Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Conservative Group Finds Networks Positive on Obama

By Howard Kurtz
It's no secret that Barack Obama has gotten awfully good coverage from the media in this campaign, and plenty of it.

Now the conservative Media Research Center says the imbalance is far greater than anyone imagined.

The advocacy group, which lives to complain about liberal bias, has studied the coverage on the network evening newscasts from May 2000 (the first mention of the senator from Illinois) through the end of the Democratic primaries in June. Overall, the group says, 34 percent of the stories about Obama were positive and 5 percent negative. The rest were characterized as neutral.

Is that just the group's spin? The research center says every comment and sound bite, whether by the reporter or someone being interviewed, was characterized as positive or negative, and only stories with a 2-to-1 edge either way were put in those categories. (Of course, it's impossible to assess how Obama stacked up against the other candidates since he is the only one examined.)

In isolating stories on the ABC, CBS and NBC broadcasts that were mainly focused on Obama, the center says, 42 percent were positive and 7 percent negative. The group found "NBC Nightly News" the most pro-Obama and ABC's "World News" the least skewed toward Obama.

Even in the roughest period for Obama -- the weeks before the Pennsylvania primary in April, when the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was dominating the political news -- the group says that 21 percent of the broadcasts' Obama reports were positive and 9 percent were negative.

"The Big Three broadcast networks have showered Obama with positive -- even glowing -- news coverage, protected the candidates from the attacks of his rivals, and shown little interest in investigating past associations or exploring the controversies that could have threatened his campaign," the group says.

Media coverage tends to be more positive when candidates are winning, and Obama did, of course, manage to defeat Hillary Clinton. The report does not include stories since he opened the general-election battle against John McCain. But other studies have found that Obama consistently gets more coverage than his Republican rival.

By Web Politics Editor  |  August 20, 2008; 10:07 AM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , Media Notes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: VP Madness Begets "Ridiculous" Questions
Next: DNC Pushes FEC on McCain Loans


This is a joke! It's shameful the way these supposedly professional journalists are fawning all over Obama. Not WRIGHT for America has a hilarious post on this, suggesting Time change its name to Obama Magazine. They even have a mock up of what it would look like.

Posted by: Yellow Jackett | August 22, 2008 3:05 AM | Report abuse

"But other studies have found that Obama consistently gets more coverage than his Republican rival."

One study found that a larger percentage of Obama's coverage during the general, has been negative. Why doesn't Kurtz mention that?

Posted by: Gogetter | August 21, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

I read the report and it is thorough and well done. I am not a statistician but they back up their allegations with evidence. I also agree. Obama has never gotten scrutiny in the way he has organized his campaign, used children and young people to text message and blog, and organize crowds. The methods he uses is very much like the way Communists, Fascists, and other cultish type groups have formed. They often focus on forming youth groups as youth are easily manipulated and have more time to do the organizing work. The media has totally turned its back on many things Obama has done. There is a complaint before the Kentucky election board now because Obama's team is regularly kicking Hillary delegates from going to the convention and replacing them with Obama delegates. Where is the news coverage on that? Or the loyalty oaths that Hillary delegates have been forced to sign? Where is the press in investigating that one? Larry Sinclair? Not a mention in the Post or elsewhere even if it isn't true? Who's picking and choosing the news here?

Posted by: Lynn E | August 21, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Could it be because Obama has a postive Message? McCain is always attacking! Sure it got him a few percentage points in the polls, but he has nothing postive to say about anyone, stars, media or anyonne who disagrees with him. Mr Rove and Mr Schmidt may think they are winning by attacking I disagree! Does that mean they are not reading the mood of the country and this reflects in the coverage?

Posted by: Dave | August 20, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Of course they would say that they are a Conservative Group! What about Fox News!

Ok I had enough! I say something too!

Lordy! McCains a Communist! or French! Proof found on the Internet!

This is not a attack ad! This is for disseminated via mass media.

Posted by: Teddy | August 20, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that some democrats aren't crooked. Boston and New York and Chicago are notorious for their machine politics of a distinct nature.

Here's an old piece on Mario Cuomo. I especially like the part where he tells the reporter: "I could end your career. Your publisher doesn't even know who you are."

The point is: there are different levels of the game. And at the lower levels, and on the surface of things, the media *appears* to be liberal.

