Study: Media give Obama more and better coverage than predecessors

[babylonsister]

Am I reading this wrong? Did this blog mention who did the study they're referencing, other than the fact that it's a nonpartisan media watchdog group? And if not, why wouldn't they? Maybe it's not as nonpartisan as they'd like us to believe?

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/27/study-media-give-obama-more-and-better-coverage-than-predecessors/

Study: Media give Obama more and better coverage than predecessors
@ 11:43 am by Michael O'Brien


The media have lavished President Obama with more coverage and better coverage than his two predecessors during his first weeks in office, a nonpartisan media watchdog group reported Monday.

By contrast, a report by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), Obama has endured much more critical handling of his policy proposals by the media.

Obama received almost four times as much coverage of his first 50 days in office than President George W. Bush had during nightly newscasts on ABC, CBS, NBC, and the Fox News Channel. Obama received almost twice as much coverage as President Bill Clinton.

According to the report, CBS led the other broadcast outlets, dedicating the most time to the new president.

Of those cumulative hours of reporting, the study found that 58 percent of the airtime was positive, compared to 33 percent positive for Bush, and 44 percent positive for Clinton.

But of all the coverage of Obama's specific proposals, CMPA found that 39 percent of evaluative statements were positive.

CMPA is based at George Mason University in Virginia, which partnered with Chapman University in California.

[rfranklin]

1. Well, George Bush did nothing until 9/11...

Strange thing about that, isn't it?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Bullshit!

He lost a spy plane to China.

:grr:

[Chuckleberry]

19. "the overwhelming proportion of CMPA's funding comes from conservative foundations."

Including the Scaife and Olin foundations.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs#Funding

[Cha]

24. Yeah, I was just going to ask..who's

behind this fact finding mission?

Those fascists can report anything they make up.

[Spazito]

3. Well, well, lookee here...

S. Robert Lichter is president of the Washington-based Center for Media and Public Affairs and a paid consultant to the Fox News Channel <1>.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Robert_Lichter

[babylonsister]

4. But aren't they referencing two different things in here, one a study and

the other a report? Maybe I am reading it wrong. :crazy:

[Spazito]

6. I think they are referencing both and both were done by them....

They did the study and then the report resulting from it, they just 'forgot' to mention that aspect. Typical misdirection from the rabid right-wing, imo.

[babylonsister]

8. Thanks. Pretty funny after the info you provided about

connections to faux that they claim this is a nonpartisan group.

The Hill is decidedly partisan, I've found, though you still can find pertinent info there.

[Spazito]

12. For them to claim they are "non-partisan" is beyond ludicrous as one has only to...

look at who is funding them to see how rabid they really are:

The funding information, covering 1986-2005, lists the following donors (note: all figures are unadjusted for inflation):

Carthage Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $512,000 from 8 donations
the Earhart Foundation contributed $120,000 in six grants between 1999 and 2003;
John M. Olin Foundation - $730,000 from 15 donations between 1986 and 2001;
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation - $250,000 nine grants over the period between 1989 and 1995;
Sarah Scaife Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $760,000 from 9 donations spanning the period between 1991 and 2003; and
Smith Richardson Foundation - $416,916 from 3 donations between 1998 and 2001;
Thus, out of the total of $2,960,916 in foundation grants, nearly all of it ($2,668,916) came from just four sources: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations.

In other words, CMPA received 86% of its foundation funding from those four donors. Here is a sample of other right-wing causes funded by these 3 donors, as listed by their respective SourceWatch articles:

John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century
Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation
Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs


These front organizations must DESPISE the internet, it makes it way to easy to out them, lol.

Edited to provide clarity.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. I live in the D.C. area and George Mason is known for its rapid right wing conservatism.

Nothing to see here. They can all go to hell.

[MADem]

5. Well, he certainly received more coverage. But that's not surprising.

He's the first President with acknowledged African aancestry. That's a big deal. It would have been a similarly big deal if Clinton had won.

