CMPA: MEDIA BOOST OBAMA, BASH “BILLARY"

Non-partisan group finds huge media bias against Senator Clinton.

http://www.cmpa.com/election%20news%202_1_08.htm

MEDIA BOOST OBAMA, BASH “BILLARY”

NBC Is Toughest on Hillary; FOX Has Heaviest Coverage

Hillary Clinton is getting the worst press and Barack Obama the best press of any major presidential candidate, and Bill Clinton is also getting negative reviews, while the gap in good press between John McCain and Mitt Romney is narrowing, according to a new study of TV news election coverage by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. The study also finds that FOX’s evening news show had the most coverage of policy issues and the least coverage of the campaign horse race.

These results are from CMPA’s 2008 ElectionNewsWatch Project. They are based on a scientific content analysis of 765 election news stories (22 hours 15 minutes of airtime) that aired on the flagship evening news shows on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX (the first 30 minutes of “Special Report with Brit Hume”, which is most like the network news shows in content and presentation) from December 16, 2007 through January 27, 2008.

MAJOR FINDINGS:

Hillary Pilloried?

Since mid-December, when the presidential candidates turned their full attention to the Iowa caucuses, Sen. Barack Obama has led the race for good press and Sen. Hillary Clinton has lagged the farthest behind. From Dec 16 through Jan 27 five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84%) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51%) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton. Examples:

“ message is one of change and reconciliation, not protest and looking back at old wounds.” – Donna Brazile, ABC

“In the face of two staggering defeats, two questions loom: Is Hillary’s campaign in crisis? And is a massive shakeup necessary?” – Brit Hume, FOX

The gap in good press has widened since the New Hampshire primary, with Clinton dropping to 47% positive comments and Obama holding steady at 83% positive. NBC’s coverage has been the most critical of Clinton – nearly 2 to 1 negative (36% positive and to 64% negative) Conversely, ABC’s coverage was most supportive -- nearly 2 to 1 positive (63% v. 37%). CBS and FOX were more balanced – 50% positive comments on FOX and 56% positive on CBS. Examples:

(more at link)

up well.

shoot themselves if Obama is not our nominee. Yeah, I have noticed this now for months.

Gee... I wonder why THEY are all so gung-ho on Obama??? :eyes:

and David Shuster and Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough and...

and I have NEVER, ever seen the media so obsessively push a candidate!! Seems like they did hype Gene McCarthy in 1968, but they were far more liberal then.

But they are NOT liberal anymore, and you would think this would give Obama's supprters pause...

What possible reason could republicans have for voting Obama in the primaries, other than so they can run McCain against him??? I don't think many of them voted for Edwards!

...and then just two replies the second time.

It really makes you wonder. And why so many are duped by this Pied Piper? (Personally, he does nothing for me, but I used to be an even bigger cynic about politics than I am now. I'm more of a realist today.)

I originally got TIVO because of Keith. Sadly, about two weeks ago I removed him from the schedule.

...waving in Bush's Iraq war.

It is also the same setup as when they got Bush elected in 2000. Push Push Push for the scripted outcome.

We have no ethical journalists anymore. They just get into it for the money. Well, money and the show biz aspect of it.

He does work for the corporate media after all, and they do have an agenda. It is indeed sad.

Just to get the liberals as a viewer base, then go back to normal business once they've taken the bait, and keep things to SEEM just a little more liberal than before.

have their own very different reasons for "wanting" Obama. Most of them don't, however, "want" him in the general election.

Obama? We all know the Clintons, we've known the Clintons for what seems like forever, nothing at all new there. There's something newsworthy about a freshman Senator, who until a few years ago, most of us didn't even know, who can fill stadiums at a moment's notice, and actually make kids put down their video games & cellphones to attend a political rally. That in itself is newsworthy.

Hillary gets her share of news coverage, but as one of Dan Abrams guest pointed out this evening, we've seen this movie before.

was not going to be a media darling. They've ripped them to shreds since '92, did she think that would change when she announced her candidacy? As others have stated, she's holding up pretty well. She keeps telling us how she's a fighter....remember "I'm your girl"? So, she and her supporters will have to get used to the fact that from here on in, she'll probably get the John Edwards treatment.

You've got to admit, Obama just has much more exciting people surrounding and endorsing him; people who are newsmakers in their own right, so naturally the press is just as intrigued by it as I am.