Just because a lot of stories about Obama are positive doesn't mean that the media hasn't spiked stories that would be incredibly harmful to McCain's candidacy. Stories that people should know about before they vote.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse


Do you know who owns the so-called free press? Do you know how they made their money? Do you know the scandals they spike at the highest levels?
"“McCain’s personal fortune traces back to organized crime in Arizona.”

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"Obama was exposed as the lightweight that he is, and the fact that he can't string together a coherent sentnce without his 'prompter should be keeping you up at night."

So what you're saying is that Obama provided real and thoughtful responses with truthful answers while McCain parroted talking points?

Posted by: dk | August 20, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

My husband has worked in the TV news business for over 11 years. I can tell you that the liberal bias does exist. It's not something that is necessarily intentional. It happens because news divisions are made up of human beings who have feelings, thoughts, and opinions. Whether they realize it or not, those feelings, thoughts, and opinions make their way into how stories, and even what stories get, reported. Most of the MSM news divisions are made up of people who are liberal. So, their point of view is what gets into the programming. They don't even realize it when it happens. My husband is a conservative, so he notices the slant when no one else around him does. They don't notice it, because they all think the same way, so it seems normal and not slanted to them. He often provided some balance to the discussion and pulled them back a little. But, what if there wasn't someone like my husband in the room standing up to say, "Hey, you know, that's a little slanted, we need to tone it down"? There were many times at his former job (he's changed networks now) where he would come home and say, "I can't believe they were going to run the story like that. They didn't even realize what they were saying."

So, it happens. People are human. Their viewpoints can and do get into how the news is covered.

Posted by: Heather | August 20, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

before going back to work-saw NYT 'on the case' post re: McC wife biz. NYT exposing McCain is a real laugher ... and makes the fundamental point that many are trying to make here & elsewhere. NYT exposed his alleged 'affair' with a 'lobbyist' (horrors! -just the use of the word means 'culture of corruption' - ala Cong Rangel, Cong Jefferson, Sen Dodd, Cong Murtha , etc) under the guise of a 'lobbyist' influence' storyline. But NYT, along with all other media, take the 'high road' with candidate Edwards when there are 3 major news stories present: 1) blatant in your face truth evasion for major national candidate for leader of free world (oh - he was not a 'public person' then so not 'news worthy' -even though this was going on while he was candidate); 2) use of poor wife as cancer victim for everyman sympathy; and 3) in my humble non-political election law mind, I would be surprised if there were not some major campaign financing and/or other big league financing violations/crimes by trial lawyer honcho Barron & Edwards campaign participants trying to cover this up via payoffs (can Ronnie Earle, that non-partisan Texas official check into that please for all the taxpayers & good gov't concernees? - hah hah - when GWB gets invited to speak at a NetRoots forum). But the those indefatigable NYT news hounds will jump into McC's alleged affair (oops sorry - it really was an undue influence of a lobbyist story wasn't it, as they said) and wife's family's business background. That is one or two steps removed by my count from candidate McCain. But will NYT or any other media outfit do same with any Dem candidate? NYT investigated Whitewater to control ('we'=NYT say it is a determing factor in a national election or not & on our terms) storyline. NYT > Why do you not investigate how Sen Dodd as Chmn of powerful Senate Finance Committe got a 'friend of Angelo' Countrywide favorable term loans and (with emphasis here) runs an implausible 'campaign' for Dem Pres candidate where he can shake down every wall street firm, insurance company, bank, finance firm as he oversees all finance industry legislation & regulation, and (as I understand it as a non-sophisticate) keep some/all of that national campaign money or have wide discretionary say over it? Just askin' as a simple non-partisan citizen- but I guess that is as much as non-story as Edwards - becausse it is not a fascist, rich, baddie Republican to be trashed. Now back to all those compelling: a) fake McCain cross-in the-sand while at Hanoi Hilton stories, never really was a figher (NYT correction years later - he was an 'attack' jet pilot [A4]-how potentially misleading McCain was & we were party to) pilot, deceived Warren audience as 'why seemed' more prepared than other candidate stories. I have not made my mind up who to vote for (wait until just before voting) but many of these posts just cannot help but to confirm, and make the case regarding, the obvious bias of the media. Keep 'em coming!

Posted by: Reaction to Closed Minds | August 20, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse


McCain married into organized crime. He can't be POTUS.

