Study: Obama IS A Media Darling; Hillary Gets Worst Coverage

This, via Greg Sargent, will shock you:

TV election news has been hardest on Hillary Clinton this fall, while Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have been the biggest media favorites, according to a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University...

As I have argued, Obama's being a Media darling is a GOOD thing for the Obama campaign and a good reason to support him, all else being equal.

< New Policy Paper on Jailhouse Snitch Testimony | Slugfest to Iowa Caucuses >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    let's see if i understand you correctly: (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:10:06 PM EST
    because the ninnies of the MSM have, so far, reported favorably on sen. obama's campaign, i should support him? not because his policies/ positions/proposals would be the best for the country, long and short-term, but because he's, essentially, a "pretty face"?

    methinks you've had a tad too much eggnog.

    All else being equal (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:47:18 PM EST
    they're just setting him up, like electable (none / 0) (#7)
    by seabos84 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:15:09 PM EST
    kerry or dukakis or gore

    the thugs, and their sold out media, like 'opponents' who are too goody goody to fight fire with fire.

    even if obama is elected, from his


    record in the Senate, the thugs will have him, nancy with pearls and harry without a clue all tied up - what a dream 'opposition'

    for the fascists.



    I don't know about the egg nog but (none / 0) (#25)
    by bridget on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:49:04 PM EST
    otherwise I pretty much had the same reaction you did.

    When the MSM ninnies pick media darlings: Watch Out! For the last seven years or so the fawning over Saint McCain made me turn off the tube. Same  now holds for king Obama. Guess what I have been doing for the last fourplus months straight now: no TV news at all, esp. no cable. No Olbermanns, no tweetys, no AirAmerica (for years already). I didn't know Russert had died until three days later when I came back to TL and heard the news.

    Let the nitwit pundits talk about Obama in loving ways 24/7. I don't hear it. I wont know about it. I heard too much as it is.If something really important happens I will know about it from TL ;-)  

    It's still a long way until November. But media darling or not, Obama leaves me cold and its getting icier by the day. But as a non-Obama voter I don't think I will be missed by Obamafans who called me all kinds of nasty names on a certain blog simply for defending Hillary. And Bill Clinton. I said good bye to them too.

    re voting Media darling is neither here or there IMO. I worry about other stuff.

    First, Peace and War is on my mind every day.Every day.

    So Which candidate will bring about peace I ask? Stops the war as promised? All these years? Thruout the primaries? Who cares about Lebanon, Israel, Palestine? Who? Who?

    Does Anyone else still care about Peace? It has gotten so quiet on the blogosphere about it. Are bloggers still "anti-war?" It looks to me like that ship has sailed. And AFAIK True leftists have called the anti-war movement now DEAD. And that was some time ago.

    So After All that handwringing and knicker twisting over Hillary's Iraq vote here we are ... Now the kool-aid drinking Obamafolks are just fine with killing more people in a prolonged Afghanistan war instead?

    So What about the wars in Iraq and AFGHANISTAN  the one Obama wants to really get into so he makes it the prominent part of his own campaign "national security" strategy in order to beat the GOP candidate?

    Beating the Obama drum for a prolonged Afghanistan war wont do it for me, of course. Au contraire. And Europe better watch out!!! I read Obama plans to do some tough love war talk in Germany. Send more soldiers ... WarWArWAR!

    P.S. Voting for a Media darlings?

    Let's see. I can actually come up with some to vote for since right now I am clear out of pols.

    I would vote for Angelina Jolie in a NY minute. A media darling with a BIG Heart. Brad Pitt? Also. Name one pol who did as much for New Orleans housing as Brad Pitt has done. They are smart and attractive. Perfect candidates IMO.


    lol .... I just realized I posted on a thread from (none / 0) (#26)
    by bridget on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:30:51 PM EST
    last year - and it took such a long time to type it all out. Who will ever read it? Who?

     .... I should have brushed my cat instead ;-)

    And I wrote all those really meaningful things, too. Straight from the heart sigh  ;-)))


    I'm tellin' ya (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:37:56 PM EST
    I don't see any reason to believe it will continue in during the general election campaign season.

    I do believe it will (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:45:52 PM EST
    If I could be (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by taylormattd on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:25:47 PM EST
    confident the press would give positive treatment to any one of the Democratic candidates during the general campaign, I would without hesitation caucus for that candidate. You are absolutely correct that it would be an invaluable asset.

    I just don't have confidence they won't fall back to what they've been doing for 25 years: slandering democrats as weak and amoral.


    History (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by koshembos on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:10:26 PM EST
    Your belief flies in the face of the media history in the last 20 years. Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry were ridiculed by the media. Why would Obama be their darling?

    carter was trashed by the (none / 0) (#14)
    by seabos84 on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:27:32 AM EST
    NYT, AND

    remember that idiot koppel (sp?) and his nightly iran hostage crises crap?

    I remember the sold out media news / idiot box repeating the fascist soundbites,


    I remember the worthless Dem responses... (we don't lower ourselves, that is stupid, we're better than that, we aren't liars, we aren't dishonest ... yawn ... sound familiar? )

    I think obama is full of it, his new way is a load of it, and he isn't gonna know what to do when he's covered in it.



