News Media Tone and Obama, McCain, Biden, Palin: There's a Difference

First, the good news. The American news media isn't wildly for, or against, Barack Obama. Coverage of the Democratic candidate is, overall, rather even-handed.

Now, the not-so-good news. News media coverage of McCain is negative, about four to one.

That's bad news, not just for McCain supporters, but for people who would just as soon not have the American news media cheering for either side. I know: that's a little like hoping that I'll win the lottery. It could happen, but it's not likely.

I found an article about news media coverage of the American presidential election tonight: "Winning the Media Campaign" How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election (Project for Excellence in Journalism (October 22, 2008)).

The lead paragraph is a pretty good summary:

"The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one, according to a new study of the media since the two national political conventions ended...."

The article is a fairly detailed report of media coverage of the candidates, including how the data was gathered and evaluated.

It could be worse, but I'm not exactly happy about the tone that the news media has taken with the candidates:

Candidate	Positive	Neutral or Mixed	Negative
McCain	14%	29%	57%
Palin	28%	33%	39%
Obama	36%	35%	29%
Biden	33%	53%	15%

The problem, as I see it, is that if people are told something often enough, they're likely to believe it. Let's say we have a candidate with the -

• Reputation of the late President Kennedy
• Eloquence of James Earl Jones
• Charm of Barack Obama

If almost six out of ten news stories people heard and read about this wonder-candidate explained how poorly he or she was doing, and how unsuitable the candidate was for office: I wouldn't count on that candidate being elected.

When You Read the News, Think

It would be nice if the news media were as even-handed as they seem to think they are. That's not the way it is. So, responsible voters need to study the news, not just read it: think about what's being said, how it's said, and what's not being said.

And, if a seemingly trustworthy media figure makes a claim about, say, the National Review that just doesn't make sense: don't assume that the claim is true. Look it up.

Related posts:

• "Sarah Palin is 'incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, or all of the above' "
  (October 22, 2008)
• "The New York Times, Insularity, and Assumptions"
  (October 21, 2008)
• "(Some of) Sarah Palin's Exact Words"
  (September 12, 2008)

In the news:

• "Study: Media Portrays McCain in 'Substantially Negative' Light Compared to Obama"
  ABC News (October 22, 2008)
• "McCain's media coverage largely negative, Pew Research Center finds"
  Los Angeles Times (October 22, 2008)
• "McCain losing campaign media war: survey"
  AFP (October 22, 2008)
• "McCain's negative coverage up as numbers go down"
  Associated Press (October 22, 2008)
• "Winning the Media Campaign"
  Project for Excellence in Journalism (October 22, 2008)
• "Veep Debate, Palin Rule Campaign News"
  Project for Excellence in Journalism (September 29 - October 5, 2008)

Background:

• journalism.org
  Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism
• The Pew Charitable Trusts