Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pew Research: Coverage of Clinton, Obama ‘Almost Identical’

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 06:12 PM
Original message
Pew Research: Coverage of Clinton, Obama ‘Almost Identical’
Tell me another one about how the media screwed Hillary out of "her" nomination. :crazy:

Study: Coverage of Clinton, Obama ‘Almost Identical’

Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy Examine Campaign Coverage


Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) did not get tougher press coverage than Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) when it came to the main themes about their character, history, leadership qualities and overall appeal.

In fact, it was just the opposite starting after Clinton criticized the media for being too soft on Obama.

That's according to a new study from the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy.

In fact, according to the study, for the first two months of the year, starting just before the Iowa caucuses, the tone of coverage for both was "almost identical," with both getting about twice as many positives in those categories as negatives.

The tougher coverage, the study said, came at Obama's expense as "the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself."

More at http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6565086.html




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm happy to give the first rec n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. Study does not include OP-ED pages. So, Dowd, Herbert, Robinson, etc. don't count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. They were pretty careful till the 'ghettoing' started in earnest for Super Tuesday states.
But let's pretend a wiley old pro like Bill just 'misspoke' shall we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Probly doesn't include Al Jazeera either.
I imagine they gave pretty good coverage to a fellow Muslim.

And then there's Rush, who was just fawning over Hussein the Halfrican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. It's useless not to include the columnists. Just a few weeks ago Herbert revived the Vandalism...
of the White House by the Clinton Admin lie.

With crap like this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. I just generally assume that the M$M are plugging along on their own agendas,
which are identical to the agendas of the corporations that own them, and content analyses such as this shouldn't be taken as indicators of anything much beyond the desires of the corporate boardrooms. The various pundits and other talking heads just catapult whatever propaganda they're told to push at any given moment. The most you can gain from looking at these percentage analyses is to get some insight into what game the parent corporations might be playing at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. It would appear that was something her campaign did correctly then.
It is good to see things like this being reported. Hopefully it will help people come to terms with what was fact and what was perception.

We'd do well to keep in mind though it's only human nature to notice the negative attacks more on someone or something you relate to, rather than someone or something you don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcctatas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
5. WOW....
"For example, 69% of the assertions about Obama on Fox News Channel were positive, versus 54% for Clinton. And both far outdistanced Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), with only 45%.

On CNN, Clinton was the clear winner, with 70% positives versus 59% for Obama and 49% for McCain.

The most even-handed, at least toward the Democrats, was MSNBC, the researchers concluded, with 72% positives for Clinton and 70% for Obama (McCain got 53%)."

69% positive from FAUX news for Obama? How did they squeeze it in between the Rev. Wright and bittergates? I wonder if this only factors in "hard news" shows and not the punditry....


Does FAUX even do news? Or is it all pundits all the time?

My brain hurts...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. This was back when EVERYBODY loved Obama
Before Hillary started her negative campaign against Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. This will no doubt come as a surprise to some and will be thus summarily disregarded.
It just doesn't fit into their narrative about the Perils of Pauline.

K&R anyway because the truth still matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
8. weasel words
"main themes"

And the study ended in March. Most of the vitriol has come after that time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Yeah, this doesn't include the pastorbating
your argument falls flat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. After March? You mean after she'd already lost?
Point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clarkwesley Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
14. The study does include op-ed columnists, LMAO
hillary haters Maureen Dowd, Gene Robinson, etc. etc. are not included. No wonder!

And check this out, from the "study":

MSNBC is pro-Clinton and Fox is pro-Obama.

haha.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I sure your personal viewing habits are much more reliable.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clarkwesley Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
15. The study says McCain was the most mistreated by the media
The myth that McCain is the media's darling has been debunked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Back again, Benny?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
17. I didn't read the whole article but I 100% agree w/ the linked text.
It was aweful what they did to Obama the last few months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enki23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
19. bad title. their own article says he got harsher treatment
Edited on Fri Jun-06-08 08:46 PM by enki23
right after clinton played the refs with her slightly modified version of the "liberal media" shtick.

in any case, mccain was the big loser, it's true. but i really don't think that's evidence for the "liberal media." i'd bet a fair sum it's because movement conservatives, who are vastly overrepresented in our major media outlets, really don't like him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Yeah, I know. I wonder what their study of April and May will find.
Actually, I don't wonder that much. Obama got excoriated in the press and still managed to whup Hillary's pantsuited ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. .
Edited on Fri Jun-06-08 08:44 PM by jgraz
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. .
Edited on Fri Jun-06-08 08:44 PM by jgraz
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-06-08 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
23. Hey, look, evidence!
I just watched a discussion of the same issue on Dan Abrams. It was as though none of the participants had even heard of the concept of evidence, let alone brought any of their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Funny, isn't it?
What's funnier is the people who actually see a comprehensive media survey and still insist that their personal TV-watching experience was a superior yardstick of the coverage. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC