July 28, 2008 1:27
Warning: Story About Lack of Substance
The LA Times' On the Media column points out a provocative study from (my old employer) the Center on Media and Public Affairs that seems to deflate the conventional wisdom that Obama is benefiting from favorable media coverage. The center classified statements about the candidates from the nightly network newscasts over the past six weeks as either "positive" or "negative" (or neutral) and found "when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative." McCain wasn't exactly coddled, but the split measured by CMPA was far less dramatic: "43% of the statements positive and 57% negative."
My job at CMPA was to provide critical analysis of popular studies; I tended to find that most polls and studies quoted in popular media are not in themselves flawed or dishonest, but that writers and readers tended to emphasize the topline results, without looking at the ways in which methodology skews those results. Like, for instance, with this study. The authors admit that "most on-air statements during that time could not be classified as positive or negative," and that, in fact, found "less than two opinion statements per night on the candidates on all three networks combined." (I actually think that this apparent LACK of bias should be the real headline of the study.) Let's be generous and say that the average was about 1.5 "opinionated" statements a night -- that's a grand total of about 60 "biased" statements since the study began on June 8. The article doesn't provide a break down for how the total number of biased statements split between the candidates, but another recent study of the evening news found that Obama received about 70 percent of all campaign coverage and McCain just under 30 percent. Applying that basic proportion to the 60-something biased statements uttered in the past month and a half, you get 40 statements about Obama and 20 about McCain.
Compared to the massive amounts of political coverage -- and opinion -- available in the media over all, this is not a particularly significant sample.
What's more, studies such as this one have no way of measuring how any one biased statement builds up or chips away at existing media narratives, or of weighing the relative harm various kinds of criticism might inflict. Let's say that every single one of the negative statement about Obama was along the lines of "He's un-American," whereas the statements about McCain were more varied and more superficial: "He's old," "He's stubborn," "He's like Bush."
Wouldn't that make the coverage of Obama infinitely more damaging? Or at least much more than 12 percent more damaging?
That's not exactly how things have played out, of course. But the hypothetical illustrates the limits of attempts to quantify bias. And despite my belief that a single "unAmerican" message about Obama would do more damage than a series of mixed criticisms about McCain, the effect of biased statements in the media on audiences is just as mysterious as sorting out the bias itself. Which is why the golden rule of PR is not to get good coverage, just coverage. In that regard, not only is Obama "winning" the media game, he's actually changing the rules.
Bonnie Fuller, the editor that helped define modern celebrity coverage, argues that the Obama campaign's reliance on mass-media vehicles like People, Us, and "The View" to introduce the family to the country has made the evening news all but irrelevant.
Compare the ever-diminishing audience of the nightly news to the 60 million women who read celebrity glossies weeky, pouring over pictures that simultaneously glamorize and humanize the stars:
The fact that they shop at the supermarket, pick up their own dry cleaning and play with their kids in the park just makes Brad, Angie, Jen Garner, Reese Witherspoon, Kate Hudson and the rest of the cast of A-list characters all the more likable.
If humanizing celebrities sells magazines and movie tickets, why wouldn't some "Obamas are just like us" stories help make voters feel more familiar and comfortable with the Obamas? After all, it's widely believed that George Bush managed to beat out Al Gore in the 2000 presidential campaign because Americans thought he'd be more fun to share a beer with than with "elitist" Al.
Obama and his family have been on the cover of both Us and People in the past month, in addition to Obama having snagged glamorous portraits on the covers of Esquire, Rolling Stone and (in multiple instances) Time and Newsweek.
The power of celebrity as a media influence, as every American knows, transcends that of politicians. They get away with more, they earn more, we pay attention to them more. The Obamas are very much on their way to becoming the Bradgelina of the White House, and part of me is thrilled. It's been a long time since Americans paid that much attention to the occupants of 1600 Penn. And then there's the part of me that worries about what happens if we are as tolerant of politicians as we are of movie stars, or if we forget that, in the end, both celebrities and politicians work for us. Angelina may have a face that could launch a thousand ships, but she can't actually start a war.
