Media Doesn't Love Obama After All

Barack Obama has not received better media coverage than Hillary Clinton, according to a new study by the research team at Pew/Harvard, the gold standard in nonpartisan media analysis. After reviewing coverage from January to March, when the majority of states voted, researchers determined that Obama simply did not fare better than Clinton. In fact, reporters "began to turn against Obama [even] before questions surfaced about his pastor Jeremiah Wright," the study found. And Clinton's "Saturday Night Live" gambit – when she chided the moderators of a February debate, "maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow" – apparently worked:

Shortly after Clinton criticized the media for being soft on Obama during a debate, the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical--and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself.

In March, The Times reported that Clinton Campaign "practically browbeat" reporters with the SNL skit as evidence that Obama was treated "more gently." The article cited data suggesting the tactic swiftly shifted the "tone" of campaign coverage against Obama. But it's not only reporters worrying that the press is too rough on Clinton.

More voters think the media has been "too hard" on Clinton than on Obama or McCain, according to a Gallup poll released last week:

It's also an article of faith among Clinton supporters -- 56 percent say the media has been too hard on her, while only 29 percent of Obama supporters carry that grievance for their candidate. How did so many voters and reporters end up thinking the Clinton coverage was harsher than it actually was, according to the cumulative data? Here are three related reasons:

1) Media-bashing works. The Clinton Campaign has loudly complained about the media, and it obviously worked.

2) The loser dynamic. Clinton has been steadily losing the race since Super Tuesday, so the loser dynamic has been percolating. Supporters of losing candidates often blame the media, and reporters start second guessing their work as the post-mortem assignments roll in. The Gallup poll, however, only compares public opinion of Clinton's coverage to the presumptive nominees; comparing winners and losers is like apples and oranges. Add in Huckabee or Edwards -- or Ron Paul! -- and complaints about the media would likely spike. Or if Obama were losing, his supporters would be doing more media griping.

3) Offensive Clinton-bashing. The overall data does not capture the intensity of individual incidents of nasty Clinton-bashing. So while the cumulative coverage of Obama and Clinton was clearly similar, a small number of offensive media incidents can still damage a candidate and outrage voters, whether they support her or not. When CNN host Glenn Beck labeled Clinton a "stereotypical b----," for example, or the Washington Post ran an entire article about the senator's "cleavage," (under the absurd headline "Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory"), many people saw her being mistreated and rightly denounced it. The empirical question, for voters and reporters, is how many outrageous incidents are required to conclude that the entire "media" was unfair to her.

If you combine this new data with the infamous incidents of Clinton-bashing, the conventional wisdom about campaign media coverage collapses. Obama did not receive special treatment; Clinton was not generally covered too harshly; but some high-impact, inappropriate media coverage did hurt Clinton and understandably outrage voters. In the end, the candidates still drew better media coverage than actual public policy, which drew only seven percent of all campaign stories.

Comments (12)

1. Precisely, the thin veil of civilization gives way as Hillary's coronation falters.

   Posted by winyahn at 05/31/2008 @ 4:51pm

2. And Hillary was only their darling because of her inevitable beatability. More beatable in the fall than a West VA redheaded stepchild.

   Posted by winyahn at 05/31/2008 @ 4:53pm

3. I am sure many of you have heard the song, I have a crush on Obama.

   Well, here are some lyrics for I had a Brush with Obama, sung to the same tune. Enjoy

   I Had a Brush with Obama (And I Lost)(sung to the tune, with slight variation, of "I Got a Crush on Obama)

   I was a Yale and Wellesley Girl Never knew about being poor But then I met Bill and became his whore Rose Law Firm but I wanted more An Attorney General's wife I was secure But I wanted even more The Governor's mansion was Arkansas lore But the paltry salary was a chore.

