LIFamilies.com - Long Island, NY


RSS
Articles Business Directory Blog Real Estate Community Forum Shop My Family Contests

Log In Chat Index Search Rules Lingo Create Account

Quick navigation:   

Washington Post Ombudsman Says "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage"

Posted By Message

mka06
LIF Adult

Member since 8/06

1079 total posts

Name:
Melis

Washington Post Ombudsman Says "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage"

Interesting article to read...



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage

By Deborah Howell, Washington Post, Ombudsman, November 9, 2008



The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4. Numbers don't tell you everything, but they give you a sense of The Post's priorities.

The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.

Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion."

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors -- like most of the national news media -- found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that.

McCain clinched the GOP nomination on March 4, and Obama won his on June 4. From then to Election Day, the tally was Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both.

Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that from June 9, when Clinton dropped out of the race, until Nov. 2, 66 percent of the campaign stories were about Obama compared with 53 percent for McCain; some stories featured both. The project also calculated that in that time, 57 percent of the stories were about the horse race and 13 percent were about issues.

Counting from June 4, Obama was in 311 Post photos and McCain in 282. Obama led in most categories. Obama led 133 to 121 in pictures more than three columns wide, 178 to 161 in smaller pictures, and 164 to 133 in color photos. In black and white photos, the nominees were about even, with McCain at 149 and Obama at 147. On Page 1, they were even at 26 each. Post photo and news editors were surprised by my first count on Aug. 3, which showed a much wider disparity, and made a more conscious effort at balance afterward.

Some readers complain that coverage is too poll-driven. They're right, but it's not going to change. The Post's polling was on the mark, and in some cases ahead of the curve, in focusing on independent voters, racial attitudes, low-wage voters, the shift of African Americans' support from Clinton to Obama and the rising importance of economic issues. The Post and its polling partner ABC News include 50 to 60 issues questions in every survey instead of just horse-race questions, so public attitudes were plumbed as well.

The Post had a hard-working team on the campaign. Special praise goes to Dan Balz, the best, most level-headed, incisive political reporter and analyst in newspapers. His stories and "Dan Balz's Take" on washingtonpost.com were fair, penetrating and on the mark. His mentor, David S. Broder, was as sharp as ever.

Michael Dobbs, the Fact Checker, also deserves praise for parsing campaign rhetoric for the overblown or just flat wrong. Howard Kurtz's Ad Watch was a sharp reality check.

The Post's biographical pieces, especially the first ones -- McCain by Michael Leahy and Obama by David Maraniss -- were compelling. Maraniss demystified Obama's growing-up years; the piece on his mother and grandparents was a great read. Leahy's first piece on McCain's father and grandfather, both admirals, told me where McCain got his maverick ways as a kid -- right from the two old men.

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

The Post had good coverage of voters, mainly by Krissah Williams Thompson and Kevin Merida. Anne Hull's stories from Florida, Michigan and Liberty University, and Wil Haygood's story from central Montana brought readers into voters' lives. Jose Antonio Vargas's pieces about campaigns and the Internet were standouts.

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.

In early coverage, I wasn't a big fan of the long-running series called "The Gurus" on consultants and important people in the campaigns. The Post has always prided itself on its political coverage, and profiles of the top dogs were probably well read by political junkies. But I thought the series was of no practical use to readers. While there were some interesting pieces in The Frontrunners series, none of them told me anything about where the candidates stood on any issue.

Message edited 11/10/2008 4:42:24 PM.

Posted 11/10/08 4:41 PM
 
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource

SweetestOfPeas
J'taime Paris!

Member since 3/06

32345 total posts

Name:

Re: Washington Post Ombudsman Says "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage"

no sh*t sherlock Chat Icon

tell us something we don't know

eta: I am talking to the media, not the OP Chat Icon

Message edited 11/10/2008 6:21:04 PM.