    I have to ask: what are you basing this on? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:22:41 PM EST
    Clinton press more positive than GOP field (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by joejoejoe on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:05:03 PM EST
    According to the CMPA study Edwards (67% positive vs. 33% negative) has had better coverage than Obama (61% positive vs. 39% negative) although Obama has received MORE coverage than Edwards so it might appear to be more positive. Sen. Clinton still had more favorable coverage (42%) than Romney (40%), Giuliani (39%), or McCain (33%).

    This study has some decent raw data but the interpretation in the release is questionable at best. CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS:

    Policy Debate: The campaign coverage has been relatively issue oriented -- 188 stories dealt with policy issues, 191 with campaign strategy and tactics, 162 on the candidates' standings in the horse race, and 122 on heir personal backgrounds.

    So policy issue stories are 28% of the aggregate coverage and these people consider that "relatively issue oriented"? SEVENTY TWO PERCENT of the stories are on something other than policy. None of the top six stories involved policy and illegal immigration got more coverage than Iraq. When the press gets around to covering policy they still don't report on what surveys show voters are interested in, where Iraq, the economy, and healthcare dominate. We either have a stupid press or the modern news press feels no obligation to cover what is important and is 100% ratings driven. If it's all about ratings I'd just as soon they stop pretending to be credible.

    Note: Why include FOX NEWS with the networks but not CNN or MSNBC?

    A Must Read, Obama Constitutional Interpretation (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Aaron on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:05:06 AM EST
    Fantastic piece that highlights Barack Obama's understanding of constitutional law and the powers of the president.

    Obama on Executive Power

    Just thinking about putting an intelligent, capable, highly competent constitutional scholar with enormous integrity in the White House makes me feel better about the future of my country.  It gives me a safe secure feeling, the like of which I've never known.

    Obama 08

    you should have read sen. clinton's (none / 0) (#21)
    by cpinva on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:07:03 AM EST
    responses as well. much more succinct and to the point, and displays just as clear an understanding of the constitution's set of "checks and balances" as sen. obama's.

    in fact, the brevity of some of her responses leaves no wiggle room for her, nor parsing room for some right-wing hack. no is pretty clearly, unambiguously no.

    while i certainly appreciated sen. obama's responses, the compare/contrast phase struck me as pretty much even.

    far more interesting, from a "idon'tknowwhatthef*cki'mtalkingabout, isn'tthisadictatorship?" perspective, was gov. romney's responses. he's even scarier in writing, than his hair would lead you to believe.

    fred thompson never did regain consciousness.

    i thought the second part of the last question was an attempted "gotcha", basically asking the candidates to rag on the others. nice to see sen. clinton just ignored that part.


    Her response is not consistant with her actions (none / 0) (#23)
    by Rojas on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 10:59:10 AM EST
    on signing statements for example.



     In accordance with these propositions, we do not believe that a President is limited to choosing between vetoing, for example, the Defense Appropriations Act and executing an unconstitutional provision in it. In our view, the President has the authority to sign legislation containing desirable elements while refusing to execute a constitutionally defective provision.

    Obama vs. Hillary (3.00 / 2) (#11)
    by SKY on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:09:23 PM EST
    I'm shocked you would even think that this is a criteria for supporting a candidate.  There's no way I'd allow the MSM to pick my candidate, and I resent it when they try to do so by giving one candidate a free pass, (like Obama), and pounce on another with a ton of bricks (like Hillary).  I've never seen pundits (like Chris Matthews) spew out such uncalled for, baseless rhetoric against a candidate since the Howard Dean scream speech.  I was even amazed to hear Jon Stewart commenting once to Obama that's Hillary's stint as First Lady didn't qualify as REAL experience.  Anyone who thinks Hillary was ONLY a First Lady needs to replay tapes of her health care sessions before Congress, or interview others in Clinton's administration to find out how much of a REAL player she was.  I can guarantee that she did a lot more than host book fairs and Easter egg rolls.  The US is barely keeping its head above water after an inexperienced GOP dufus as president, and I don't think it can handle another eight years of someone else on training wheels.

    Spare me (none / 0) (#16)
    by kovie on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:50:38 AM EST
    There's a lot to be concerned about with Obama, but less substantive political experience (not to mention judgement) than Hillary is NOT one of them. All of the "she has more experience" nonsense falls flat in the face of her war vote, the K-L vote, and her refusal to apologize for either or be honest about why she voted for them (or about her not having read the '02 NIE).

    And I don't believe that the point being made in this diary is that one should support the candidate that was the media's favorite because he or she was the media's favorite, but rather that being the media's favorite is a good thing for a candidate. Which I find rather hard to dispute. Then again, there's Uncle Fred...


    It makes the (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:10:35 PM EST
    constant complaints about HIllary's coverage ("she who is inevitable") seem fairly absurd.

