A new study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism puts some numbers behind the most constant criticism I've heard this election cycle: That the press is more negative about John McCain than Barack Obama.
In fact, they find that while Obama coverage has been slightly more positive than negative, they call McCain coverage "heavily unfavorable," with the negative stories coming more than three-to-one over the positive.
Republican voters will say "duh."
Of course, there's nuance here, so I encourage everyone to read it before making generalizations.
The authors write about the data: "They do offer a strong suggestion that winning in politics begat winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls and internal tactical maneuvering to alter those positions."
Stories judged "negative" have to do with the content, so as a candidates poll numbers decline, it's difficult to write positive stories.
However, it also underscores an argument that I think holds a lot of water: Obama's opponents think his background deserves more scrutiny than it has gotten. And, well, I've heard the same from people who are predisposed to vote for him. Just last night, an extremely liberal friend told me she feared people were being "hypnotized" by his speaking skills and the promise of a departure from the Bush administration.
If Obama is elected and serious skeletons emerge from his closet, I hope the press doesn't look back on these months as a missed opportunity to inform voters.
What's positive to write about the GOP
or John McCain? He's lurched from position to position, is running the most negative campaign in recent history, and picked a wholly unqualified running mate.
IN the words of Stephen colber, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Obama's background
'Obama's opponents think his background deserves more scrutiny than it has gotten.'
McCain's opponents think his background deserves more scrutiny than it has gotten, too.
Rolling Stone published a lovely little piece on McCain's 'background' and if the Star would only devote its resources to publicizing these "serious skeletons", it won't have to get down on its knees and beg the public to forgive the "missed opportunity to inform voters".
Negative Press
It's hard to write something positive about a man who was so reckless as to choose Sarah Palin for the VP spot. I feel that issue has a lot to do with the negative press.
As to the reference to the media regretting at not looking at Obama hard enough if something comes up later, first of all, who says they haven't?
Secondly, the media has an awfully lot to answer for in the run up to the Iraq war (all except McCltchey, according to a PBS special).
They didn't do any due diligence and just wrote the junk coming from this administration.
I certainly hope they have learned their lessons.
The media
The media has given us George Bush, the Iraq War and now Obama. To suggest that the press has learned a lesson is way off base, in fact, they learned what success is, and will keep repeating it until the public makes them stop.
Obama has gotten a pass on every issue that has come up, remember his Rev Wright survival speech was THE GREATEST SPEECH EVER! We are always given comparisons to JFK, RFK, Lincoln, MLK Jr and now Michelle is Jackie Kennedy. And people wonder where the press is?
I've said this before, the press was accused of being unpatriotic and backed off any investigation or discussion. Now they fear being labeled 'racist' and back off.
press
What a joke, you hear all about the 150k for Palin's new clothes, yet you can't find anything about the 500K Obama spent to re-paint the exterior his plane. Just imagine the howling by the left if Palin did not get a clothes makeover, "she is dressed in rags" or " she has no class look at her clothes" or "how could she represent this country, look at her clothes" Palin can't win no matter what she does. Do you honestly think Obama and Biden wear clothes out of their closet? You know they receive and should receive a clothing allowance to look their best. Point is the left will tear any and everything down Palin does. Did they just ignore the fact that Reagan, Clinton and W. Bush did not have ANY foreign policy experiance either? Different standard for Palin. Why? She will just surround herself with competant people like Reagan, Clinton and W. Bush did. If you attack Palin for her lack of foreign policy experiance then you MUST attack Obama for the same thing. They both lack the experiance. Obama gets a pass for the same thing Palin gets attacked on. WHY?