About Swampland
Ana Marie Cox is the founding editor of Wonkette and the author of the novel Dog Days. Read more
Joe Klein is TIME's political columnist and author of six books, most recently Politics Lost. Read more
Karen Tumulty is TIME's National Political Correspondent and has also covered the White House and Congress. Read more
Jay Carney is TIME's Washington bureau chief. He has covered the Clinton and Bush 43 White Houses as well as Congress. Read more
Jay Newton-Small has covered the Bush 43 White House and Congress since the DeLay era. Read more
Michael Scherer is a TIME Washington bureau correspondent covering the 2008 presidential campaign. Read more
Mike Murphy is a GOP consultant and was a senior strategist for John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. Read more
RSS Feed
 |
Daily Email
CNN Politics
Get U.S. and global politics 24-7. Politics at CNN has campaign coverage, latest headlines and video, candidates' positions on the issues, fundraising totals, states to watch, delegate counts, election results, news and analysis
CNN Politics
The Page
Mark Halperin and the TIME political team covering the 2008 campaign bring you all the latest breaking news, videos, and best stories from every
source, all in one place, expertly culled and edited, 24/7.
The Page
White House Photo Blog
Get an intimate look at the Bush administration and race for 2008 through the eyes of TIME's White House photographers.
White House Photo Blog
Ana Marie Cox on the trail
Keep up with Cox as she posts pictures and tidbits from the campaign trail.
Flickr
Twittr
Reader Comments (31)
Ana - thanks for posting on this. I think this study has some significance, but I take your qualifying points as valid.
Off topic: Bob Novak has a brain tumor. It just goes to show how easy it is for any of us to make assumptions about other people. I was really torqued that he hit a pedestrian without stopping or noticing. But it seems entirely possible that he didn't know he had, under the circumstances. (but that's another assumption. Nasty things, assumptions). I wish him well.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1077958,novak072808.article
Posted by KathyR | July 28, 2008 1:38 PM
Anna, seriously none of you of Swamplanders have anything to say about the breaking news today? Nothing?
Posted by GySgt213 | July 28, 2008 1:46 PM
What, did they change the coffee mixture on you guys or something?
Where are the endless links to fluffy nothingness? Where are the long introspective posts about how John McCain makes you feel deep inside about being a reporter? Where are the Obama flag pin stories?
Posted by Cliff | July 28, 2008 1:49 PM
Ana,
I'd like to see the data of the results to support your assertions.
What statistical tools did you use to support your comments in this post? "Some say" you're in the tank (or BBQ sauce bottle) for McCain. Why should I believe you?
Posted by Andy from Massachusetts | July 28, 2008 1:51 PM
My thoughts, exactly, Cliff.
Coming to Swampland and finding all this -- what's it called? journ-a-li-sm? -- is a little unsettling.
I could get used to it, though.
Posted by Otto Man | July 28, 2008 1:51 PM
0% of stories on the nightly news reported that I'm going to Taco Bell for lunch today.
Posted by Cookie Puss
|
July 28, 2008 1:55 PM
Gunny,
Carney is preparing an in depth analysis of the DOJ inspector general's report on the US ATTY hiring. He just needs to get a little background first. Apparently, there was nothing to this story, originally.
Posted by Andy from Massachusetts | July 28, 2008 1:56 PM
It confuses me, though, Otto. It makes me feel like I've fallen through a wormhole into some alternate dimension.
AMC could at least have the decency to draw a goatee on her picture if she's going to post things like this.
Posted by Cliff | July 28, 2008 1:58 PM
Any study that leaves out the dismal wasteland of cable news misses a huge amount of opinion leaking into so-called objective stories.
Posted by lovable liberal | July 28, 2008 2:01 PM
Actually, Cliff, the goatees should have been on the planet we've been living, the evil Earth where the press was made of nothing but shallow airheads who could be bought off with cheap flattery and home barbecue.
This new world where the media is actually offering solid reporting and factual analysis is the way things are supposed to be. I expect to see a clean-shaven Joe Klein any day now as proof.
Posted by Otto Man | July 28, 2008 2:02 PM
Do any of these studies take into account the quality of the candidates? It seems logical that a good candidate should receive more positive coverage than a lousy candidate. I'll let the media scientists figure out which is which.
Posted by BigTimeCanadian | July 28, 2008 2:05 PM
What a long winded and tangential defense of the media. You make up numbers without any proof and then suggest with no empirical evidence that the difference is not substantial. Moreover, you suggest that because Obama was in People Magazine, it's not a big deal that the media is so obviously skewed. I'm so glad we have the media to point out that the media is okay and that we should pay no attention to studies that demonstrate a bias. It's a fantastic gig you guys have lined up.