Believe what you want. The NYT has already started to expose McCain.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Am sure DailyKos/KeithO fans who will see, this comment, & world, differently (get scared whenever read the sometimes violent expressions at HuffPo/DailyK, certainly to anyone who thinks the GOP or GWB are even entitled to a 'fair hearing'). Most Americans are objective, looking for data, facts & information - not opinions or ideologies - to get through life & business. Ideologies, as more adhered to, force holder of such to filter or distort data into the pattern or outcome determined by ideology. But just because of that, do not throw baby out with bathwater ... some ideologies, ultimately, may be well worth giving one's life for-to point of martyrdom/death. But there are many weak, depressed minds out there also for which ideologies substitute for many life purposes. That is where rigorous education & crticial thought come into play - to help everyone adequately distill beliefs, data/facts, decisions & ultimately policies. Ironically, as a multiple degree post-graduate degree holder (attorney/CPA in NY w/MBA), with each passing year I think America does its young a gross disservice by ignoring the critical thought process foundations of civics, ethics, morality, logic, formal debate & more, which have disappeared or are treated as instruments to subjugate everyone else but the 'ruling class of economically successful white males' {sarcasm here - critical thinking knows no racial, ethnic, economic or religous boundaries ... see Mandela, MLKing, Ghandi, Lee Kuan Yew, Sun Yet-San, Ayotolah Sistani-excuse misspellings}. The media (more than enough to make gen'l comment) frames thoght & expressionb via their preferred political ideology common enough to their profession in the West-conciously or unconciously. Really good (not Pulitzer Prize winners - how can the NYT to this day not disavow the disgraceful fawning coverage of Walter Duranty for Stalin's homicidal destruction of so many Russians & Ukrainians & others) journlists practice what they preach to others that they are - disinterested observers/reporters of events ... maybe some analysis to help establish context for information. A NYT disgrace was earlier cited; a NYT success is long-time reporter Burns (not sure if he is still w/ NYT, retired or moved on) who is generally one of the best journalists out there. Seems Democrats (am independent) like to talk/think politics as many journalists do (news interest) but most who vote GOP, talk politics only because they have to versus idle interest. Last, technology is enabling individuals to access authentic sources of information on own & the 'reporting' need/function may be becoming unnecessary. Most people (certainly Americans versus Europeans or elsewhere) are sophisticated enough to 'sift' through sources to get data that justifies a decision or course of action. Many (Americans same as all other humans) may like to default to processing data via ideology as short cut not to constantly overwhelm daily thinking but they can access more of it than others. All the preceding said, not sure US media understand how they are getting tuned out except by political junkies who typically have a leftish bias generally. This process is unfolding in Europe but more slowly with different cross-currents at work (e.g., Irish economic development, EEurope accession, EGerman reunification - all of whom are not 'traditional' western european ... certainly as Americans used to project). So you have MSNBC/CNBC going blatantly Air America left (Dan Abrams tossed over side for Rachel Maddow ... KeithO) to take a more narrow ideological model (one-sided) of RogerAiles counter the general media bias biz opportunity for Fox News (where there at least is some counter opinion/discussion - attempt to hear the other side). CNN (personally ok w/ Anderson Cooper but most of other CNN>?) and CBS (both biased to liberal Democratic view barely watchable for objective information) are getting outflanked on left now by NBC. If ABC were smart, they would go back to prime journalistic objective & just deliver straight information as reporting ... to use labels maybe become a Fox light

Posted by: Reaction to Closed Minds | August 20, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Ah, the myth of the so-called "Liberal Press". Better than the facts of a failed ideology. Contract with America? No Taxes? Balanced Budgets? Strong America? Religion in Government? Liberals are traitors?

After this election, they're gonna be hurtin' for certain! Republicans will spend 40 years in the political wilderness for worshiping false idols. McCain? Their Savior? Puh-lease.

Posted by: thebob.bob | August 20, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Corruption Anon, since you're so keen on Wikipedia, look at what it talks about as far as criminal ties to Obama!


Posted by: Liberal Rags Love Obama | August 20, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Corruption Anon,

You have nothing betetr to do than troll message boards trying to bait people on your fawning of Obama/

OK, here's one for you:

Go read that.

How about this:

Or this on Rev. Wrong:

No Corruption Anon, you have been and continue to be misled. Try taking a look at Obama's record and compare it McCain's record. That's where you'll get a real hint of who works well with the other side. It sure ain't Obama!


Posted by: Liberal Rags Love Obama | August 20, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse


You've been conned.