I make no bones about the fact that i don't care for the clintons, but did they include john edwards in this report? there was almost total john edwards blackout, at least she's getting coverage; be it negative or not. read downthread and you'll see that this is just another front group for fox, taking another swipe at NBC. You guys are being played and refuse to see it.

I don't pretend to understand why people distrust/dislike Sen Clinton, but it's just a fact. A fact, by the way, that could be costly in the general election.

...media blackout of him during the earlier debates as well, as can be seen in a couple of posts of mine weeks before.

What does it matter who my 'horse' is? The anti-Clinton media bias is overwhelming. And so the media need not have any balance and objectivity in their reports anymore? Is that what you really want?

I also don't believe there's that much anti-Clinton irrational hatred out there-not as much as the media (and posters here on DU and elsewhere on the 'net) want to project.

by Democrats and Republicans alike. Can't explain it, and won't even try. Like I said, it's just a fact. And she's promised that she can overcome it, but I have serious reservations.

you never hear about her - it's either Obama or Kucinich. When I ask these supporters about winning the general election in November, to a person they say they hadn't even thought about that.

And that is the problem.

much more liberal than most parts of the state. I have no doubt that if a nominee isn't chosen by the time our primary is held, she'll win this state, but it won't be because I voted for her.

supports Hillary. Including my AA friends.

:eyes:

In the first group - those that truly hate Hillary. In the second group - those that have fallen in love with Obama.

The first group is more honest than the second IMO. At least the people in the first group know what their agenda is. The guys in the second don't realize that they filter out anything even mildly negative and don't realize they pump up shit that does not matter to help their buddy.

Tonight I discovered that Obama ran for the U.S. Congress in 2000. I thought I knew his resume very well. If any other candidate (D or R) with so little experience ran for the W.H. the press (starting a year ago) would have repeatedly and cynically introduced any piece on Candidate A with the information that he ran for and loss a bid for congress in 2000. They would have constantly ridiculed Candidate A about being so so arrogant as to think that he/she had the chops to make a run for the Presidency. They would have destroyed Candidate A in very short order.

This time, his buddies are thinking about how cool it will be to hang out in the Rose Garden and smoke cigars.

same ole same ole?

You make the right point. Plus, Obama is doing that thing that drove us crazy about Reagan: going over the heads of the media and connecting directly with people.

Are we to imagine that they have changed now?? There is only one reason they are hysterically pushing Obama for the nomination, now. Not the election, just the nomination - the assault will begin the day after our convention, quite suddenly, and without warning.

want him to win the general election?? Especially since most of them were pro-bush in 2000 and 2004??

Make no mistake: they will turn on him viciously the day after our convention.

But she is a known quantity, and she and Bill will have a War Room. She might not beat McCain either, but she will fight the smears like a demon and that is the only way to survive them.

-- whether Right, Centre or Left! Amazing feat, considering the flak she keeps getting, while Obama keeps getting the saviour treatment.

Her town hall meeting tonight was a great way for her to thresh out her political plans again, and I was genuinely hopeful for her presidency, with all those issues she was going to deal with. Man, she's got a LOT of damage to fix!

and of course NPR. :tinfoilhat:bama gets the messiah treatment for now, but the Republican smear industry are already working on propaganda themes and I'm sure when the time is right, the corporate media will play it's role.

...with their soft treatment of Bush shenanigans and crimes and non-reporting of the real stories behind the stories, and lately, their decidedly pro-Obama bias.

Getting really disgusted with nearly all media outlets for their bandwagon mentality. I guess only Bill Moyers and NOW on PBS remain credible and honest.

I had to spend more time than usual yesterday in my car. I turned on and then turned off Randi Rhodes after less than five minutes. It is the last time for her. Ed Schultz joined the delete crowd months ago. So, I turned on NPR for the first time in over five years. Within five minutes I turned it off and will not give it another shot for at least five more years.

Then I fished around and found one CD in the glove box. It was great - haven't listened to opera in a long time. I felt so much better.

I like a bit of Handel myself. For non-opera, it's Bach most of the time.

How nice to meet another opera fan, and a Hillary supporter, to boot!

