A new study by two of journalism’s leading independent institutions has found that complaints from Hillary Clinton and her campaign that the media treated her unfairly are largely unfounded. According to the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard’s Shorenstein Center, it’s John McCain who should be upset with the coverage.
Boston Globe / Political Intelligence:
While the narratives about [Barack] Obama’s character were 69 percent positive and those about Clinton’s were 67 percent positive, only 43 percent of them were positive for McCain, according to the analysis by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University.
“From January 1, just before the Iowa caucuses, through March 9, following the Texas and Ohio contests, the height of the primary season, the dominant personal narratives in the media about Obama and Clinton were almost identical in tone, and were both twice as positive as negative, according to the study, which examined the coverage of the candidates’ character, history, leadership and appeal—apart from the electoral results and the tactics of their campaigns,” according to a release about the study.
“The trajectory of the coverage, however, began to turn against Obama, and did so well before questions surfaced about his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Shortly after Clinton criticized the media for being soft on Obama during a debate, the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical—and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself. What’s more, an additional analysis of more general campaign topics suggests the Obama narrative became even more negative later in March, April and May,” the summary continues.
Read more
Email Newsletter
Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.
Previous item: Ex-Bushie: McClellan Is Right
Next item: Bush Compares Today's World to WWII
Confronting the Terrorist Within
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By i,Q, May 30 at 3:18 pm #
The study doesn’t seem to distinguish between factual reporting and opinion POV. (i’ll have to look more closely at the study later.)
Every afternoon the media invites often credential free “political strategists” to offer biased opinions in answer to softball questions about the topic du jour.
Journalistic integrity would be better served to show more “in-their-own-words” evidence and give less voice to talking-point reinforcement.
Frankly, it’s not the news media’s job to offer a balance of negative and positive coverage. The media’s responsibility is to offer equal, unbiased coverage. i know that that is an optimistic expectation these days, but critical thinkers can recognize the difference between the meat and potatoes and the pattern of the china. So encourage your peers and your children to start thinking critically instead of wringing your hands about the media’s shortcomings.
Report thisBy ocjim, May 30 at 11:39 am #
I’m assuming that the study group is tabulating the number of positive stories about each and is not concerned about truth of the stories. And they determine what is positive and what is negative.
As usual black or white reporting is akin to a trial attorney wanting a yes or no answer.
The truth is that McCain as an independent and as a maverick is a fraud. When you set yourself up with that kind of image and all of your actions and policies point to the opposite, even a corporate media must report a shade of the truth.
If your report indicates that McCain is a fraud, that is certainly negative and true.
Report thisBy Leefeller, May 30 at 6:36 am #
Had some nice things to say about her, but they like McCain slightly more, must have something to do with supporting the war and of course obliterating Iran. if you get McCain and Hillary together, they could write a song. “BOMB BOMB OBLITERATE IRAN”. Who can out warmonger the other?
Report thisBy Leefeller, May 30 at 6:34 am #
Had some nice things to say about her, but they like McCain slightly more, must have something to do with supporting the war.
Report thisBy ImpeachTheCriminals, May 30 at 4:59 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Maybe reporters portrayed McCain’s character as being low because it is, in fact and in reality, low. He made a big show about being opposed to torture and then supported CheneyBush’s torture policies by voting in the Senate to allow them to continue torturing prisoners. That’s pretty despicable.
McCain loves war. That is a mark of psychosis. He’d be perfectly OK with US troops fighting in Iraq for the next 100 years if necessary. That is insane, evil. That profoundly undemocratic position proves he is unfit to serve in any public office, including the one he now holds.
If the corporate media were objective, they would be portraying McCain as the fringe, marginal nut-case that he is, rather than a serious candidate for president (actually emperor, since CheneyBush’s destruction of the Constitutional system of checks and balances). The media have actually been giving McCain a free ride on his obvious mental illness.
Report thisBy Aegrus, May 30 at 4:47 am #
You’re preaching to the choir for the most part, JS. I don’t think (well at least I don’t) most people just look at TruthDig and assume their daily news intake has finished.
Report thisBy nrobi, May 30 at 4:37 am #
In the grand scheme of things, all of the candidates will receive negative press at one time or another during the campaign. But the prize for the most obscene and biased coverage of any candidate goes to, tah dah! Faux News, for their completely unabashed and downright favoritism of Sen. John McCain. You would think, if you watched Fox News, that Sen. John McCain, had already been elected president and that our country can count on the policies of the Shrub and Darth Vader, to be continued for the next 8 years. How dare such a complete lack of ethical and moral behaviour be allowed to continue, despite the choice of the people, who are thinking and breathing. Does Faux News think that we the people will blindly follow the leader, namely them and elect a person who has stated without shadow of doubt, that we will be in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also Iran for the next 100 years if necessary. How long will the American public stand for a mouthpiece “news” organization? My hope is not too long. If we the people do not see the ideal of a “free and unbiased” press as a necessary part of a democratic nation, then I foresee a nation that will disintegrate into totalitarianism and fascism within the next generation. I, for one, will raise my voice and do whatever I can to stop the madness and see that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not discarded for “security” purposes, and overturn most if not all of the policies of the current administration, that have eroded and weakened the foundation of this country.
Report thisBy Maezeppa, May 29 at 11:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Narrative, schmarrative, “It’s the INTENSITY, Stupid!”
The 31% “unfavorable” coverage of Senator Clinton is beyond the pale, is more intensely vicious and more virulent in scope than criticism of McCain or Obama.
McCain’s unfavorable coverage is warranted because his record sucks. Obama shows promise but he is too green to have much of a record - good, bad or indifferent.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, May 29 at 4:46 pm #
Shit, i could have sworn that the media had been out to get Sen Clinton from the start. If i had a nickel for every time i’ve heard/read how the media torpedoed her campaign...i wouldn’t need her silly gas tax holiday scheme at all.
And i thought that McCain was getting a free ride like Obama.
It only goes to show that if you get all of your news from liberal blogs and the comment sections attached to them, then you’re not well informed. Sorry, Truthdig, but it’s true.
Report thisBy Thomas Billis, May 29 at 3:53 pm #
If you listen to the whining in Clinton campaign you would think somebody drew a moustache on all her campaign posters.She is wrong on every issue that democrats care about and these whiners are blaming it on gender bias."Ready to be wrong from day one”.Should be her campaign slogan.
Report thisBy Aegrus, May 29 at 1:31 pm #
Well, this is just unfair treatment to Hillary. Can’t you see??? Outrightly unfair and sexist. I mean, 69% favorable to Obama? hint*hint* How dehumanizing! Not to mention the idea of “negative disposition”, as if that wasn’t a swipe against a powerful woman. Everything is in relation to Obama. The cards are stacked against Hillary. It’s just evil that these kinds of so-called “fact tanks” could put out this kind of study right before the seating FL and MI delegates are going to be discussed by the Rules Committee.
Shameful, anti-Hillary research!
Report this