Plus, he's young (relatively speaking). He has a young wife. He has kids. There's that whole "human interest" angle and that stuff passes as news.

[babylonsister]

7. He also has/had a hugh! bunch of issues to try to clean up after

idiot son wrecked so much.

[MADem]

9. That's true. Clinton left a surplus, and smooth sailing for Bush.

Bush ran the ship aground, trashed the cabin, sold our sails to the highest bidder, and left us wrecked on the angry shoals!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. Elected vs. appointed, as well.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

14. All that is besides the point and

slightly insulting.

The reason he is getting more coverage is because he is doing more, plain and simple. For all the celebrity tag that idiot McLame tagged on him, he is the hardest working pol I have ever seen.

Just take any random day and examine his schedule, it is stupendous. And then he reads everything!

[MADem]

18. "Slightly insulting?" Get off that horse and DO explain that remark.

What's insulting about it? Be very specific, now. I am VERY interested in hearing why you think my comments are "slightly insulting."

I'd say you've got an attitude problem, or perhaps you find something "wrong" with celebrating an important milestone?

His schedule is quite similar to Bill Clinton's--except Clinton worked longer hours, often until late at night. Clinton wasn't dealing with the issues Obama deals with, and Clinton didn't have the same quality of Congress that Obama has, either.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

20. Insulting because you are citing reasons

that are not verifiable -- they are highly speculative and subjective, especially because, as President Obama himself said, all that mattered for about 5 seconds and everyone (reasonable) went back to "now, what are you going to do about the economy, two wars, health care/energy/education crises?"

I bet if you simply took the number of speeches, townhalls and press conferences that the 3 Presidents have had, and the number of big pieces of legislation passed, that would have a pretty good correlation to the amount of press coverage each has received.

Once in the job, all those other superficial things you site have no real bearing on the coverage in the news media. Now, magazines are totally different and are largely celebrity-driven: there, the factors you name might count for something. But CBS/ABC/NBC etc, not so much.

The elephant in the news analysis room really is the sheer number and magnitude of things he has already achieved. To fall for this celebrity meme (which is what your factors basically amount to) is to do him and his staff a huge disservice. They have been working harder than some serfs, as I see it. At least on DU, there should be some cognizance of that.

[MADem]

22. First, you should respond to me, not to yourself. But that wee trick aside, what's not verifiable?

That Obama has African ancestry? That he's the first to acknowledge it (aside from some smartass remarks by Warren G. "How should I know, I wasn't there?" Harding)? That he's YOUNG? That his wife is young, and they have young kids? That they have a new little dog that's still capturing headlines? These facts are, despite your odd insistence, entirely verifiable.

HUGE amounts of coverage have been devoted to "Young family in the WH," and "Here's the new dog." These things I "cite" (not "site"--that's a location) are not inventions of my mind, they're facts. Clinton wasn't sitting on his ass either for his first hundred days. Why do you suppose the coverage is a bit more pumped up for BHO? He's got more "juice," more interesting angles, and more "Q" quotient....that's why. He does things like go on ESPN, pick winners in sports contests, and is unafraid to engage on every level. His wife got her ass out in the yard and started planting vegetables--that's not "hard" news but it is news nonetheless. And it was covered out the yingyang.

We even get "fashion Michelle" and "Look at the cute backbacks" for the girls. Or is my television transmitting different stories than yours?

I'm not saying these are the only stories (despite your cheap, finger-wagging shot of trying to suggest that I was) but they do take up a shit load of air time. They air, and re-air, in heavy rotation. It's not a question of "having any bearing"--it's a simple fact that this kind of stuff constitutes a huge percentage of the coverage. Not all of it--of course, I never SAID that--but a healthy percentage. And why is that? Because people LIKE these kinds of stories. You think they're some sort of negative, but you're in a minority, here. Most people are charmed by the stuff you're disparaging.

