Obama's trip sucked up more than 50% of campaign coverage. Meanwhile, the nearest competitor, that forgotten episode known as the Iraq War, got less than 10 percent.
I'm generally skeptical of studies that purport to measure whether one candidate is the target of more media bias than another. But quantitative analysis like this seems credible.
Does this mean the media is biased in favor of Obama, as the McCain campaign claims it believes? Not necessarily. As many others have argued, the increased attention also means increased media scrutiny that magnifies perceived mistakes and "gaffes."
To take just one example, consider how much attention was lavished on Obama's cancellation of the troop visit and on John McCain's ad attacking Obama for it. And consider how few news outlets pointed out that McCain's attack was false, even as multiple outlets amplified its message to an untold degree.
Without an analysis of the QUALITY of the coverage, these types of studies always miss the mark in my book. I recall Obama getting 70% of the coverage during March 2008, but 90% of that coverage (ok, I exaggerate), was about Reverend Wright, Reverend Wright II or Bitter-gate.
July 29, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You exaggerated downward. It had to have been 95% of the coverage from about March 14th onward.
July 29, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
RNC and McCain are jealous of the media coverage, they even put out this ad attack Obama and Germans
http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/video-rnc-makes-fun-of-germans/
July 29, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear that the bias is in favor of coverage of Obama. Period. I can't understand why, really, given John McCain's charisma and rhetorical talents.
July 29, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
These statistics ain't helpful. I'd rather know the amount of positive versus negative versus nuetral coverage.
I can't believe somebody thought they needed a study to confirm the inevitable.
July 29, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, McCain campaign? That strategery of goading Obama throughout the month of June for not having gone overseas really worked out splendidly, didn't it?
As for the bias issue? It's blatantly obvious that Obama is getting more attention. For reasons that are fair, and unfair, in my opinion. He's new, he's different, he's charismatic. But the media was also like a bunch of vultures hovering over prey: just waiting for Obama to commit a McCainism.
He gets significantly more attention, but it's not significantly more positive attention, I would argue. The constant analysis of every move, usually accompanied by "Well, he's handled things perfectly so far, but...." isn't positive coverage. It leaves the impression behind that Obama is expected to eventually screw up. That's not positive.
July 29, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, I've said it a hundred times and will say it a million more:
This proves the media is biased towards COVERING Obama, not biased TOWARDS Obama.
On an almost flawless trip like Obama had, that's a good thing. But it also means they scrutinize every word and action (remember the four-day freak-out when he used the word "refine?").
The flip side of this is McCain can thank his lucky stars he isn't receiving that type of scrutiny, or else his campaign would be doomed ten times over by now with the number of gaffes he's made.
Unfortunately, studies like this will be used to prove that the media is liberal by knuckleheads like Joe Scarborough. But all it proves is they are interested in COVERING Obama, nothing more.
http://strategy08.wordpress.com
July 29, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this. quantity of coverage is different from quality.
I just don't buy the studies that claim to be measuring bias, though. It seems like there's just no credible scientific way of measuring it.
July 29, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This proves the media is biased towards COVERING Obama, not biased TOWARDS Obama."
Dude, scream it from the rooftops...it doesn't change the fact that, from covering stories to contributing money to voting newsrooms across the country are 20-1 Democrat...that's how they view life...those are the stories they think are important...covered from that perspective. From Chris Matthews' Man Crush on Obama to the big three anchors hoping on the Obama love train to tour Europe...The MSM is slanted left...period...end of discussion... Now if Obama is so far to the left that he concerns Katie Couric's sensibilities....I can't help that.
July 29, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you, then, explain that study that revealed that Obama had something like 70%-30% negative coverage while McCain was 55%-45%.
July 29, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.
You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.
During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.
July 29, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The likelihood of SFC responding to this is about the same as the MSM covering McCain's gaffes.
July 29, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFC usually responds to me.
July 29, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
He may, but you used facts. Those are his kryptonite.
July 29, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was wrong again...not 20 to 1...
"Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1"
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569
July 29, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't deny that most journalists are probably liberal or liberal-leaning, but the coverage thus far has not been reflected in that. Obama has gotten a lot more coverage, yes, but also a lot more critical coverage.
July 29, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Notice how he completely ignored what you posted.
July 29, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. He does that...
July 29, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only when it's to my advantage to do so...
July 30, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please do deny that, where that may have once been the case in years past, I do not think that is the case today. CNN, CBS, ABC, all have taken dramatic slides to the Right in the last 2-4 years. Reporters included.
July 29, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And don't get me started on the AP and Reuters...
July 29, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm talking "journalists" in general. I don't consider Hannity or Rush or Billo to be "journalists."
July 29, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
He can't. It doesn't jibe with his "straw man" (counterfeit) arguments.
And you may have noticed that the "SFC" (I for one even question the veracity of that) does not display much in the way of a handle on facts, let alone logic.
July 29, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doubt me if you want, the SFC is actually SFC(ret) now, 24 years and 22 days as a Cavalry Scout and I have the beat up calloused feet to prove it.
July 30, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really hope no one is counting on Couric to be the crusader for journalistic truth, here. Her interview with Obama was basically her cocking her head and saying "So wait...was the surge good or bad?" repeatedly.
July 29, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, come on, SFC. You don't think the first African American candidate for President who has a chance to actually win is a big story?
I don't care whether the media is predominantly Democratic or Republican...this is a big story and it's going to get more attention than John McCain's second attempt to win the presidency.
