Media Bias

Was the Washington Post's campaign coverage tilted in favor of Barack? The Post's ombudsman says so. Here are some of Deborah Howell's observations.

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 of last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4.

The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that from June 9, when Clinton dropped out of the race, until Nov. 2, 66 percent of the campaign stories were about Obama compared with 53 percent for McCain; some stories featured both. The project also calculated that in that time, 57 percent of the stories were about the horse race and 13 percent were about issues.

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.

Palin Power

The new ABC News/Washington Post poll only shows McCain with a 2% lead among likely voters (joining Gallup, Rasmussen and USA Today polls in putting McCain out in front), but the news is dramatic when you look inside the poll.

McCain's gains stem from his improved standing against Obama on the election's core issues and a significant narrowing of the newly minted Democratic nominee's advantage as the candidate better suited to shake up Washington.

Who is the "change" candidate now?

In previous surveys, white women gave Obama a clear edge on bringing change; now they divide 47 percent for McCain, 44 percent for Obama... Only four in 10 voters in the new poll said Obama has done enough to explain the "change" he promises; that's down six points from before his convention.

The shift among white women is astounding!

White women have moved from 50-42 percent in Obama's favor before the conventions to 53-41 percent for McCain now, a 20-point shift in the margin that's one of the single biggest post-convention changes in voter preferences.

On the issues, voters are much more comfortable with John McCain than with Barack.

...on the dominant issue of the election, the economy, McCain has whittled Obama's advantage to a mere five points, the smallest it's been this year. McCain has a 17-point lead on which candidate can best handle an unexpected crisis and, for the first time, a double-digit advantage as the one more trusted on international affairs. McCain also has a 10-point lead on dealing with the war in Iraq, an issue that voters had been divided on since the outset of the campaign.

Remembering Barack

Does anyone remember Barack Obama, the guy who used to be the candidate of change?

...I've sometimes wondered in recent months: Whatever happened to that Obama, to that enemy of excessive partisanship and evangelist of national unity?

He was a uniter, not a divider.

"Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes."

He was going to change the way Washington does business.

Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America."

He was going to cut through the ugliness, reach into the heart of America, tapping into such innate power that the forces of evil would be thrown to the side.

"We worship an awesome God in the blue states," Obama thundered. "And yes," he added, "we've got some gay friends in the red states."

That was the concept he laid out in his 2004 convention speech, the template for his candidacy that would begin in earnest just 2 years later.

...those lines stood out for a reason: They articulated a deep yearning, held by many Americans of varying beliefs, for less polarization and division. This theme was precisely what catapulted Obama to the front rank of Democratic politicians.

Now we're left with Barack Obama - Business As Usual. What happened?

The question is laid out by Michael Tomasky, writing in the Washington Post, who fails to offer a solid anwer, perhaps because, it seems, he likes Barack too much to state the obvious, loud and clear.

The guy who was going to change the way business is done in Washington was a character developed by Barack to win the nomination. The deep yearning for the end to partisanship isn't so deep or so wide. The fantasy he offered was a good angle for winning the nomination, but with the nomination in hand, Barack has shed his sheep's clothing.

I recently asked David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, what became of post-partisanship. "Oh, I think he still speaks about it, and I'm sure it'll be a theme at our convention," Axelrod told me.

Now, the concept of the Obama campaign is, "This is the year in which a Democrat can't lose, and we're not going to blow it. We'll do anything to win."

Is it Withdrawal or is it... Confusion?

Apparently, Barack has so beautifully articulated his Iraq policy that absolutely no one knows what it is. This is the only explanation I can come up with for the fact that I have been ranting all week about how he has now officially abandoned his commitment to the 16 month, unequivocal pullout, while others, much smarter than I, interpret his New York Times op-ed, his speech, and the new website language as meaning the precise opposite.

After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.

That's what the Washington Post wrote in its scathing editorial yesterday morning, as it accused Barack of being inflexible and unwilling to adjust his policy in the face of dramatically changed circumstances as a result of the surge.

Just to recap, here is the position he erased from his website this week:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

Now, his new position, as articulated in his speech Tuesday.

We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months... After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq... We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy - that is what any responsible Commander-in-Chief must do.

The transformation, for me, is absolutely dramatic - from a clear, decisive withdrawal schedule without caveat to a suggestion that "we can" withdraw in 16 months. This sentence doesn't even make clear that a 16 month withdrawal is part of Barack's plan - we have to infer this from the later statement, "After this redeployment." And, that redeployment is now contingent on tactical adjustments. Then, Barack insults himself for having previously held a position without an exception for tactical adjustments, which he says is an imperative for any Commander-in-Chief.

Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy." However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill.

But his commitment to consult with commanders and the Iraqi government and make adjustments as needed is the big flip flop!!! How can they skip right over the fact? Is the Post just throwing up it's hands and saying, "It's not for us to read between the lines. If we can't figure out what he's saying, we'll assume there's nothing new?"

The Post concludes:

Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

Exactly. That was always the case, but it was never admitted to by Barack until now.