McCain married into an organized crime family. He's dirty.

The mainstream media doesn't want you to know about that, because the sold out long ago.

Believe what you want. But Big Media is just as crooked as Big Business and the Republicans.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

This just in: NBC, ABC and CBS LOVE Obama. Oh, wait...that's not news. EVERYONE knows THAT!

How about: NBC, ABC and CBS refute the fact that they promote Obama at every turn and minimize McCain at the same time. No, that's not news at all either.

Look, these outlets are owned by Liberal Loons, so of course they're going to pimp out the lib's. It's that simple.

Do I want someone who's connected to some very sleazy and un-American people like Obama is? No.

I'd much rather have a war hero who has integrity as my President. I have looked at Obama's 140+ day Senate record versus McCain's years of Senate records and, frankly, McCain wins hands down. The liberal media can pimp Obama as long as they want, but the real American's in the middle states, you know, the ones who cling to guns and religion, they see the truth for what it is, and the truth sure isn't Obama.

Posted by: Liberal Rags LOVE Obama | August 20, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

I laugh at these supposed McCain supporters dishing out "Nobama" and "Obot" insults. Same with the Obama supporters with their "McCaint" and "McShame". Come on folks, this is the level of political discourse in America? If you spend the time to read these comments you'll see that they merely address the semantics of the "process" and entirely sidestep any actual discussion of the issues. What has become the "Issue" in these comments are the comments themselves. This ends in a circular logic that results in no forward progress. What about Education? College tuition? Fiscal responsibility? Energy independence? American jobs? As for myself, I am an educated 30-something from the Midwest but now live on the west coast. I am terrified of another 4 years of republican rule in the white house. we need a new direction, we need to roll the dice and begin to tackle the difficult issues we are facing today. A president who doesn;t know how to turn on a computer or open an MS Word document scares the beejezus out of me. I will be voting for Obama this year.

Posted by: J. Portland Oregon | August 20, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Let's see... the guy makes pretty good sense most of the time, he's educated, he doesn't talk down to us like we're stupid, he's dedicated to serving those not as well off as he is, and he delivers the message in an inspiring manner.

Time to crucify this guy...

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? Barack Obama, regardless of your politics, is a pretty interesting guy. Crowds react positively to his messages. The reporters are just doing their jobs... telling us the truth.

Posted by: MT_Guy | August 20, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

The right has been spewing this same line for four decades, even while the networks were being bought up by the military-industrial complex (GE, Westinghouse) and foreign conservatives (Murdoch). That McCain has demonstrated a lack of knowledge about borders, insurgent sects, the reasons for the "success" of the surge, whether certain countries exist or not; that his wife claims to be an only child while she has at least two half sisters who received none of her father's tainted inheritance; that his "cross in the sand" story is relatively new, has changed, and is possibly plagiarized; that his stances on everything changes depending on which group he is pandering to--he has gotten off as cleanly as his role model, George W. Bush. But there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Not long ago, the LA times had an article saying the exact opposite. So go "figure."

Posted by: edwcorey | August 20, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Howie, George Mason's Center for Media and Public Affairs found that network media coverage of Obama for the first six weeks of the general election was 72% negative and 28% positive. Compare that with with 57% negative and 43% positive for McCain. Given that the CMPA is non-partisan, and the group in your piece is not, I know which one I believe. Here is a link to the CMPA study:

Posted by: Demagirl | August 20, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

The fact that 90% of Americans know about Obama's pastor and less than 1% know that McCain married into an organized crime family is proof that the mainstream media is in the tank for McCain. Beyond that, to keep that kind of secret. It's just dirty. Clearly, our *free press* has been bought and sold.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

This study should not be newsworthy. This is campaign rhetoric. However media report campaign releases like it was news so they are just maintaining there gossip-like reporting.

I gather this is what Howard is supposed to do, but when he looks back on a career, I doubt there will be a sense of accomplishment. This story is worthy of being forgotten.

Posted by: Dana | August 20, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

"let's review the 1st Amendment towards journalistic responsibility."

Posted by: George Dixon

Another ignorant post by another ignoramus. What the heck is this gibberish supposed to mean? The first amendment says nothing about "journalistic responsibility." I doubt the word "journalist" existed at the time, unless it meant someone writing in a personal journal. The amendment is, in part: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." I see no "journalistic responsibility" there. No wonder Bush was elected twice.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

You Republicans can't handle the truth!

