Is the "stratospherically laudatory" coverage of the Obama campaign justified?

Recently, Kevin Drum noted the press was in love with Barack Obama. He called Obama's treatment "stratospherically laudatory." There's a chart at his site that seems to support his conclusions. Given the coverage of the past several weeks, it seems likely the trends noted on that chart have continued.

Is the media justified in giving Obama so much positive coverage at the expense of the candidates running against him? If so, was the media justified in giving George W Bush so much positive coverage at the expense of Al Gore?

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

All the fawning over Clinton, but it's Obama's fault now?

that indicates this was the case? Please post. Thanks.

okay, too. Everyone who has a candidate has to pump them up. It's the nature of the beast. The Hillary fawning went on for a long time and will no doubt happen again. I'm not talking about a 'study', just what I've read and heard for months.

Drum cites? The evidence would appear to suggest Obama is receiving positive coverage far in excess of the others. Is this fair? I realize at DU we all have our favorites and we go to extremes because it's fun, but in the real world of the media and influence and won and lost elections, is it appropriate for the media to Gore the candidates it chooses to Gore?

got a lot of positive attention that wasn't necessarily warranted. That's not anecdotal, but that's the way it is/was. There are many times Clinton received positive coverage far in excess of others. Was that fair?
It was to many people while she was receiving it.

your perception of media coverage does not jibe with the evidence. I wonder if we tend to assume the candidate we support is being treated unfairly while assuming the others get too much positive coverage. The advantage of the study is it would appear to bring some rigor and objectivity to the discussion. The study indicates Obama has received more positive than negative coverage. Hillary, and other candidates, have received more negative than positive coverage. Is that fair?

with rare expections.

Maybe I need to branch out more. :)

Try again. Maybe HilaryHub or HillaryIs44 or Daily Howler or Taylor Marsh has some other Mark Penn
talking point to offer.

lol

Thanks.

It includes all Faux News coverage, which skews the statistics greatly against Clinton. If you take Bill
O'Reilly and Sean Hannity out of the mix, Obama isn't well-favored much at all.

nt

nt

October 29, 2007 is "old" when it comes to political reporting, I guess.

You can probably do a search.