Does some of the coverage go overboard? Sure, in the same way that McCain gets carte blanche to say stuff that, coming out of any other candidate, would have sunk the campaign.
And Katie Couric isn't a journalist.
July 29, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The MSM is a business. They're going to cover whatever will result in larger viewership and bigger ad revenues.
The buried led of course is that this trip is already a distant memory and Obama's numbers did not increase and neither has his foreign policy credibility.
A gladhanding photo-op in not foreign policy experience. If it were you'd have to agree that Bono is more qualified than Obama. Damn, if only Bono was born here he'd be the perfect VP. The Obama candidacy is a joke.
July 29, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless Sinbad or Sheryl Crow are present. In which case it's a courageous tale of grace under fire.
July 29, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think this is excellent news.
The trip was brilliant, all the way through. Nevermind what the attack poodles nattered on about - the pictures said it all.
July 29, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first 6 weeks of the GE campaign, the network news about Obama has been 72% negative. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,2066363,full.story
July 29, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The study is lame...if Obama dominate the coverage, how about the quality of the coverage? It is one thing to dominate the coverage with positive news, it another thing to dominate with negative story. Which one am I suppose to believe? Is it the negative story from the pundits or otherwise?
July 29, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard Obama just came out with a new Ad hitting McCain in Motown.
July 29, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
One only has to look at Charlie Gibson's capital gains question in the ABC Democratic debate to see how Republican our news anchors are.
Another example, Glenn Beck (the disgusting little troll). The other night IT was on both his show on Headline News and filling in for Larry King on CNN at the same time. Now that's a diverse cross section of views right there. Thanks CNN
Furthermore, on Larry King that night, hosted by Beck, it was him, 2 repugs, 1 centrist, and 1 Democrat. That's fair?
So the tally is as follows:
ABC- Repug. see Dem. debates.
CBS- Repug. see copy and paste McCain interview from last week.
CNN- see Glenn Beck saturation and their anchors generally hitting hard on Dems, easy on Repugs (ala Blitzer).
FOX- Repub for obvious reasons
NBC- fair to Repug
MSNBC- fair to Dem
Newspapers- by and large owned by big corporations owned by Repugs
Reuters- totally Repug, check out the headlines
McClatchy- fair to Dem or Repug, depends on story
AP- Repug, softball questions to McCain everytime. Multiple Osama/Obama misspeaks. They love McCain's BBQ!
So there you have it folks!!
Me? I get my news from NPR, PBS, and the BBC. I also like Olberman and various blogs.
July 29, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is time the liberals demand for fair coverage on the news as well. If Glenn Beck can have a show on TV, why can't liberals have their own show?
July 29, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well there is Olberman. Yep, Olberman vs. Glenn Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Dobbs (independent my ass), FOXnews as a whole. Who am I missing?
I guess there's Colms! LOL!! Sh'yeah right!
July 29, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot Air America!
Bwahahaha
July 29, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going off of TV, but then you could Rush onto the list as well, and numerous other right wing, gut-churning radio shows.
July 29, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Broadcasting has changed drastically from what it was back when the government did try to regulate content as to fairness. There were 3 networks, end of story.
The press is so fucking important to democracy that it got the first amendment, by name. But the media has evolved into this thousand-headed hydra. I don't know how the hell it will be possible to force "news" outlets to do anything. And it's just killing us -
July 29, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hannah Montana for VP! Afterall, she's had more photo-ops than Obama. And all that positive media coverage (well, 'cept for that Vanity fair thing).
Oh, wait, she's too young...damn.
July 29, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd rather hold off on the nomination until after she marries a President. Gotta season her up with some Daughters of the American Revolution pancake breakfasts.
July 29, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she already did that in her guest spot on Gilmore Girls.
July 29, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then clearly she is the most qualified candidate to answer the pink princess phone at 3 AM.
July 29, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're an unending source of non sequiturs, aren't you?
July 29, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you just take some aspirin?
July 29, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The horror. The horror.
July 29, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad the liberal media followed Obama on his 'tour'. It really made the American people wake up this empty suit and see what disgrace this man is. The arrogance of this senator over in Germany apologizing for our country. Are you kidding me? Then, not going to visit OUR wounded troops because he could not take the media with him. Geez, Europe can keep him. He sounded like Hitler up there talking about one world order, etc. I love the line 'I am a citizen of the world". I guess he couldn't really say he was a citizen of American because that fact is still questionable.
July 29, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's visited the troops several times including recently at walter-reed.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1818829,00.html
McCain has voted against veteran's health benefits and opposed the recent GI Bill. He was too busy raising money in liberal California to be bothered to vote on it.
July 29, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The simple fact is, a (very) Presidential candidate going overseas, meeting with national leaders, having substantive policy discussions, and unlike Bush and McCain, both actually getting his facts straight and in the same breath creating, almost singlehandedly, a fresh good impression of the United States is, by definition, news.
July 29, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again... PeyPey, not a single fact in anything you had to say. I only have three words... Not This Time.
Get a new playbook this one's been leaked to the competition.
July 29, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's several studies that would be just as useful:
Compare the number of news items about Obama's trip to the number of items in which the McCain campaign complained about media coverage of the Obama trip. If quantified, the numbers would be dead even.
Compare the number of news items about Obama's trip to the number of times, during that trip, John McCain used the word surge in an interview. If quantified, the numbers would overwhelmingly favor McCain.
All in all, I think the only thing we can safely conclude is that the people who conduct studies like this are completely clueless about what is genuinely important and have way too much time on their hands.
July 30, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink