Obama coverage more positive than Bush, Clinton (Upd)

No shock here as the media is as close as you can get to the official state-sponsored media arm of the Obama administration. However, to see the coverage from Pew Research showing Obama getting tremendously more favorable coverage than even Bill Clinton is fascinating.

Pew research reports:

As he marks his 100th day in office, President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George Bush during their first months in the White House, according to a new study of press coverage.

Overall, roughly four out of ten stories, editorials and op ed columns about Obama have been clearly positive in tone, compared with 22% for Bush and 27% for Clinton in the same mix of seven national media outlets during the same first two months in office, according to a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The study found positive stories about Obama have outweighed negative by two-to-one (42% vs. 20%) while 38% of stories have been neutral or mixed.

When a broader universe of media—one that includes 49 outlets and reflects the more modern media culture of 2009, is examined, the numbers for Obama’s coverage are similar, though somewhat less positive and somewhat more negative. In this expanded universe of media—which includes news websites, additional regional and local newspapers, plus cable news, network morning news, and National Public Radio, 37% of Obama’s coverage has been positive, 40% neutral and 23% negative.

Several factors may be at play in the favorable tone Obama has received during these first months. One element is the pace and sweep of Obama’s activities. Bush and Clinton both started their presidencies pursuing policy agendas much more of their own making than Obama has. But the data suggest the current president has managed the media narrative anyway by responding to the economic crisis with so many new proposals and doing so many events that it has been hard for both his critics and the media to keep up.

I believe that last bold sentence has been the plan all along. Keep your critics all over the place by never backing down from new proposals. Furthermore, this keeps the media and the public from getting a chance to actually examine the merits of the legislation. Moreover, it allows the administration to use fear mongering tactics by employing words like “crisis” and “catastrophe” to push though bad legislation.

The Pew Research graph of coverage between Obama, Clinton and Bush:

The media is being much more pro-Obama than even Clinton, the last Democrat media darling.

More interesting tidbits from the study:

In contrast with Clinton and Bush, Obama’s treatment was more favorable than skeptical both in news coverage and on newspaper opinion pages. For Clinton, on the other hand, news coverage tilted toward the negative, while newspaper op eds and editorial offered favor. The treatment went the other way for Bush, with news coverage leaning positive, while op ed and editorials studied were decidedly negative.

So not only does “hard news” paint Obama favorably, the op/ed pages do the same.

The topics covered have also has been different for Obama versus his predecessors. Roughly twice as much of the coverage of Obama (44%) has concerned his personal and leadership qualities than was the case for Bush (22%) or Clinton (26%). Less of the coverage, meanwhile, has focused on his policy agenda.

The Obama “fluff” pieces about his family or beach vacations have been everywhere. Furthermore, the media does not examine his policies, they simply examine the way he speaks and what his intentions are.

The bottom line here is that nothing is out of the ordinary nor does it come as a shock. It is, sadly, expected from the media-government complex which now exists between Obama and his propaganda arm known as the mainstream media.

The victim here is objective coverage. None of the major media outlets can provide objective reporting because they have a stake in Obama’s success since they openly rooted for him. Furthermore, I’m sure Obama is “too big to fail” which means we cannot report anything negative.

Update:

More confirmation as this video shows how the White House Press Corp rises for their leader but doesn’t move when President Bush enters the room:

Too funny.

  • Path

    Reality has a libreal bias didn’t you know? Anyways where was that critical media before the Iraq war? Oh yea they were too busy having interviews with corupt “military analysts” who were being fed lines from the pentagon. To “generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance” Not to mention “Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html

    I wonder why no news business has covered who won the Pulitzer for investigative reporting?

    Remember the Media is just like any other corporation. Their sole existiance is to make more money. Right now fluff pieces on Obama and his family are selling

  • How do you explain the so-called “hard news” being overtly pro-Obama without acknowledging liberal media bias?

  • Path

    How do you explain the so called “fair and balanced news” being overtly anti-obama without acknowledging right wing media bias?

  • I knew you wouldn’t answer my question and you didn’t disappoint, thank you. Classic textbook liberal evasion of a hard question which can’t be answered without conceding a point.

    Here, I’ll give you an example of answering a question and then you try without changing the subject or ignoring the question, k?

