The LA Times finally released a study I've been waiting for someone
to conduct
During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
It looks at the actual media coverage of Obama--not just the amount
of coverage--and shows that the media's been much harder on Obama than
McCain. It's not even close. I know they cover him a lot more, but I
think the media's so scared to be labeled Obamabots, they almost
always tint their coverage in a negative/sceptical light. Think about
it. Whenever Obama gives a great speech, their focus isn't on the
content of the speech. Never. They may acknowledge that it was great at the beginning of the segment, but the focus is almost always: "but was it
too nuanced/elitist for middle America?" or "but do Americans in
Peoria really want to see Germans cheering for Obama?"
This isn't new. Similar studies were done for the 2000 & 2004
elections, and found roughly the same thing (although I'm not sure the margins were as large). I think the media killed Gore and Kerry those years.
With Gore it was focusing on his sighing, arrogant demeanor instead of the debates he clearly won. Or saying he made up anecdotes to score cheap political points, when the facts showed later that he hadn't.
With Kerry it was windsurfing and swiftboating. Dear God, the swiftboating.
I don't think this is because the press is conservative. I think most
of them are indeed liberals (more liberals major in journalism, that's just
human nature). But that's the point. I think they're paranoid of looking
biased, so they end up tilting the other way. Same reason the more
conservative anchors like Scarborough and Tucker are always lauding
Obama and criticizing McCain. They want to look fair and balanced, so
they destroy the guy on their side to prove they are.
But don't tell Rush & Hannity. They need this talking point.