I’m sick of reading and talking about the media’s supposed bias toward Obama, and so let me address the topic in hopes I can exorcise it (next exorcism: Sarah Palin).
The Washington Post’s ombudsman, Deborah Howell, studied the Post’s coverage of the election and concluded that there was an “Obama tilt” to its coverage.
But why would we not expect Obama, who only clinched the Democratic nomination four months after McCain emerged the victor among Republican candidates, to rack up more coverage during that period? Then, once Obama became the nominee, and particularly from mid-September onward, Obama led McCain in most and then all polls.
Greg Mitchell reminds us that more than 1,200 Post stories simply covered the horse race; around 500 covered issues. Readers can criticize the media for this imbalance. But that, and not playing favorites, likely explains a perceived Obama tilt. By virtue of being ahead in the horse race, Obama was more than twice as likely to net positive coverage. Mitchell concludes:
So we will be reading for years about the strong media “bias” against McCain — look at all those “unfavorable” stories about him — when it was mainly (although perhaps not completely) a matter of Obama leading the horse race and getting credit for that by reporters who were, surprise, not deaf, dumb and blind. Does anyone doubt that if McCain had roared to the lead in October and stayed ahead until the end that the results of the studies would have been completely different?
Yes, the press is biased — in favor of recognizing who is winning and stating that (perhaps too often).
Also: Can the media be faulted if one candidate is committing the major share of gaffes or (in this age of fact-check sites) making the most inaccurate statements in speeches and in ads? Is it “bias” to recognize that? Or to vet a candidate for vice president who (we now know) had not been vetted by anyone else?
If you want to talk about lopsided coverage, how about the endless loop of Reverend Jeremiah Wright played for three months this past spring? Who did that nonstop tape favor? Certainly not Mr. Obama. And does anyone believe nonstop coverage of former Weatherman Bill Ayers for the final 2-3 weeks of the general camapign really boost Mr. Obama?
What is so ironic is that McCain himself was long the media darling, and that he only ceased to be once his media availability became more a liability to his campaign than an asset. And there’s no one to blame for that except the candidate, and the campaign.
What’s fair to say, though, is that Obama the candidate was indeed a refreshing change from the waning days of the Bush administration, and a weakened, defensive Republican party. President-elect Obama, and the enthusiasm his candidacy generated, proved exciting to cover. Republicans, listen up: all you really have to do to get the press spotlight back is to make news.