    Well lets see, Path. You have the following pro-Obama “hard news” outlets:

    ABC
    CBS
    NBC
    MSNBC
    CNN
    New York Times
    LA Times
    Washington Post
    A million other newspapers and websites…. etc…

    For a critical view of Obama you have the following “hard news” outlets:

    Fox News

    Wow, that is amazing right-wing bias, I’m amazed the liberal Democrats have a voice in the heavily controlled right-wing media conglomerate.

    Give me a break.

  • Path

    So spreading lies is being critical? The media companies are only in it make money. I don’t like any of them very much either and I don’t regularly read or watch what you posted.

    I’ll asked my first question again that you evaded. Where was the ‘liberal’ media before the iraq war? They all seemed goose-stepped in line with Bush then

  • “So spreading lies is being critical?”

    Definitive examples of the lies. Remember, “lie” doesn’t mean something you disagree with or two words taken out of context and twisted to meet your statement.

    Once again though, you’re deflecting the issue at hand which is the pro-Obama media and your inability to explain it away. I’ll count that as one you can’t answer and/or don’t want to admit to, that’s fine. Your silence speaks volumes.

    Here are several examples of opposition prior to the Iraq war, most printed in major media outlets:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War#Opposition_from_national_security_and_military_personnel

    However, keep in mind we’re comparing the treatment of 3 presidents over their respective first 100 days, not Iraq war coverage. That’s another discussion which I’ll gladly have, though not in this thread.

    You have tried to change the subject repeatedly to deflect valid criticism of the media and their blatantly pro-Obama bias. Pleas stop doing so, it’s weak.

  • Path

    Have you ever thought that maybe Obama has just done more postive things than either Clinton or Bush? And when the Right wing uses people like sam wurzelbacher, sarah palin, newt grinwich, dick cheney, karl rove, and rush limbaugh as leaders they make easy targets to prove wrong.

    Here are some video clips of the lying and misinformation spread by fox.

    The first three is a 3 part series. Long but with a lot of good information and sources.

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2az5_fox-news-lies-i-of-iii_events
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2bwu_fox-news-lies-ii_events
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2byj_fox-news-lies-iii_business

    As a result of lawsuit between a group of investigative reports working for fox and Fox’s Parent company News corp. “A Federal Court in Florida ruled that Fox and the media in general have no obligation to tell the truth. The FCC policy about ‘Truth in Reporting’ was only a guideline and not obligatory”

    CNN did a good piece on hows about Obama’s education got spread.

    Then finially for the Lulz:

    I really hope I got the code right for those videos. If it doesn’t work i’ll post the links in the next post

  • Path

    I don’t think the CNN piece or the Daily Show piece worked so I’ll just post the direct url:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhWaiULqkp4

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223862&title=Baracknophobia—Obey

  • Path, you’re too much.

    You posted links to the anti-Fox propaganda movie Outfoxed which is terribly biased against the channel. Can you post anything from objective sources giving examples of lies spread by the channel? I’ll wait for your new examples which don’t consist of anti-Fox propaganda pieces. Posting links to that biased documentary will only work with your kool-aid drinking liberal friends who hate Fox News but have never actually watched it.

    Also, you posted the CNN piece slamming Fox for reporting on the magazine article that Obama attended a madrasah in Indonesia. Yes, Fox reported it because it was reported in a magazine, many places took the same source. When it was questioned, Fox retracted the story once they could not confirm it. Imagine that, a news company retracting a story it got wrong. Happens everyday in the New York Times, see their retractions/corrections. So that one is moot as it was retracted the way news organizations do when they find they’ve made an error. Every news organization does it.

    Also, you posted a link to The Daily Show on Comedy Central. Do I need to responded to a comedy show which is known for smart editing to make jokes or are you one of the millions brainwashed into believing it’s actually news? If so, please find a real news source to cite, not a comedy show.

    Please Path, try harder next time to find real sources to backup your allegations. I don’t accept propaganda documentaries from either political side nor do I accept comedy being passed off as “objective news,” thanks anyway.

  • Path

    darn i forgot the video that went with the “no obligation to tell the truth” Just do a google video search for “rBGH milk expose” it’ll be faster than my post going through moderation

  • (Yawn)

    ..waiting for some real, objective examples, not the predictably lame liberal talking points about how you all hate Fox News but never actually watch it.

