home

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

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:04:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

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:
    Study: Obama IS A Media Darling; Hillary Gets Worst Coverage | 25 comments (25 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    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


    Parent
    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

    yawn

    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.

    rmm.  

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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  ;-)))

    Parent

    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


    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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?

    Parent
    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,

    and

    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.

    rmm.

    Parent

    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


    Parent
    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