   So like Barack at Convention 2-Oh-4,. In 1988 Bill was given the Floor Alas my advice Bill did ignore His speech an abysmal bore And when he said "in conclusion" they all cheered Our political future kicked in the rear Foretelling what was in store That I'd have a Brush with Obama That I'd have a Brush with Obama

   And then the "Comeback Kid" Bill was defined Despite Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones dropping a dime, Like Bush, I had a politically royal blood line

   Too bad Barack wouldn't bide his time So I had a brush with Obama So I had a brush with Obama And I lost, but I don't care I'm still with Bill, where the money is near Screw 2008, eight years later ain't too late, Even though I Iost a Brush with Obama

   I am opportunist at heart, With Billy I got an early start And so I learned to stick by my man Although my move to New York was a sham. And when I scared Rudy away Elected to the Senate, I was talk of the day But then, like the other political whores, I glimpsed presidential opportunity and said yes to war.

   I never read the National Intelligence Report War fervor, I thought there'd be no retort But unknown and a thousand miles away A lowly state senator was having his say

   Six years later the war is still on The people now realizing it was a con But the press already had me crowned A new President allegedly found

   But then out of the blue Barack did appear With a pledge to restore our integrity The invective I let fly the folks didn't buy Yes I lost my Brush with Obama. I lost my Brush with Obama.

   So I'll have to wait past 2008 Because Barack Obama was simply the best candidate And tho I tried in vain to retaliate There was no way in hell I could break the spell of Obama Girl's Sell, And I ultimately fell Yes, I had a Brush with

   Posted by bobforer at 05/31/2008 @ 4:55pm

4. I suppose the much ballyhooed New York Times smear of John McCain doesn't count.

   Posted by sailhardy at 05/31/2008 @ 6:09pm

5. Bush's start in business/politics is tied to Clear Channel (from Buzzflash.com):

   So how does any of this relate to Bush? Let's go back to 1989. Bush has just invested $605,000 -– money he borrowed –- in a syndicate that bought the Texas Rangers. (He would later repay the loan with proceeds from the sale of Harken stock – remember Harken?). Though Bush had a 1.8 percent share of the club, the terms of this deal with the Rangers specified that once his partners made back their investment, his share would jump to 11 percent.

   The Rangers' stadium was on the small side, so the new owners decided a grand, new stadium was in order. A 13-acre parcel of land bought in Arlington, Tex., at below-market rates. "[B]ush and his partners used Arlington's [municipal] powers to condemn the land for the stadium, and relied on taxpayers to repay the bonds sold to build the Ballpark -– receiving what amounts to a direct $135-million subsidy," wrote Robert Bryce of the Austin Chronicle. (Indeed, a jury later found that the ballpark property's original owners were owed more than six times what they were paid.)

   When the new stadium was completed in 1993, the value of the Rangers immediately increased by $26 million, to $132 million. In 1997, Financial World magazine named the ballpark the most profitable stadium in major league baseball.

   But it wasn't worth $250 million. Yet in 1998, Tom Hicks, a friend of Bush's, bought the Rangers for this enormous amount, making Bush -– who walked away with close to $15 million –- a very, very rich man. But then, Hicks had done pretty well for himself in previous years, thanks in part to Bush.

   When Bush became governor in 1995, Hicks, who was then head of the corporate raider firm Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst, was confirmed as a University of Texas regent. Hicks hired lobbyists to garner support for a bill –- which Bush approved -– creating the UT Investment Management Company (UTIMCO), a nonprofit corporation dedicated to managing public university money. The best part: Bush also got rid of the requirements to disclose "all details concerning the investments made and the income realized" and to have "a well-recognized performance measurement service" review the investments. UTIMCO was, in essence, left to operate on its own.

   Hicks became UTIMCO's first chair and started handing out contracts to private investment firms to manage some of the endowment. He was aided by none other than Clear Channel's chairman and CEO, L. Lowry Mays, who was also on the board (and still is).