On a second point, a week after hearing McCain whine about media coverage we get a report noting that the media has been harsher on Obama. Will this get any serious media time? No - just long winded defenses that obfuscate and distract from the central findings. Will anything change? Of course not.
Finally, I find it hilarious that this poll comes out a day after McCain declined to speak to 4,000 journalists this weekend. I know it's my strategy to turn down speaking to 4,000 members of the media when complaining I'm not getting enough attention from the media.
Posted by patagonia | July 28, 2008 2:07 PM
As lovable liberal said, this study leaves out the cable stations which have a large role in writing the narrative. The LA Times article mentions Fox as though they were the only cable channel. During the Wright, flag pin, are we too favorable stories, the other cable channels were equally culpable.
Listening to NPR, I hear tones of voice that indicate opinion and point of view. Even thinking of the Clinton years, toward the end you could hear the contempt dripping from Cokie Roberts and Mara Liaason whenever Bill Clinton had to be mentioned. I now hear even Scott Simon pressing Daniel Shore on Saturday to agree that the media coverage favors Obama, but Shore wouldn't. Sunday morning there was equal enthusiasm in the tone of the guest host to try to find Obama flaws in the story of campaign commercials.
It's subtle, but it's there and I'd like to see more like this study.
Posted by ivb | July 28, 2008 2:10 PM
Lovable Liberal,
"Any study that leaves out the dismal wasteland of cable news misses a huge amount of opinion leaking into so-called objective stories."
If they included cable, they wouldn't get their desired result. All of these places have a point of view and use studies to prove them. They simply ignore anything that points in the other direction. There are studies that prove racism, studies that prove media bias, for the left and for the right, there are studies that prove smoking isn't the cause of cancer. Anyone who takes this so called research seriously needs their head examined.
Posted by ny nick | July 28, 2008 2:12 PM
Ana, the failure in your post is the lack of self awareness on how them media themselves have become celebrities instead of journalists.
"Some say" you revel in the media spotlight by being on shows like "Hardball" and the like.
Where's the logic and more importantly the data to support the alledged attempt at anaylsis?
Posted by Andy from Massachusetts | July 28, 2008 2:14 PM
Also, can we learn the proper definition of "opinionated" please? It doesn't mean to offer one's position on a subject. Rather, it means a stubborn or obstinate adherence to one's opinion, often unreasonably.
Posted by patagonia | July 28, 2008 2:17 PM
Oh Ana, you know that 62% of the numbers reported in these polls and studies are made up on the spot.
Posted by Mike M. | July 28, 2008 2:20 PM
I think (1) fundamentally the FISA fight showed people who support Obama are more than willing to challenge him on the issues and (2) this is an effective way to combat the viral smears circulating against the Obamas and (3) I think this is a good way to make politics and civic engagement not simply a priority but something more people are willing to engage in personally.
That's what happened with the Kennedy adminstration, after all.
Posted by gator_fan | July 28, 2008 2:23 PM
Brett Bozell's Media Research Center hires people to sit in front a TV all day long documenting liberal bias. They hire people to read newspapers and magazines looking for the same thing. Of course, they don't watch FOX or read the New York Sun or WSJ. Then they publish their findings and low and behold, they find media bias is widespread. They aren't interested in objective research. The CMPA was formed to counter the misinformation coming out of the Media Research Center.
Posted by ny nick | July 28, 2008 2:25 PM
great post Ana! Thank you for broadening this very important subject. Lots of people spend time on the coverage issues, but almost nobody gives any sort of meaningful analysis.
heart heart AMC!
Posted by RubyPanther | July 28, 2008 2:26 PM
I'd broaden the point from cable TV, and draw a distinction between the political media, the residents of Broderville, and outlets like Us, The View, and even Rolling Stone (I suspect their readership/demographic is pretty pro-Obama to begin with).
Candy Crowley and Andrea Mitchell were predicting that the Europe trip would make Obama seem uppity I mean presumptuous before the plane left the ground. The NYT and MSNBC are both promoting the idea that Obama's lead over McCain isn't big enough so it's really a sign of weakness. I'm glad someone else mentioned NPR: Their political coverage is awful. Cokie Roberts never recovered from having been in the same zip code as that dirty dirty Bill Clinton, Juan Williams.... please; and Scott Simon (besides being cloying, smarmy and obnoxious in general) seems to have a personal grudge against Obama.
