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.

Media Bias Bothering Liberals

Even liberals are complaining about the liberal media.

In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.

The cable news channel is "completely out of control," said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.

Maybe she's still angry about Hillary?

She added that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann.

Olbermann was criticized by many who attended Monday's luncheon sponsored by the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The event was dubbed "Hollywood, America and Election '08."

Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC -- and other media -- has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters.

And last week, Dan Rather said that Sarah Palin would have been skewered for saying what Joe Biden promised would be a testing of the new President if Obama is elected.

Former CBS anchorman Dan Rather says there is a huge double-standard in the media when it comes to coverage the Barack Obama campaign receives, which is clearly made evident in the lack of scrutiny given to comments Obama’s vice presidential running mate Sen. Joe Biden made earlier this week.

That's pretty good coming from a guy who used to say things like this in his TV newscasts.

“The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor.”

— Leading off the March 16, 1995 CBS Evening News.

It's funny. Every self-respecting liberal I've ever debated has insisted that media bias is an imagined, and impossible, phenomenon, a symptom of conservatism.

Barack Wins

When it comes to the race for positive press, Barack Obama is the winner.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs just released these findings:

* Comments about Obama on the three network evening newscasts have been 65% positive since the party conventions.

* Comments about John McCain have been 36% positive.

* Comments about Sarah Palin have been 42% positive.

* There have been too few evaluations of Joe Biden for “meaningful analysis.”

* The study found that Obama’s press on the FOX network has been 28% positive while McCain’s has been 38% and Palin’s 49% positive.

Power Play

Media bias has gotten so bad that now they're complaining about it within the biased media.

The liberal news channel MSNBC is taking Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews off as anchors of live political events in the wake of growing criticism of both commentators during the network's coverage of the conventions. White House correspondent David Gregory will anchor the presidential race's remaining events such as the debates. NBC News people, including veteran newsanchor Tom Brokaw have felt that MSNBC's overt liberalism is damaging to NBC's credibility as a member of the liberally biased mainstream media.

Ban the Media!

Are most Americans conscious of liberal bias in the media? Oh yes.

...49% believe most reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the election this year. Just 14% believe they’re trying to help McCain.

Do Americans get that the influence of money is a huge problem? Yup. But it's not as bad as media bias!

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 55% believe media bias is more of a problem than big campaign contributions. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree and think that campaign cash is a bigger problem.

Would voters favor banning all TV commercials to get rid of the influence of money in politics? Nope. They feel that they need to commercials to protect them from.... media bias!

Just 22% believe it would be a good idea to ban all campaign commercials so that voters could receive information on the campaign only from the news media and the internet. Sixty-six percent (66%) disagree and think that, despite the annoyance factor, it’s better to put up with an election-year barrage of advertising rather than rely on the news media.

And how do folks feel about the price of coffee?

Seventy-three percent (73%) of adults say Starbucks Coffee is overpriced. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 6% disagree.

Just threw that in to see if you're paying attention.