And the mainstream media won't report on it, but it's true.

McCain married into an organized crime family. He's dirty.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Not one comment defending Obama cited facts, just the usual "They're lying, they hate Obama, this is crap." (Not that the Obama critics did much better here, BTW). Kurtz and the MRC put out facts. Dispute them or analyze them, but simply pretending they aren't there is silly. Angellight might also actually follow the MCCain story and what is being discovered rather than just passing on rumors. If you don't like being lied to, then be careful with the facts yourself - right?

I can't hope to change the minds of people who automatically reject information out of hand, but I do ask a question that I hope will sink in: do you at least see why no one is persuaded when your whole argument is "oh, they're all liars?"

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot | August 20, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

McCain married into organized crime.

You could google it.

If you are a Patriot and really care about this country. Otherwise, don't give me any of that sh*t about you Republicans caring for country first.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Americans are smart.

The real story is that the major news outlets (a.k.a. The Mainstream Media) is continuing a path of suicide because of their political ideologies.

All day, you can argue one way or another as to whether or not the TV and Written news outlets had a political bias. What has changed rapidly in the last twenty years however is the emergence of competition. And in that competitive environment the older outlets are getting crushed.

Why? Well because Americans want something different. That's what the free market is all about.

It's amusing to read, in some of these posts, that Fox News is to blame for bashing Sen and Mrs. Obama. It is amusing because in the past 10 years, Fox News came out of nowhere, blew past CNN, left the other 24 hour news upstarts in the dust, and now dominates ALL the prime time ratings. Why? Because Americans want it.

Lets look at Conservative Talk Radio. AM Radio was just about dead. FM Radio was everywhere. National Public Radio is in just about every market. Don Imus is syndicated all over. Tom Joyner and similar shows began to enjoy widespread coverage. Then out of nowhere, Rush Limbaugh launches a talk radio show on AM radio. If Americans didn't want it, he would have failed. Obviously, Americans did want it and he soared! Now? Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity lead the way in ratings, earnings, profits, and growth versus any other radio show. Their earnings rival, and even exceed TV media counterparts.

And let's not forget the DrudgeReport. A low bandwidth bulletin board for the headlines that never seem to make the NY Times front page or the 6 O'Clock news. Heralding with the Lewinsky scandal, the DrudgeReport established themselves as homeplate for every one who wants to know what's really going on. Why? Again, because America wants it.

Obviously, Americans don't trust ABC, NBC, CBS, and the NY Times for their news. So are going to the alternatives. Whether you like it or not, that is what continues to happen. AM Talk Radio is on the memory button. DrudgeReport is the homepage. O'Reilly is on at 8.

Consider the futility of the majors in this. Folks, outlets like CBS still haven't recovered their legitimacy following gaffes like the forged Bush National Guard documents. Combine that with all three networks sending their lead anchors on the Obama World Tour. Compound that with not one - NOT ONE - Obama critical story being exposed on their channels. Right or wrong; Sean Hannity broke the Rev Wright story. Right or wrong; Fox News showed the Mrs. Obama "never been proud of America" speeches. Right or wrong; "Obama Nation" sells millions of copies to Americans who are frankly just trying to figure out who Senator Obama is. Meanwhile, the major networks and newspaper outlets completely abandoned any and all efforts to perform balanced journalism on the freshman Senator. Instead, NBC accuses Sen McCain and Pastor Rick Warren (who is highly regarded) of cheating during Saturday's debate at Saddleback.

Americans are smart. They want the truth. If nothing else, they want a different point of view. In 2008, Americans are no longer stuck with three channels and the local rag.

Posted by: Robert C | August 20, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Wow...the NObama supporters are really feeling the heat...lets face picked the wrong candidate for your party. Obama is a lightweight and the more people see him and listen to what he has to say the more they get turned off by his BS...

Posted by: Ray | August 20, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

The fact that the media has not reported on the major McCain scandals of this campaign - the fact that he married into an organized crime family and his breaking campaign finance law - but have covered the smaller Obama mini-scandals suggests that the media is sneaky. They give the appearance of being liberal by giving Obama play in a lot of little stories, but in the big things they back McCain. Google: McCain Hensley Marley Lansky Bronfman. That is the biggest scandal.