And we could run out of pixels giving examples of the irrational and unconscious bias in favor of McCain.
Posted by Jim, Foolish Literalist | July 28, 2008 2:29 PM
Cox.
Great piece! Excellent analysis, thanks for that.
I want to repost this serious question to you that I posted on your last post, last week:
Okay, so. You've noticed McCain's inconsistencies from day to day, hour to hour, on many of his positions: health care, economy, surge/insurgency et cetera et cetera.
So, most of the time at this point in a campaign, the candidate has his positions down pat and his talking points and responses and dodges all polished up and ready to go. It doesn't appear that McCain is *there* yet.
Riddle me this: Do you think he is just refusing to do his homework? I think that he figures he can just bullsh!t his way through, or, that he is so used to bullsh!tting everyone that he thinks that he can slack his way through this campaign.
And this: Do you think his people are concerned about the bull, or not? They seem pretty happy about just going through and shoveling up behind him.
Or, do you think he's kinda lost interest in the process and the idea of being President of the United States of America?
I'm not sure I buy the senility explanation. But it kind of concerns me that another potential President of the United States of America, who is also a Republican, is content to slack his way through the campaign thinking he can get by with the old saw "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh!t".
In other words, I'm pegging him as a classic, unreconstructed bullsh!tter, thinking he can bullsh!t his way through this campaign.
What's your take?
Posted by James, Los Angeles | July 28, 2008 2:34 PM
Good post, Ana. Valid argument and criticism of the argument...
...and to echo a previous point, yes, I'd like to have the cable chatterers and their guests figured into the CMPA's numbers, even if it is hard to quantify what qualifies as bias.
Posted by grape_crush | July 28, 2008 2:35 PM
Meta-journalism at best. It will become journalism if factual reporting of facts replaces evaluations of studies of trends.
The second half of Fox's Orwellian slogan should actually be the objective: "You decide."
Posted by FlownOver | July 28, 2008 2:37 PM
I wonder if a liberal(who probably listened to Marilyn Manson) broke into a conservative church and killed some people, if it wouldn't be the top news story of the day. Would we spend weeks analyzing the aforemention Manson, or whatever music he/she listened to, what they read, blah, blah, blah.
Your boyfriend Rush is gonna have a field day w/ this Ana.
Posted by Cincinnatus | July 28, 2008 2:45 PM
gator_fan,
" think (1) fundamentally the FISA fight showed people who support Obama are more than willing to challenge him on the issues"
Challenge him? Really? Here's the thing about FISA. He chose to vote for the compromise rather than filibuster the bill like he promised because he understands the electoral math. He knows the Republicans would have called him names and said he was making America a safe haven for terrorists. He also knew that voters like you have no choice but to forgive him. He knows there is nowhere for you to go. Keep that in mind if and when he's president. If you expect him to risk his political capital to fight for you, you're going to be sorely disappointed.
Posted by ny nick | July 28, 2008 2:51 PM
"the conventional wisdom that Obama is benefiting from favorable media coverage"
You have to be kidding. Tell me you're kidding. You're kidding, right?
