The press isn't in love with Democrats, it's in love with Barack Obama.

[Karmadillo]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_11/012423.php

MISCELLANEOUS CHARTS....The Project for Excellence in Journalism released a report a couple of days ago showing that so far during the 2008 campaign season, Democrats have gotten more favorable coverage than Republicans. Now, maybe you believe this and maybe you don't, but what caught my eye was the reason Democrats got such favorable coverage. Two words: Barack Obama. The chart on the right shows the results for each of the six leading candidates, and Obama's coverage is almost stratospherically laudatory. So I grabbed the raw data and removed Obama from the analysis entirely to see what would happen. Answer: the positive vs. negative coverage was virtually identical for Democrats and Republicans.

Bottom line: the press isn't in love with Democrats, it's in love with Barack Obama.

more...

[ecstatic]

1. I'm disappointed in Obama (and Edwards) for taking right wing bait

the best way to get ahead in the primaries is to attack republicans, not democrats. If they could be so stupid to fall for the RW media's instigating... then how can I trust them to not lead us into another quagmire?

[babylonsister]

4. Running for any office is a competition; they're competing. That's

how it's done. It's not a rw anything.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MethuenProgressive]

7. Excellent sudy, very well done, shows the pro-Obama bias everyone knows is there.

And the more Obama attacks Clinton, who the MSM hates with a DU-like passion, the more the MSM will fawn over their favorite child.

[unpossibles]

2. as to the Republicans unfavorable coverage

imo, they bring it on themselves, and get treated with kid gloves.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. How Totally, Totally Bogus

The press writes more positive articles about Mother Teresa than about Adolf Hitler. Thus, the press has a pro-Catholic, anti-German bias.

QED

[illinoisprogressive]

5. it's a misleading study. here is an op-ed about it and the true facts of press coverage

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/the-media-coverage-of-oba_b_70820.html

[flpoljunkie]

11. Thanks for the link, illinoisprogressive. A small excerpt...

Hillary Clinton led the way with 17% of the media coverage, followed by Obama at 14%. According to the study, "Obama enjoyed the best run of coverage in the early campaign, though the trajectory over time was gradually downward.." Obama's coverage was 46.7% positive and only 15.8% negative, compared to Clinton's coverage that was 26.9% positive and 37.8% negative.

However, these numbers don't tell the full story. Nearly 20% of the Clinton stories were aired on conservative talk radio, and 86% of these were negative (compared to only 2% positive). As a result, if you exclude conservative talk radio from the study, the proportion of Clinton's negative stories drop from 37.8% to 27.9%, almost the same as her positive stories. Obviously, these "negative" stories don't hurt Clinton, since they appear on programs with overwhelmingly Republican audiences, and being criticized by Rush Limbaugh actually helps Clinton with primary voters.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/the-media-coverage-of-oba_b_70820.html

[killbotfactory]

23. So, basically, right-wing radio is obsessed with Hillary

and this skews the results.

[rinsd]

27. Fun with numbers by an Obama supporter. He eliminated Clinton's talk radio numbers but not Obama's

The treatment, if one looks more closely, was even more favorable in some of the most important media of all. Obama enjoyed particularly favorable coverage from three media in particular—newspapers (70% positive stories), network morning news (58% positive), and network evening news (55%). Only in conservative talk radio was the coverage of Obama more negative than not.

[Tellurian]

12. The OP stands CORRECT!

The Project for Excellence in Journalism an unbiased opinion source vs The Huffington article written by John K. Wilson Author of "Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest"

BUSTED

[Karmadillo]

15. Thanks for the reality check. They'll be claiming Hillary claimed she invented the internet soon.

nt

[Basileus Basileon]

16. Oh, wait--isn't Hillary the "CORPORATE MSM DARLING?"

Huh. I guess capital letters ≠ truth.

[goodgd_yall]

22. In truth, no Democrat is the corporate MSM darling n/t

[rinsd]

28. Something's misleading alright, he eliminated neg stories on talk radio for Clinton but not Obama

[asjr]

6. The Press is in love with themselves.

Almost overnight the Gore-ing of Hillary Clinton began. Like her or not, this should not happen to anyone. The media did their best to elect GWB in 2000. And they succeeded. They feel so all-powerful, so much that they think they can choose our president each and every time. The media have urged all the candidates to talk trash about each other. The ratings must be over the top! Let's not allow them to elect our president again.

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. exactly

[Karmadillo]

18. Good point. Interesting how the Republican front runner never gets Gored.

nt

[MzShellG]

25. Yes..exactly

They are in love with their power to influence the mass population's way of thinking. Media is nothing more than a brain washing tool. A very affective one at that.

[Bitwit1234]

14. If that is true we see once again THE MSM STRIKES OUT......

[Clintonista2]

17. K&R, another anti-Hillary lie disproven.

[Basileus Basileon]

19. Kick nt

[Lucinda]

20. Not the coverage I've been watching

I see him more and more being labled as "not ready for prime time" (mostly CNN coverage)

[goodgd_yall]

21. FoxNews is easy on him

Fox News usually plays dirty, but I think, in fear of being charged with racism, it's handling Obama with kid gloves. His political ideas aren't attacked. The worse I've heard is when he didn't wear a flag pin and it really didn't stir up much concern. Edwards and Clinton, but especially Edwards is the one FN loves to batter.

[last_texas_dem]

24. Oh well, if at least one Dem candidate is getting more positive than negative coverage

that's an improvement from the past. I think negative media coverage was a large factor in weakening the Kerry '04 and, especially, the Gore '00 campaigns. Of course, whether the media would continue the positive coverage of Obama if he actually became the Dem nominee is another question entirely. They seemed to be generally positive towards Edwards during his '04 campaign, ignored him once he was the VP candidate, and are more negative towards him now, so you never know what they're going to do.

Oh yeah, and Romney getting more positive than negative surprised me a bit; though, at the same time, I have seen more positive than negative stories about him, so maybe it shouldn't be too surprising.

[Karmadillo]

26. Kick

nt