  • Path

    I actually do watch fox news pretty regularly and it is horribly slanted. I can’t think of anyone off the top of head who isn’t a devote member of the GOP faithfull. Shep Smith is the closest thing they have to sane. Of course the videos I posted were anti-fox they were exposing what and how fox passes off as reporting and journalism. Did YOU watch the videos I posted or did you automatically think it was liberal trash? If you did, what sources exactly did you disagree with. Did you think the former employees were lying?

    Jon Stewart isn’t news, its funny commentary. At lest he doesn’t try to pass it off as news like fox.

  • Path

    Here is a more direct source. All from the past week (except the teabagger one) but all with full transcripts/video so nothing is out of contex.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200904160035 (teabaggers)
    http://mediamatters.org/research/200905040031 (Chrysler bankruptcy)
    http://mediamatters.org/research/200905030003
    http://mediamatters.org/research/200905010016 (torture)
    http://mediamatters.org/research/200905010049
    http://mediamatters.org/research/200904290033
    http://mediamatters.org/research/200904280046 (healthcare)

    Need some more?

  • Media Matters is not a credible source as it too is an anti-fox propaganda tool of George Soros. You need to research your sources before you embarrass yourself again.

    I did not need to watch Outfoxed, I have read enough about it and I find it a widely discredited attempt of clever editing and accusations. Furthermore, the people who made the “documentary” hated Fox News to begin with so they made a “documentary” to validate their pre-formed opinions. Get a clue and stop following the crowd. Do your own research FOR ONCE with actual news stories! I watched the other things and yawned through them, nothing much of interest. Could make the same types of things against CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc….

    I find it wildly hilarious how you have ignored every other media outlet and you’re only attacking Fox News. It speaks volumes for your mindset.

    You’re one of those liberals who is so closed-minded that you can’t stand one media outlet which doesn’t tow the liberal line. You hate dissenting opinion, it’s clear.

    Path watch, I’ll post a link to Newsbusters, the conservative equivalent to the sham of Media Matters:

    http://newsbusters.org/

    It is constantly pointing out liberal bias.

    My point here is that you continue using well-known partisan sources, you have still not posted anything from a truly objective source, I don’t think you know what an objective source is because you’ve been fed the same liberal propaganda for years.

    Therefore, I can only assume you have nothing to back up your claims which doesn’t come directly from an anti-Fox propaganda outlet.

    Am I wrong? Your continued focus on Fox and evasion of answering anything about 99% of the other media tells me I’m 100% correct.

  • Path

    haha

    what exactly at media matters isn’t “credible” enough for you. What do you want to see? They provide full transcrips and full video and then cite sources. Mediamatters deals with more than just fox news they have clips from every news organization spreading lies and misinformation. Fox just does it the most consistently.

    “read enough about it”
    It speaks volumes for your mindset

    I’ve already posted the link to the newyork times piece that critized media outlets for using generals as “analysist” provided by the pentagon and other war profiteers. msnbc was the biggest ofender of that.

  • Path

    Here’s the rational for why the reporters stood for Obama and not Bush.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/04/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4990853.shtml

    or is that not credible for you? Should I go out conduct my own interviews and get testimonials?

  • Path

    Nate you want to preach crediblity yet your the one who linked to a story by a nobody based on an anonymous e-mail.

    To steal a line from david plouffe “its like getting interview tips from Sarah Palin”

  • You haven’t address the mainstream media because you can’t. You have evaded every single time. You know the media is blatantly pro-Obama so you can’t dispute that.

    You also can’t stand it that Fox News isn’t lockstep with the liberal ideology, that’s clear as well.

    Are you afraid of opposing view points, is that why you hate Fox? Seems like you’re afraid of liberal policies being questioned or examined so you despise anyone who does so.

    Media Matters is a tool of George Soros which only serves to attack conservative media, don’t you get that? They serve no purpose except trying to smear Fox News and conservative talk radio. They are not objective no nor do they examine the liberal mainstream media because they are a part of the liberal mainstream media. You need new sources.

    Again though, if you’re too blinded by your own intellectual dishonesty on this issue, I understand.

  • Bill Hedges

    Poor Prez having toubles with own his party today. G. jailed Terrorist and Energy bill ruining his day. Add alternative energy wind ban woes, liberals must be holding their breath mad.

  • Bill Hedges

    ‘Maverick’ DHS Office Issues Glossary of Domestic Extremist Groups
    The Office of Intelligence and Analysis uses a broad brush to define dozens of supposedly extremist ideologies inside the United States, in a report called “Domestic Extremism Lexicon,”

    “They cover: Jewish extremists, animal rights extremists, Christian identity extremists, black separatism extremists, anti-abortion extremists, anti-immigration extremists, anti-technology extremists, Cuban independence extremists and tax resistance extremists, to name a few.”