   According to the Houston Chronicle, by March 1999, UTIMCO handled more than $11 billion of University of Texas endowment money, along with the state's higher education trust, the Permanent University Fund. Close to $2 billion was handed to private investment management companies -– hundreds of millions of which ended up in the hands of firms run by associates of Hicks and major Republican Party donors. One of them, the Carlyle Group, is well known for its financial relationships with President Bush and prominent members of the Reagan/Bush administrations.

   Of course, this didn't sit well with everyone in Texas. Flogged by the press, Hicks didn't seek reappointment when his term expired in 1999.

   No matter. Like Mays, Tom Hicks and his brother, R. Steven Hicks, had also gotten into the media business. In 1999, they merged their radios companies into AMFM, Inc. That same year, Clear Channel bought AMFM, and Tom Hicks became Clear Channel's vice chairman.

   According to Salon's Eric Boehlert, who has written a series of articles on Clear Channel, Mays paid $24 billion for the Hicks' AMFM, thus positing Clear Channel as "king of radio's hill."

   Money, remember, makes the world go ‘round.

   * * *

   What is clear about Clear Channel is that it can't be disentangled from Bush's personal fortune or his public policy. The merger of government and business in the current administration goes far beyond the workings of any previous president.

   As Michael Lind, author of Made in Texas, told BuzzFlash in an interview, Bush, a failed businessman and mediocre student, excels at one thing: the practice of corporate cronyism. In the ideal world of corporate cronyism, a tight knit group of businessmen and government officials operate as one seamless entity of mutually beneficial economic forces. It's a plutocratic version of socialism, where the state and the privileged business compadres of those running the government march lockstep together to achieve corporate welfare goals, funded by the taxpayer. It's an economic system where access to the marketplace is limited to a close knit group of cronies and campaign contributors. It has as much in common with a truly free market system as Communism.

   In the case of Clear Channel, the "Support Our Troops" rally was an extension of the Karl Rove strategy to force peace advocates to appear to be opposing our troops by not supporting the Iraq war. Furthermore, since the support for the war was lukewarm, Rove knew that the rallies had to be packaged as gatherings to show backing for the young men and women who would do the fighting. Clear Channel fulfilled this strategy, although the numbers attending their thinly veiled pro-war rallies paled in comparison to the hundreds of thousands who attended peace marches and events.

   In many ways, Clear Channel has become the radio version of Fox News: You can find virtually nothing in its musical playlist or agenda that is not consistent with the Bush Cartel public relations agenda.

   With increased deregulation, the mutual financial benefits that the Bush Cartel and the owners of Clear Channel have enjoyed will just be another representation of the growing cancer of corporate socialist cronyism, in which the crony media barons use their stations and papers to advance the political agenda of the Bush administration -- and contribute to Republican coffers. In turn, the Bush Cartel takes steps -- such as increased deregulation -- that enable increased profitability among the Bush Cartel media cronies.

   Apparently the evil cartel thought they'd found their next pres in Romney... As Huffington reported:

   "What would it cost to buy the support of just about every nationally-syndicated neocon talk show host in America? About $19.5 Billion, which is what Mitt Romney's private equity firm, Bain Capital, and Thomas H. Lee Partners have agreed to pay in a leveraged buyout agreement with Clear Channel Communications, the largest radio station owner in the country."

   Clear Channel: a media giant with a nationwide network of 1,240 radio stations, 39 television stations and more than 770,000 billboards.

   The situation is so eggregious, it even bugged a fellow winger...

   "Mike Huckabee is suggesting talk radio's support for Romney is tied to Bain Capital's takeover of Clear Channel Communications"

   Posted by winyahn at 05/31/2008 @ 8:36pm

6. I'm shocked!

   The lady who recounted her perilous sortie against Bosnian sniper fire...

   lies?!?!?!?!?