    They're All Dead to Me (none / 0) (#10)
    by JHFarr on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:37:39 PM EST
    Unless one of them unequivocally denounces the endless illegal wars, stands up for the Constitution, promises not to meddle with Social Security or Medicare (except to more fully fund them), and declares that corporations and the wealthy have to shoulder more of the tax burden, I am NOT voting next year.

    No more second-best or taking what I can get. No compromise on the above from this citizen. The election farce of 2006 shattered any remaining illusions I might have had.

    Who Smeared Who? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Aaron on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:57:51 AM EST
    Last week I got accused of smearing Prof. Sean Wilentz because I exposed his article The Delusional Style in American Punditry for what to my mind it was and remains, little more than blatantly biased political propaganda, with virtually no fact whatsoever offered to support his hyperbole.

    Well apparently I'm not the only one who finds Wilentz assertions devoid of any genuine factual basis.  TNR has not publish this article A Mere Smear: Sean Wilentz's unfair attack on Barack Obama and his supporters by Prof. Cass R. Sunstein, in direct rebuttal to Wilentz piece.

    Here are some excerpts.  

    [The Compact Oxford Dictionary of Current English offers several definitions of the word "smear." One is "coat or mark with a greasy or sticky substance." Another is "damage the reputation of [someone] by false accusations." Neither of these definitions perfectly fits Sean Wilentz' discussion of Barack Obama and his supporters published on The New Republic's website last week. But Wilentz has certainly produced a smear.

    Wilentz does deserve considerable credit--this is one impressive smear. Saying nothing about Obama's career or positions, Wilentz announces that there is a "delusional style" in American political punditry, typified by support for inexperienced, unqualified candidates on the basis of the delusional belief that those candidates have good "instincts." In Wilentz' view, the presidential candidacy of George W. Bush was merely the latest beneficiary of the delusional style.]

    [More generally, and whether this point was given due emphasis by the columnists who so offended Wilentz or not, the fact is that those who support Obama do so for diverse reasons. He opposed the Iraq War before hostilities began--not on the basis of intuition, but after a careful (and entirely prescient) analysis of the likely consequences. Obama is the opposite of a polarizing figure (and maybe we could use that in the White House). He has a keen and sympathetic understanding of competing positions. He is a Democrat who actually understands economics and the needs of business. He has a stunning intelligence (and maybe we could use that in the White House). He promises to go beyond the decreasingly relevant conflicts of the 1960s and the 1990s. He is a specialist in constitutional law (and maybe we could use that in the White House). On issues ranging from health care to climate change, his policy proposals are careful and pragmatic.]

    [Of course reasonable questions have been raised about Obama's candidacy. Many responsible people believe that some other candidate would be a better president. But having failed to show that the pundits who support Obama are deluded, Wilentz offers no reason to reject the arguments that they actually offer. And it is not so reasonable to manufacture, evidently for the occasion, something called a "delusional style" in American political history, and to accuse supporters of Barack Obama of having taken leave of their senses. Wilentz is a distinguished historian. I can't imagine what got into him.]

    Wasn't it also said of Lincoln (none / 0) (#17)
    by kovie on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 05:02:46 AM EST
    when he ran for president that he was "inexperienced" and "unqualified" for the position due to his single, largely failed term as congressman and otherwise totally provincial professional experience (which happened to have been very impressive) and of course his senate run and debates with Douglas?

    I am, of course, making the most obvious and oft-repeated comparison here. But that doesn't make it any less apropos. There have been excellent presidents with little national political experience, and terrible ones with much of it. Smart people with transferable skills and experience learn fast, and Obama is all of these.

    Incidentally, I just realized that the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth, 2/12/09, will occur just weeks after the next president is sworn in. What a presidents day that will be. Will it be the senator from Illinois, or the senator who grew up in Illinois? (And no, I'm not talking about Dick Durbin.)


    did Sunstein disclose his support for Obama? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:28:39 AM EST
    Sunstein v. Wilenz (none / 0) (#22)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:42:13 AM EST
    Looking at Sunstein's  response, it was clear he could make a case for supporting Obama, but nowhere did he offer any evidence that the pundits in question based their support on "the Sunstein case for supporting Obama"  any more than Wilenz offered evidence in support of his contention.

    As I've often suspected and speculated upon.... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Aaron on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 03:32:13 AM EST
    ...in the past Armando, you don't seem all that interested in reading or examining information that comes into conflict with your viewpoints, and rather rigidly entrenched positions.

    Perhaps this is why I and others have trouble discussing issues with you.  If you're not interested in reading or examining opposing viewpoints, then I submit that attempting to engage in an honest debate with you is pointless.  If you want people to show you respect, perhaps you could do them the courtesy of reading and considering what they post in rebuttal to your assertions.

    From the article

    Cass R. Sunstein is a contributing editor at The New Republic and teaches at the University of Chicago. Over the years, he has offered informal advice to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama; a long-term law school colleague of the latter, he has acted as an occasional, informal adviser to his campaign.

    Whats even more of a (none / 0) (#18)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 05:33:48 AM EST
    shocka, is that the same study on the next page says Fox News Channel is the most balanced towards both parties than that of the broadcast networks were.  

    Greg Sargent missed that tidbit.  I guess BTD did also.