Study says Obama the victim of negative press coverage

[struggle4progress]

By msnbc.com's Michael O'Brien

... on Monday, a report from the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism sought to quantify just how positive or negative the media's treatment of President Obama and the field of Republican presidential candidates has really been.

Obama has been the victim of "unrelentingly negative" coverage in the media, said the report, which looked at coverage of candidates between early May and early October.

Obama received tougher treatment in the media relative to the Republican candidates vying for his job, the study found, challenging the narrative that Obama is the beneficiary of easier treatment by the press.

Negative coverage for the president outweighed positive coverage in each of the 23 weeks included in the study. On average, 9 percent of the stories about Obama were positive, compared to the 34 percent of coverage over the same time period that researchers deemed as negative. That time period even included Osama bin Laden’s death ...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/17/8368771-study-says-obama-the-victim-of-negative-press-coverage

[MichiganVote]

1. You think?

[ClassWarrior]

2. LOL... That was my reaction EXACTLY.

:fistbump:

NGU.

[TheWraith]

8. Bingo.

Some of it's unintentional, since the media always by nature seeks the most inflammatory stories. Negative items get more attention than positive, as expressed in the old saying that "if it bleeds, it leads."

Some of it is intentional, either among right wing media, "left wing" media funded or manipulated by the right, and ordinary media reacting to controlled leaks and spin.

One should never underestimate the strength and breadth of the organized propaganda efforts going on on behalf of the Republicans: to convince conservatives that Obama is a Communist/Muslim/unAmerican, to convince the left he's weak and a failure, and to convince the middle that he doesn't give a shit.

[leftstreet]

3. OWS seems to love him. You never see any anti-Obama signs n/t

[appleannie1]

4. A smart 5 year old already knew that

[indepat]

5. What can you expect with a damned librul media?

:patriot:

[kestrel91316]

6. O RLY?? Imagine that.

Took them long enough to notice this little factoid.

[Scuba]

7. In other news, water is wet and Michael Jackson is still dead.

[Lionessa]

9. If a president is so easily victimized as this one seems to be from so many places...

perhaps he's not strong enough to be president.

[moondust]

10. 2000 replay

This is what they did to Al Gore. Bush usually got positive coverage or no coverage at all on any given topic.

Bush Didn't Beat Gore in 2000, The Media Did

Going After Gore

[zonkers]

11. The disdain for him is sooo blatant on AM news radio here in L.A.

[calimary]

12. Just HORRID. Hate radio. And there are lots of liberals here in L.A.

Dang - I've been having this conversation with three different friends today - lots of talk radio here in L.A. and almost every last bit of it is all about hate. Hatred for Obama, hatred for liberals, hatred for progressives - in other words, hatred for people like me. Just INSANE!!!! And in THIS market, too.

[zonkers]

13. Agree. It's either 980 or 1070. Or both. During what sounds like a typical news rundown,

they will say something like "Obama's supposed reason for the appearance is too drum up support for..." but they will say it with such a nasty, derisive tone. I wonder if it happens on spanish radio too.

[calimary]

16. I used to work at KFWB. Twice - once as an editor's assistant when I was just outta college.

A few years later with more in my resume, I came back as an anchor reporter. FUN STUFF! They sure don't make 'em like that anymore! Nowadays, KFWB is little more than a pathetic joke. Very sad to see.

I don't know if they're getting actual guidelines for tone of coverage, or whether there are so many Fox-bots in the media now that they just assume that's how it's done now. You can add all kinds of color and shading and subtle meaning with the words you choose when you're writing the news copy, and the tone of voice and inflections and so on. That's on the radio of course. On TV you have a whole 'nother realm of subtle communiques - from arched eyebrow to cocked head to facial expressions to posture and gestures. I used to step very carefully around this. Whenever I wrote about reagan, while he was president, I'd always use the words "reagan claims that..." when I'd write about something he was advocating, rather than "reagan says that..." because the word "claims" suggests other meanings than just something straightforward or assertive with proof. I saw nothing that he said that could be backed up with any proof, especially economically.

I did try pretty damn hard to present an objective newscast and in general, keep my opinions out of it, but sometimes I just felt compelled to rebel, a little. So little, in this case, that the guy who always edited my scripts never had a problem with it. And he had a sharp eye.

:evilgrin:

[gulliver]

14. People are often just savagely stupid.

Sometimes all you can do is just stand back and watch while they hit themselves in the head with a shovel 'cause they like the ringing in their ears. That's the type who don't appreciate Obama. They are giving us a spectacularly ironic display of selfishness-inspired masochism. You have to laugh or your heart will break.

And these numbskulls create a media "eyeball plurality." The media needs eyeballs, you see, not brains. It's not the job of the media to serve truth or educate. It's to hand people a shovel if they ask for it, and give them directions on the best way to hit themselves in the head to get the most possible ear ringing.

[Rex]

15. I wonder how much of it is do to racism?

[malaise]

17. Duh!

I'm shocked I tell you.

[Rosco T.]

18. Well DUH! Paging Captain Obvious! n/m