   Posted by Mask at 05/31/2008 @ 8:40pm

7. the scary part is that 50% say mccain gets "just about right" treatment.

   there's a poll for ya'.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/31/2008 @ 8:47pm

8. "We're the Saudi Arabia of coal"

   sen. barack obama.

   booooo!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/31/2008 @ 10:28pm

9. I am interested in how the media influences events and would like to have more details on the study and how I can find the study itself. Its too general to come to any conclusions about how they determined this. Guess I'll go online and look for it.

   Posted by geminijen at 06/01/2008 @ 02:31am

10. It's certainly an interesting study. Thanks for writing about it.

    I'm not sure your question about how many outrageous stories create an atmosphere of unfairness makes sense to ask at the level of 'the entire "media"'. Many of the sources they looked at were both anti-Obama and anti-Clinton (Fox News, conservative talk radio); at the same time, the study reports that 84% of the network morning news stories "projected positive master narratives of the former first lady, some 20 percentage points more positive than about Obama."

    Looking more deeply than the Obama/Clinton narratives, I thought one of the most interesting points they made was about what the media studies on: "78% of the stories studied between January 1 and the first week of May have focused on political matters, such as who won the latest primary. By contrast, policy stories made up 7% of the stories, personal matters 7%, and the candidates' public record, 2%." This not only supports your point #2, it also puts a sharp spotlight on how badly the media has dropped the ball.

    It would be very intersting to do a similar study of the political blogospheres, which aren't covered by this report. Perhaps The Nation could work with Pew/Harvard to help make this happen?

    Posted by JonPincus at 06/01/2008 @ 11:28am

11. These words that we hurl, without care for their implications: voters, reporters, consumers, ad infinitum.. Most reporters don't report anymore; not in the Edward R. Murrow sense. They mostly parrot the Pentagon or the White House. "Investigavite Journalism", you say? Ha! "War coverage"? Ha! As if this election will be fair, like the last two even pretended to be. And voters. Most people don't vote. What are the stats for local elections - I think our last local one had about 8 percent. But above all, we seem to have no problems being called "comsumers". That word reminds me of the word "chattel". Aren't we all People, before all these other things? Or better yet, how about Citizens? I'm a citizen of this country, BEFORE I'm a voter, consumer, user, blogger, reporter, commentator, whatever. Clinton and Obama are of a mould cast NOT in the real world; as are their handlers; as are the entire Bush administration; as are all the power brokers of this world are. This election will do nothing to change the morbid trajectory my country is willfully taking. Remember your history, folks; as if the Carter administration was any kinder or gentler. The sense of community is lost. The sense of responsibility is lost. People are dumber, as our frou frou technology makes us so. We are killing our culture, and running ourselves off the rails. We are now economically inferior to the rest of the world, and that is what we get for being so unbelievably stupid in our violent, short history. If anyone thinks any of the ridiculous candidates for President will be able to do anything about these unstoppable trends, they are fools. Besides, even if there were a legitimate candidate, what could they do versus the existing infrastructure of our fake, lying, hijacked, larcenous "democracy"? I'd say very little. Anybody with anything useful to say seems to get assasinated. Must be the "American Way".

    Posted by Manton at 06/01/2008 @ 12:35pm

12. Well, unlike Mr. Obama, most our countrymen are Christians first, then Americans. But for Obama it's politics first. He was Muslim, now he was Christian, all for convenience.

    ----------

    Obama's Church Moves On After Exit By STEVEN GRAY/CHICAGO Sun Jun 1, 7:45 PM ET

    All Fred Pope wanted to do was get to Trinity United Church of Christ's 11 a.m. Sunday service. Instead, he was bombarded by reporters seeking his reaction to Sen. Barack Obama's decision to leave the South Side church after nearly two decades. "It's a deeply personal decision," Pope said simply, clutching a Bible in his left hand, walking along 95th Street toward the massive brown sanctuary. Then, Pope stopped, looked to the clear sky, and added, "I'd be disappointed if he stopped believing in God."

    Posted by HelenDAO at 06/02/2008 @ 03:53am