The media is in the tank for McCain.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

This also goes to the BS story on Mccain saying he was not going to be released ahead of another prisoner. Not only that but one of his choice. He was a POW, where the hell is he telling his captors who is and is not going to be released? If they wanted to release him they would have he has nothing to say about it. The story is BS like much of his past.

There is a story out there on the blogs that the MSM is not reporting on regarding a story that John McCain is telling that is possibly false while he was a POW -- the cross in the sand story. This story goes to credibility. Americans are tired of being lied to. After all we were lied into a war. We demand more from our politicians -- truth, honesty, integrity? Is that too much to ask from someone who would be leading our nation? After all do we like being lied to from our spouse, lover, children? I think not. This is the same kind of relationship. If there are any investigative journalists out there, they need to get to the truth or falsity of this story. Americans have the right to know the character and morals of the people they will be electing into office. We already know that McCain was not in the so-called "cone of silence" and therefore possibly had an unfair advantage.

And, you don't need Washington experience to be experienced. You need to be smart, forward thinking, independent of big business and oil companies, knowledgeable about economics and the Constitution. This election is about taking back the American Dream and getting back to the American way and values - sharing, cooperation, and our Government investing in people again; not Corporations. It doesn't take rocket science to know how to get along with other people around the world -- just treat others like you would want them to treat you.

'The massed power of goodwill,
the dynamic effect of intelligent and active understanding, and
the potency of a trained and alive public opinion,
which desires the greatest good of the greatest number
are beyond belief.

This dynamic power has never been employed.
It can today save the world.'
Djwhal Khul

Posted by: Angellight | August 20, 2008 12:14 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

This "study" is a textbook example of lying with statistics. Their "network evening newscasts" include anytime Obama was mentioned on a Chicago affiliate in conjunction with any positive story during his time as a State Senator from 2000-2005. Since Obama was never involved in any scandals, the only mention he'd ever get named in would be in part of a positive story. It inherently poisons the sample set because it's not contemporaneous or representative of the current election.

Now, I will be the first to admit that Obama received primarily positive coverage in the primaries up until he became the front-runner. However, every study covering March to present has shown that Obama's gotten the lions share of negative coverage. That's the relevant data immediately affecting this election. Cherry picking the data range to support a misleading proposition is simply a lie, and the same could be done to McCain if we started with when the press began fawning over him back in 1999.

Posted by: Justin from Chicago | August 20, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Whatever the statistics, common sentiment shows that most people believe that the media favors Obama to win. How much this perception helps or hurts is difficult to gauge but given the number of positive stories about Obama across all media since the end of the primaries and far fewer negative stories, his poll numbers suggest that the messages either don't fully translate to pledged votes or there is a backlash generated by people believing that the media is trying to control the election.

Posted by: bn | August 20, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

There is a story out there on the blogs that the MSM is not reporting on regarding a story that John McCain is telling that is possibly false while he was a POW -- the cross in the sand story. This story goes to credibility. Americans are tired of being lied to. After all we were lied into a war. We demand more from our politicians -- truth, honesty, integrity? Is that too much to ask from someone who would be leading our nation? After all do we like being lied to from our spouse, lover, children? I think not. This is the same kind of relationship. If there are any investigative journalists out there, they need to get to the truth or falsity of this story. Americans have the right to know the character and morals of the people they will be electing into office. We already know that McCain was not in the so-called "cone of silence" and therefore possibly had an unfair advantage.

And, you don't need Washington experience to be experienced. You need to be smart, forward thinking, independent of big business and oil companies, knowledgeable about economics and the Constitution. This election is about taking back the American Dream and getting back to the American way and values - sharing, cooperation, and our Government investing in people again; not Corporations. It doesn't take rocket science to know how to get along with other people around the world -- just treat others like you would want them to treat you.

'The massed power of goodwill,
the dynamic effect of intelligent and active understanding, and
the potency of a trained and alive public opinion,
which desires the greatest good of the greatest number
are beyond belief.

This dynamic power has never been employed.
It can today save the world.'
Djwhal Khul

Posted by: Angellight | August 20, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

I beleive this "report" as much as I'd beleive a MoveOn study showing McCain getting 100% positive press. WaPo and Kurtz have disgraced themselves even writing about this garbage.

Posted by: matt | August 20, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

The Media Research Center consistantly lies about media bias in order to "work the referees". No one should pay anymore attention to their garbage than you would any partisan huckster with an axe to grind. They are not credible.

