We dealt with this issue about internet stories concerning the candidates back in June, and found that Obama's press coverage ran 3.63 to 1 favorable when compared to McCain.
But that was just internet news.
The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism found that same ratio applied to all traditional news sources as well.
"But coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable—and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three to one—the most unfavorable of all four candidates—according to the study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.
For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative. "
The Anchoress has some choice words on this subject (and is so much more eloquent than moi):
"Well. Duh. How can there be negative press on Obama, when the press won’t report on Obama anything that does not suit their narrative?"
Good point. But, wait. There's more!
"The press that wondered (however briefly) about John McCain’s birth certificate, wondered not at all about Barack Obama’s when Obama would not release it. The press that wants to see a GOP Veep Nominee’s full medical records did not insist on seeing any of Barack Obama’s (a letter from a doctor saying Obama was A-OK would suffice). The press that sent lawyers and investigators to Alaska to look through trash cans did not ask to see Obama’s grad school transcripts. The press that looks into every known association of candidates on the right has no curiosity about who Obama worked for or with, who he shared offices with, for years. The press that looked into the churchgoing practices of McCain/Palin is not interested in how or where Obama worshipped for 20 years, and what sort of theology he embraced. The press who goes out of its way to investigate Cindy McCain and Todd Palin, follows orders and finds nothing interesting or substantive to report on Michelle Obama, beyond naming her a “new fashion icon.” The press given no access to Obama, bitches about access to Palin. Think about how the press gave Obama a pass when he flip-flopped on public campaign financing; gave him another pass when he said he’d debate McCain “anytime, anywhere” then turned down a series of proposed townhall-style debates. Think about how the press, seeing their favorite rendered vulnerable by a bit of videotaped truthtelling on Obama’s part, did not bother to ask the candidate, “hey, let’s talk about ’spreading the wealth around’ and what that means,” but immediately shifted into “destroy the private citizen” mode. Think about the press going out of its way not to admit how closely Obama worked (and works) with ACORN.
Think about the fact that this 2001 audio of Obama discussing - among other things - Obama’s problems with the U.S. Constitution is all over the internet today, but not being discussed in the mainstream press.
Of course Obama’s coverage can be called “neutral.” When you’re trashing the opposition every day, you don’t have to say much at all about your favorite. You just put those positive images you’re allowed to have out on a continuous loop, and then bury all the “unmentionables” by the end of every news cycle."
She's Catholic, but I love her anyways. ;-)