  • Bill Hedges
  • JD

    Nate,

    You decide politics is a classic example of a media source that claims to let “youdecide” but really it is a conservative slanted site.

    Don’t get me wrong, If i wanted to hear from people with my same ideas I would tune to CNN but I like hearing from the other side. Keeps me honest.

    That said. you are are mistaken if you think media of all kinds isn’t slanted one way or the other.

  • Path

    “You haven’t address the mainstream media because you can’t. ” Yes I have read my first post. That newyork times pieces goes after them all exspecially msnbc.

    “Media Matters is a tool of George Soros which only serves to attack conservative media, don’t you get that?”

    Even if thats true. You still haven’t proven anything on there is a lie. You asked for proof and I gave it to you. Full video and transcripts. Nothing out of contex. And you can’t prove any of it wrong.

    Again though, if you’re too blinded by your own intellectual dishonesty on this issue, I’ll understand.

  • Path

    Why are you against George Soros but not Rupert Murdoch? Both have clear political leanings with more money than any of us could ever hope to get

  • D.D.Mao

    Nate…………I have a suggestion! ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS REMOVE THE “CU” IN THE SUBTITLE.This would make it “dissing” politics from all sides. Which is pretty much what we do.

  • “Why are you against George Soros but not Rupert Murdoch? Both have clear political leanings with more money than any of us could ever hope to get”

    I am for a free marketplace of ideas and media, which is why I think media outlets should rise and fall on their merits. Also, to equate Rupert Murdoch with George Soros is like comparing Gandhi to Hitler. Again, it just shows how you have bought the liberal hatred of Fox News hook, line and sinker. Think for yourself sometime, it might hurt at first but you’ll get used to it.

    I disagree with most of the commentators on MSNBC. However, I am not afraid of them like you are of Fox News nor do I want them shutdown because I disagree with them.

    You seem to bash Fox because you disagree with their editorial bent. That’s fine, but do you believe in free speech and the marketplace of ideas? Doesn’t sound like it. Sounds like you want a media which only holds a left wing editorial bent so you’re trying to crush Fox News.

    I’m just saying the obvious here.

    You have 1 major media outlet with conservative commentators.

    Then you have have dozens of other media outlets with liberal commentators.

    What are you afraid of? Why does 1 media outlet get your panties in a bunch? Aren’t you comfortable with your ideas to let them be questioned once and awhile?

    Also, your silence on the original topic continues to solidify the fact that most major media is blatantly pro-Obama as it cannot be proven otherwise.

  • Path

    Why are you so afraid of George Soros?

    When did I say I wanted Fox News shutdown? I actually watch them quite offten.

    “disagree with their editorial bent.”
    If it was just the editorial part that would be fine however that rarley happens they mix commentary and news and never try to split them. thats not good journalism.They are free to say whatever they want and I’m free to say they are wrong. Don’t claim to be fair and balanced when your not

    Do you realize how much News Corp actually owns? Its a lot more than just one media outlet.

    I don’t rally trust any for profit “news organizations” and take it all as a grain of salt. That includes Disney, CBS Corp, News Corp, TimeWarner, and General Electric

  • You brought up Media Matters which is funded by Soros, I could care less. I just think he launders money through political action committees and never discloses where it goes. Furthemore, he is dishonest about his political dealings when it comes to money. I thought liberals wanted corporate money out of politics but I guess that’s only for Republicans.

    “If it was just the editorial part that would be fine however that rarley happens they mix commentary and news and never try to split them.”

    I hope you aren’t trying to say Fox is the only news agency which blurs the lines, are you? If so, you will have lost all credibility in this discussion.

  • Path

    So what does media matters do wrong that its not a good source? I could say all the negative things you said about Soros and apply them to Murdoch. So by your logic you shouldn’t watch fox either.

    “I thought liberals wanted corporate money out of politics but I guess that’s only for Republicans.”

    I do but until the law changes he can do whatever he wants. I thought Republicans didn’t want the government to care what a person did with their own hard earned money.

    I also don’t think we should have 5 massive conglomerats controling all the media and news. None of them care about truth they only care about profit. They will never report something that could hurt their bottom line.