Posted by: The Other Ed | August 20, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse


One question. Is the allegation true?

It is not racist to accuse someone of being racist. If that were the case, then you accusing John McCain of being racist makes you a racist.

I suggest that you are so full of hate you are unable to think clearly.

Although I think Mr. Kurtz is biased to the left, he at least is trying have a conversation concerning bias in the media. And from what I see and read he is correct in most of his opinions.

Posted by: Stephen | August 20, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse sad....

...this "thing" does not even post their real name, did you know that blog cowards are just like pidgeons..."they just spray some crap and fly away"

Posted by: AlexP1 | August 20, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Rick Warren admitted last night on CNN that McCain showed up about 1/2 hour into the forum, and all he had to go on was McCain's word that he wasn't listening to the questions asked to Obama

...another man blinded by the truth and religion...go by McCains word is like stepping in a pile of dog crap, its smells and you'll need to wipe it off before it spreads

Posted by: AlexP1 | August 20, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The fact is McCain kicked your guy's rear end. Obama was exposed as the lightweight that he is, and the fact that he can't string together a coherent sentnce without his 'prompter should be keeping you up at night.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse are not listening just like the RNC/GOP expect....

Was the word "racist" ever said by Obama.....

Please find some truth to that statement that you made.......and stop pandering to the other Neo-Sons on this blog....o

Posted by: AlexP1 | August 20, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Hello Ken....this is a rebuttal to your question on Obama's interview during that "forum"

They had a sound proof room for a REASON!
The McCain people did not LEAVE the hotel until AFTER Obama's interview had already begun...

Ken...Ask yourself these questions...

Why have a sound proof room and then not REQUIRE that the participants use it for it's intended purpose?

Why wait to leave your hotel until AFTER a broadcast interview begins, that you are supposed to not hear?

Do you expect that McCaint had actually placed his hands over his ears when he walked in SaddleBack...well Ken you can vote for a CHEATER(McCaint did that to his 1st wife too) or Obama in November...

It is that simple Ken, its that simple..

Posted by: AlexP1 | August 20, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

An electorate lied to, that is, fed stories by a partisan media, cannot make informed choices.
The media is bringing on a backlash....let's review the 1st Amendment towards journalistic responsibility.

Posted by: George Dixon | August 20, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Nearly every post here is negative in tone!

Posted by: Marc | August 20, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

"force them to be more unfair with Obama than they already are"

WTF? I mean what the f'ing eff are you talking about? The press has been unfair to Obama? What planet are you on? Are you referring to Andrea Mitchell's parroting the Obama camp's press release? Or when the press get's a "tingle" up their leg whenever they hear him speak?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Looks like the O!bots are flailing desperately at the notion that America isn't buying what the snake oil salesman and his legions of braindead teenagers are selling.

Where'd that lead go, O!bots? Ask yourselves why Obama is going south in the polls. Hint: A mirror will help you find the answer.

Keep it up. It's working - for McCain.

Posted by: Good Lt | August 20, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Howard Kurtz,
why don't you just have as your byline: I hate Obama.
I have never seen a journalist so down on one candidate as you have been on Obama.
All primary you boo hoo'd over Hillary and now you do the same with McCain.
People can see what your agenda is a mile away.

Posted by: vwcat | August 20, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

The media should be register as a 527 for the whole Democratic Party!

Posted by: theaz | August 20, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Republicans have all of the major advantages: Obama has 2 million donors and McCain has 600,000 BUT they both have the same cash on hand. You know why? The FEC is in the tank for McCain, and the fat cats - who will expect a return on their investment - are all crooked republicans.

In additional to always having the money advantage, the votes in Ohio will be made on touchscreens and tallied in a Tenn. datacenter run by Republicans.

And most of the pollsters are Republicans who use turnout models that favor McCain so it looks like he has a better chance.

And Fox News has been part of the character assassination of Michelle and Barack Obama.

Stop crying you crooked thieves. Better yet- go to a priest or pastor and confess your sins then come back to the table of brother- and sisterhood and do something for your country like t. boone pickens.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 20, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

What a load of garbage.
Everyday since March the networks and cable and the newspapers pick apart Obama and find him wanting.
They have their running storyline of "Does Obama have a problem with..." and they nit pick everything the man does.
On the other hand they stick stubbornly to their 'maverick storyline' about McCain when in fact he is far right. And his stumbles and bumbles, gaffe and flips are ignored and covered up.
McCain Free Ride gets this fake image and the press goes along with promoting it while finding Obama at fault for everything including breathing.
of course the conservatives will say the opposite because they know they can make the press worry that they are 'liberal' and force them to be even more unfair with Obama then they already are.
I'd like to know when was the last time Obama had a positive newsday???