What's "subjective" here, too, is your insistence that these stories don't add to the total news coverage that the new WH family has recieved. What's subjective, also, is your binary attitude that noting these stories (as part of the whole) does a "disservice" to Obama--or his staff. Who the hell do you think "arranges" for these stories to be covered? The man in the moon? The scolding sentence at the end of your post is pure bullshit, too.

"Soft" coverage, especially favorable coverage, is manna from heaven for public figures. It boosts their approval ratings and enables them to do the hard work with less grief from the public. Walking and chewing gum isn't that hard, and BHO is a master of it--he can do things of substance, and he can do things of fluff and human interest. He can also do things of interest to niche audiences, like pick college sports winners and play basketball in the back yard or go on Hollywood talk shows, or run down a hallway with his new dog. See, he "can" walk and chew gum at the same time. And the totality of his presence on the TV includes both the serious and the less-than-serious. You add it all up, and that's why his first hundred days have been a media blizzard.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

25. Attitude (give that a rest).

The key points in my response to you were:

I bet if you simply took the number of speeches, townhalls and press conferences that the 3 Presidents have had, and the number of big pieces of legislation passed, that would have a pretty good correlation to the amount of press coverage each has received.

<...>

The elephant in the news analysis room really is the sheer number and magnitude of things he has already achieved.

I cop to the c/site mistake, mea culpa. But responding to my own post was just an oversight..

[MADem]

26. Attitude, indeed. You're the one who ascribed motives to my analysis.

You suggested I did a disservice to the guy, which is utter nonsense. And your opinions, while interesting, aren't backed up with anything save "I bet."

You might not remember the dawn of the Clinton administration--he got a shitload of coverage, and so did his wife--the topics? Healthcare, healthcare, and more healthcare (which was met with no, hell no and fuck no--but that paved the way for the conversations we are having today about the same subject), the family leave bill (one of the most significant pieces of legislation of the latter 20th Century, that continues to impact millions of Americans to this day), the back and forth over DADT (which will one day be regarded as the opening salvo that will eventually--hopefully sooner rather than later--result in full equal rights), a problematic budget that he bullied through Congress, he provided an aid package to Boris Yeltsin that helped the Russkies transition politically to a reform-minded policy and pulled Boris's ass out of the fire, he had a few controversial cabinet picks, to include picks with "nanny" problems, he had to deal with insults about the hicks in the WH, etc., etc. He got some "personal" coverage too (roving eye, french fries, donuts) but not quite the quality nor intensity of this administration.

You are, though, acting like Obama's the only guy who ever got off his ass and did anything straight out of the gate. He's not. He's lucky he's got a majority in the House and Senate, that makes life easier.

He's doing a brilliant job, but he's also doing a brilliant job crafting and managing his image....and that includes all that fluffy news coverage you're disdaining, but the public is eating up.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Obama has more star power than his predecessors and much bigger messes to fix

These are indeed reasons to cover him more.

[MADem]

27. Yep, all of that adds to his cachet. NT

[VWolf]

11. Here's a thought ...

If you do a better job, you get better coverage. Ya think?

[lunatica]

13. That's because he does more and does it better

So naturally he's getting more and better coverage. Even with FOX news he gets more coverage, albeit it sure tries to counter that better coverage he gets from everyone else.

[Parker CA]

15. Exactly! n/t.

[SpartanDem]

16. Somebody paid for this?

Of course, he's had massive amounts of media attention he's the country's first black president, during a major economic crisis and then there is the "Kennedy factor" an attractive couple with young kids which has the Hollywood/celebrity media enamored with them.

[Life Long Dem]

17. More coverage because he's a rock star!

And with this "added coverage" came more bashing. Anything else is just playing with the numbers. People see what they see and they see a media they won't listen to.

[applegrove]

21. George Bush was an empty vessel. How could you cover him every day. He

wasn't doing policy every day.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. But Bush was always on fucking vacation during this time. And the M$M had it in for Clinton

since he first entered public office. Fuck the corporate media!!