Remember this Pew study on the amount of negative coverage the President receives

[ProSense]

Pew: How News Media and Blogs Have Eyed the Presidential Contenders During the First Phase of the 2012 Race

<...>

One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all: Barack Obama. Though covered largely as president rather than a candidate, negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-to-1. The assessments of the president in the media were substantially more negative than positive in every one of the 23 weeks studied. In no week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the President positive in tone.

<...>



<..>

Even Santorum got nearly three times a much positive coverage and less negative press than the President. The only person getting more negative coverage is Gingrich, but even he got nearly twice as much positive coverage.

Despicable!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

1. Sadly, there are those even here on DU that continue to subscribe to this notion

that somehow Obama is the darling of the media. He may have been at one point very early on during the 2007 campaign because he was new, black, and somewhat of an enigma. But MORE coverage not equate to POSITIVE coverage. There are many people who confuse the two.

[Cirque du So-What]

4. You can hear that same shit

from any number of RW talking heads too. According to them, Barack Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of the so-called 'liberal media.'

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. Yeah, we expect it from the wingnuts. That's all they have done, day in and day out

for the last 20 years or so: blame the "Liberal Media," especially when attempting to shift the blame from their own failings.

What's I'm saying is that it is sad and disheartening when liberals and/or Democrats fall into the same trap. We should know better!!

[FrenchieCat]

2. Today's 24/7 bashes on Obama......

First and foremost, how terrible the jobs reports is (couldn't be slanted any worse if Unemployment
had gone up),

his ineffectiveness in Cannes,

The lack of enthusiasm of Democrats compared to Republicans,

how Clinton dissed him for not understanding that even if congress
had never failed to raise a debt limit when requested by a Prez,
that Obama should have certainly known long before that he would be
the sole exception. :eyes:

I just love the media pundits and assholes.

And I got this watching about 1 hour of coverage this morning!

Wish that we could arrest media and put their asses under a privatized for profit jail,
where their funky big mouth/asses belong!

[Tippy]

3. Read it and weep DEM's....I hope you enjoy standing on your Laural's

To bad we will all suffer...Jobs....only low paying...Health care forget it.....Schools, you won't have to worry about getting your kids up in time to go, because you will be teaching them at home..I could go on and on but what's the use...

[JoePhilly]

6. The media is running two OBAMA BAD messages ....

The first OBAMA BAD message pushed by the media is a right wing message. Commie, socialist, terrorist lover, baby killer, kenyan, Maxist, Maoist, Fascist, Racist, elitist, thug ... and he hates America.

The second OBAMA BAD message pushed by the media is a left wing version. Corporatist, war monger, Republican, who hates America.

The media does not care WHICH version of the OBAMA BAD message one internalizes, just so long as you internalize the core message ... OBAMA BAD.

They do this because Obama SHOULD win in a landslide, and they know that a landslide is not good for RATINGS.

They NEED a close race for ratings.

And so, trying to increase right leaning turn out, and depress left leaning turn out helps them keep the race close.

[Jakes Progress]

7. No doubt.

But I do wonder if they have a similar graph for incumbent presidents leading up to an election. What would Clinton's have looked like? How about bush?

[ProSense]

8. Well,

"But I do wonder if they have a similar graph for incumbent presidents leading up to an election. What would Clinton's have looked like? How about bush?"

...Obama is at the bottom of the list, below Pawlenty, Gingrich, Huntsman and Santorum. No amount of spin could justify this.

[Jakes Progress]

9. Cistern

What spin? Are you looking for a place to fuss. I didn't say the poll said anything other than what you did. But your saying that Obama is at the bottom of the list is just so many words. We can see the graph. Yes. He is. That doesn't have anything to do with my question. If you don't have any response to my questions about how incumbents fare at this time in the election cycle, then let someone else try. I completely agree with you that the media is bombing Obama. It seems likely that it is part of the right wing owned media methodology. My question sought to put the perspective of how they treated bush at this time. We know that bush was beyond incompetent. If he rated higher, then we would really have something concrete to show. If bush was similarly low, and Clinton was similarly low, it still doesn't mean the media is doing it right. But just automatically assuming is silly.

[flamingdem]

10. This chart relates to the 99%

... though most do not get it

[Dawson Leery]

11. The "liberal" media is giving the best coverage to the most reactionary Republicans.

Perry, Palin, and Bachmann