Posted by: vwcay | August 20, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

"We need solutions."

And Obama's solutions are hope and change? Or a massive tax increase? Or you can forget about how you've lived your life and you can plan on living the way Obama wants you to?

As for the plagiarizing charge, Solzhenitsyn's biographer has admitted he never published any such thing. If McCain plagiarized, it wasn't from him. Please update your soundbites.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Can't say anything bad about Obama... if you do, you're either a racist, a liar or you just don't want "change",

Too funny. Is it any wonder that Obama is slipping in the polls? Listening to his supporters is like listening to Howard Dean's supports... just before he imploded.

History does seem to be repeating itself.

Posted by: Matt | August 20, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

"(Of course, it's impossible to assess how Obama stacked up against the other candidates since he is the only one examined."

That's the key to the validity of their findings right there!

Posted by: buster | August 20, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Keep it up loonbats! The polls are moving in the right direction!

"What's happening? What's happening!" why aren't all my brilliant insults against McCain working? What a world! What a world!" -- Mackleberry B Loonbat, Esq.

Posted by: Moptop | August 20, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse


Obama's performance didn't appear to be as good as McCain's. Why? Because Obama chose not to pander to his audience.

McCain's idea of "Straight Talk" on Saturday was to regurgitate his stump speech and tell self-aggrandizing stories, including one he plagiarized from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, all for the sake of appearing more Christian than he really is.

Obama, on the other hand, spoke candidly about his positions, staying away from the poll-tested bromides that are McCain's bread and butter.

I'm sick and tired of people wanting our leaders to spoon-feed them soundbytes passed off as information. The problems we face in this country are far too complex for ten words, or even a hundred. And they're definitely way beyond anecdotal.

John McCain should save the stories for his great-grandchildren. We need solutions.

Posted by: JamesCH | August 20, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"Conservative Group Finds Networks Positive on Obama" other breaking news, bear craps in woods.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

This particular conservative group also finds gays hiding under their beds threatening their marriages and women in the workforce undermining families with great regularity.

Sure seems like they "find" whatever they have already decided they were looking to find.

Posted by: Fred | August 20, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

It's quite humorous to see O!'s supporters on posts like this. Hey Alexp1 - what'd ya think of O!'s performance the other night with McCain?

Posted by: Ken | August 20, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Ever think the coverage is fair and Obama is that good? Any closed coverage of Mccain would reveal a half crazed man, so out of touch with any reality even republicans must cringe when they hear him. They should be glad no one is looking closer at Mccain.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

..,Why would the media be covering McCaint when all he talks about is, war, oil and calling us "His Friends"....

...His Pathetic attack ad's, blustering comment about the war in Georgia and Iraq "surge" baloney...its all gettin gold and tired just like McCaint....

Hrere are a few or McCaits comment son the deceitful attack ads that have been littering the airwaves...

McCaint Said and I quote...

"I don't think our campaign is negative in the slightest." There are negative McCain ads running as we speak, and in the very same presser, he attacked Obama for injecting race into the campaign again.

McCaint blamed Obama for bringing up the issue of race in the campaign, and repeatedly said that Obama had "retracted" his charge that McCaint is using race.

It was obvious by the repetition of "retracted" that this was a cooked up talking point, and it was apparently a reference to the fact that the Obama campaign said it didn't think McCaint had used race in the campaign.

But this wasn't a "retraction" at all: The Obama camp hasn't conceded he said that in the first place.

McCaint Said "...he wants to move on from the race debate. But his campaign manager Rick Davis aggressively attacked Obama for allegedly playing the race card just today.

McCaint Described a new Web ad implying that Obama believes he's the Messiah as "having some fun."

...all at our expense, more lies, more deception.....the normal commercials on TV for toys, cars, erectile dysfunction, and bathroom cleaners are more informative than..

.....that McCaint crapola that is spreading like fleas on a dead rat......

..Why is the media not covering McCaint?...
Wow..."how pathetic".....

Posted by: AlexP1 | August 20, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

kurtz , i am sick of you

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company