:hi:

I really think only Bill Moyers and NOW's David Brancaccio remain among the more prominent PBS journalists/commentators. Everyone else (including my old faves on Air America - Randi Rhodes, Rachel Maddow) has let me down bad! You have my sympathies.

her and her campaign. They get to Obama and the entire conversation was about how "hopeful" he is...how he inspires people :puke: how all the lovely celebrities supported him. The syrup was FLOWING! Talk about a contrast! They don't even try to hide the bias anymore. It's in your face and if you don't like it, too bad.:(

As I have said, I have never seen this sort of blatant pushing of a single candidate. I was, and am hoping it will backfire, but the public are so gullable anymore.

I wonder who they have planned for us, in 2012???

Hillary has run the most negative campaign so far, and she started out from day one as the most divisive figure in the race. Anyone shocked she's not getting glowing reviews?

they're not "complaining." They wrote a factual report.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) is a nonpartisan research and educational organization which conducts scientific studies of the news and entertainment media. CMPA election studies have played a major role in the ongoing debate over improving the election process. Our continuing analysis and tabulation of late night political jokes provides a lighter look at major news makers. CMPA is one of the few groups to study the important role the media plays in communicating information about health risks and scientific issues.

not the report. I don't doubt she gets negative coverage. she deserves it.

She can cook in hell for that, as far as I'm concerned.

'Cause you've never, ever done anything imperfect in your entire life, right?

Please turn off the broken record, keeps skipping on my poor player.

with a lot of the base. And as for having a lot of company..look around, she's the only "pro-war" Dem left standing in this race. She's still playing politics, YET AGAIN, and refusing to acknowledge that her vote was the biggest mistake of her career (aside from her 1st stab at healthcare); a war that has lead to the death and/or suffering of hundreds of thousands of people, and left only God knows how many children without parents. And I, and many others, find her prevarication on this issue, unforgiveable.

Hillary had a chance to carve out a place in the hearts of progressives, when hundreds of thousands of us took to the streets before the invasion of Iraq, but on every crucial vote she has been a major disappointment. In her effort to appear "strong on national defense", she feels she needs to appear hawkish, and many of us just find that unappealing.

You're right. Her Majesty has run a perfectly awfull campaign and now the chickens are coming home to rooost for her. And her fans now cry foul. Ponderous.

They've claimed over and over that there is a liberal bias in the media and their founder is a Fox News contributor.

You all know me for my pro-Hillary bias, but there is an underlying reason for this obscure group posting these results.

Their goal is to tell the public that Fox is unbiased. (We all know Fox is very biased). At the same time, they try to bash Fox's rival, NBC, which we know IS biased, but not as much as Fox.

Notice how they write in bold those parts that dead with Fox being a great unbiased network:

http://www.cmpa.com/election%20news%202_1_08.htm

They recently published an earlier article concluding the same: That Fox is nice to Democrats, while NBC isn't.
Here is proof that Fox funds the group: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs

he's hardly a rightwinger. Read the report, there's not much to argue with.

nobody is going to tune in for a rerun of the Clinton scandals.

It's all about the ratings.

---------------


That, and the Republicans who own the MSM think they'll have a better shot at beating Obama. It he gets the nom, you can expect those positive numbers to reverse in a heartbeat.

It's so obvious, like a bad horror movie.

It's not about ratings however, it's about controlling the election and the world.

Right now, it's men vs woman. If Obama is the nominee, it will be white vs black.

This will make Swiftboating 2004 look like the proverbial day at the beach. Abd Obama's supporters either ignore this or don't get it. But what boggles my mind is that Teddy K, and Kerry should KNOW BETTER! WTF??? Do we never learn?

rose-colored glasses are in for a nasty, rude awakening when they see what the repukes and their friends in the media have in store once the nominee is determined.

If it's Obama, it won't be the race card being played. It will be enough race card decks to fill every casino in Vegas.

power to secure the nom for Obama. That alone should be a strong cautionary warning. Since when did the media carry on a lovefest with a Dem?

They are quietly storing up their ammunition for the fall, knowing that no matter who the eventual nominee is, they will be prepared to unleash the media equivalent of shock and awe. Hillary's been there before, is tough as nails, and will give as good as she gets. Obama's the guy who keeps telling us he wants to reach out and make nice with the repukes. If he's the nominee we'll all get to witness how he responds when his extended hand ends up between the jaws of hundreds of poisonous snakes.

his Newsweek guests: Fineman, Alter and others are really rabid Clinton attackers.

Wonder whether they sit with their legs tightly closed when they think of the possibility that she will be the next president.

This happens a little too often for it to be a "mistake".

No, really.

It's all totally on the up and up. No reason to be suspicious at all.