Posted by FriarTuck | July 28, 2008 5:36 PM
I completely agree with you that Obama is now a political celebrity-- somewhere in between how the British monarchy and Brangelina are awed and scrutinized by the media. This happens, of course, because Obama is simply an interesting person who has the natural power to draw people into him. It is also the works of his campaign strategy and staff that came up with it. If McCain doesn't have that innate gift of attracting attention, then at least his campaigning style could change. It is obvious to me that the people to blame for the rejection of McCain's essay by the New Yorker recently (when Obama's was) is his campaign advisors, that couldn't plan properly, and read what the media and people of the public want. If McCain can't surround himself with people that can advise him to give what the public wants (in the most simple sense), then he probably isn't what the public wants. More is discussed on www.thenewargument.com
Posted by Kanako Kashima | July 29, 2008 12:14 AM
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
عقار
Posted by scorpionnn | August 2, 2008 11:05 PM
eve isk eve iskGPS导航 防盗器 车载mp3 润滑油 汽车音响 轮胎 蓄电池 汽车用品 氙气灯 汽车坐垫 汽车美容 汽车维修 汽车配件 汽车保养 汽车装饰 贴膜 汽车改装 汽车影音
货架 货架厂 数控火焰切割机 数控等离子切割机 电焊机 焊机 指纹锁
会计网校 会计职称考试 会计考试 会计职称考试 会计考试 会计考试 会计职称 注册会计师考试 注册会计师考试 注册会计师考试 注册会计师考试 会计考试 会计考试 会计考试 会计职称 会计职称 会计职称考试 会计职称考试
拓展训练 Chinese antique furniture car wash systems car wash systems car wash equipment car wash equipment automatic car wash automatic car wash car washing machine car washing machine car wash car wash
北京汽车租赁 网络地板 防静电地板 白癜风 疱疹 生殖器疱疹 毛刷 工业毛刷 毛刷厂 清洗毛刷
除皱 隆胸 吸脂 瘦脸 开眼角 隆鼻 鼻头 双眼皮 眼袋 隆下巴 阴道紧缩
除皱 除皱 双眼皮 眼袋 眼袋 眼袋 阴道紧缩 吸脂 吸脂 隆胸 隆胸 瘦脸 隆鼻 开眼角
北京设计公司 展览展示设计 标志设计 vi企业形象设计
无机钢筋锚固料 锚固料 融达 北京融达 北京融达建业 渗透性聚合物砂浆 聚合物砂浆 高强渗透性聚合物砂浆 灌浆料 灌浆 北京灌浆料 不锈钢钢绞线 粘钢胶 植筋胶 结构胶 灌浆剂 高强无收缩灌浆料 建筑结构胶 水泥灌浆剂 加固料 碳纤维胶 碳纤维胶 灌注粘钢胶 树脂灌缝胶
APW机柜 ATEN切换器 ATEN切换器 威宝机柜
办证 环氧地坪 环氧自流平 帕金森 办证 血管瘤 铜门 肝血管瘤 福联升老北京布鞋 防爆电器
指纹锁 周界报警
拓展训练 拓展训练 拓展训练
品牌服装 服装加盟 服装代理 服装经销 品牌男装 品牌女装 男装加盟 女装加盟 服装厂 品牌服装 服装加盟 服装代理 服装经销 品牌女装 品牌服装 服装代理 男装加盟 服装经销 品牌男装 品牌女装 男装加盟 女装加盟 服装厂
汽车影音 汽车改装 贴膜 汽车装饰 汽车保养 汽车配件 汽车维修 汽车美容 汽车坐垫 氙气灯 汽GPS导航 防盗器 车载mp3 润滑油 汽车音响 轮胎 蓄电池 汽车用品
黄金矿工小游戏 黄金矿工小游戏 美女餐厅小游戏 美女餐厅小游戏 拳皇小游戏 拳皇小游戏 三国麻将小游戏 风水 起名
vi企业形象设计 北京设计公司 展览展示设计 标志设计
尖锐湿疣 尖锐湿疣治疗 生殖器疱疹 生殖器疱疹治疗 疱疹治疗 疱疹的治疗 疱疹图片 病毒性疱疹 单纯疱疹 疱疹病毒 疱疹症状 男性生殖器疱疹症状 男性生殖器疱疹 什么是生殖器疱疹 生殖器疱疹的治疗 生殖器疱疹怎么治疗 生殖器疱疹如何治疗 生殖器疱疹治疗方法 生殖器疱疹怎么治 生殖器疱疹的治疗 生殖器疱疹的治疗 中药治疗生殖器疱疹 复发性生殖器疱疹 治疗生殖器疱疹的药物 治疗生殖器疱疹的特效药 生殖器疱疹治疗 尖锐湿疣症状 什么是尖锐湿疣 宫颈尖锐湿疣 阴道尖锐湿疣 男性尖锐湿疣 假性尖锐湿疣 尖锐湿疣怎么治疗 尖锐湿疣治疗方法 尖锐湿疣的治疗 中药治疗尖锐湿疣 治疗尖锐湿疣的药物 治疗尖锐湿疣的特效药 男性尖锐湿疣 尖锐湿疣复发 尖锐湿疣图片 铜门 写字楼巡展 写字楼巡展
Posted by zhen | August 13, 2008 8:54 PM
دردشه
Posted by thgp | August 23, 2008 5:30 AM