Posted 11/10/08 6:20 PM
 

evnme
My little lamb

Member since 8/05

12633 total posts

Name:
aka momma2b

Re: Washington Post Ombudsman Says "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage"

thank you for having the ballz to post this!

Posted 11/10/08 7:48 PM
 

donegal419
St. Gerard, pray for us.

Member since 7/07

7650 total posts

Name:
K

Re: Washington Post Ombudsman Says "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage"

thank you for posting this!

the media was incredibly biased towards Obama throughout the campaign, although I must say I am shocked that they are actually admitting it!

Posted 11/10/08 7:53 PM
 

SweetestOfPeas
J'taime Paris!

Member since 3/06

32345 total posts

Name:

Re: Washington Post Ombudsman Says "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage"

Posted by donegal419

I must say I am shocked that they are actually admitting it!

what difference does it make now?

Posted 11/10/08 7:54 PM
 

snowflake08
Love my boys!!!

Member since 8/07

5148 total posts

Name:
Laura

Re: Washington Post Ombudsman Says "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage"

Posted by SweetestOfPeas

Posted by donegal419

I must say I am shocked that they are actually admitting it!

what difference does it make now?

exactly
there was an audio clip of tom brokaw saying "we really dont know that much about him"

duh!!
too late now

Posted 11/10/08 8:12 PM
 

SweetestOfPeas
J'taime Paris!

Member since 3/06

32345 total posts

Name:

Re: Washington Post Ombudsman Says "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage"

Posted by snowflake08

Posted by SweetestOfPeas

Posted by donegal419

I must say I am shocked that they are actually admitting it!

what difference does it make now?

exactly
there was an audio clip of tom brokaw saying "we really dont know that much about him"

duh!!
too late now

the point is not how much or little we know about him, no one knew too much about Clinton either when he was running (at least I didn't, but I voted for him on issues).

the point IMO is how disgustingly ONE sided the media was/is.

they spent more time criticizing Palin's wardrobe than anything I saw about ACORN or anything else that would be perceived as negative towards Obama or Biden.

Message edited 11/10/2008 8:40:42 PM.

Posted 11/10/08 8:40 PM
 

mka06
LIF Adult

Member since 8/06

1079 total posts

Name:
Melis

Re: Washington Post Ombudsman Says "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage"

Posted by SweetestOfPeas

Posted by donegal419

I must say I am shocked that they are actually admitting it!

what difference does it make now?



it doesn't make any difference in terms of the outcome of election, that's for sure.

but, i thought the article was interesting bc it was done by the post's own ombudsman and includes data spanning a year. it's clearly a very scientific analysis of the paper's own coverage. i am impressed they are admitting to it...

and, i guess my hope is that these sort of things bring change to the media. it's not just that i think that the media favored obama (which is my opinion)... it's that republican or democrat i think a lot of people during this election cycle were sick of the media taking things out of context just to write the story with the slant they wanted and sick of politicians not telling the truth about their opponents. i feel like voters on both sides of the aisle consistently kept saying all they wanted was the facts, so they could make up their own mind.

i know it won't happen overnight - but if the public continues to demand that... change may come. that is me with my glass half full approach tonight. Chat Icon

Posted 11/10/08 8:41 PM
 

SweetestOfPeas
J'taime Paris!

Member since 3/06

32345 total posts

Name:

Re: Washington Post Ombudsman Says "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage"

Posted by mka06

Posted by SweetestOfPeas

Posted by donegal419

I must say I am shocked that they are actually admitting it!

what difference does it make now?



it doesn't make any difference in terms of the outcome of election, that's for sure.

but, i thought the article was interesting bc it was done by the post's own ombudsman and includes data spanning a year. it's clearly a very scientific analysis of the paper's own coverage. i am impressed they are admitting to it...

and, i guess my hope is that these sort of things bring change to the media. it's not just that i think that the media favored obama (which is my opinion)... it's that republican or democrat i think a lot of people during this election cycle were sick of the media taking things out of context just to write the story with the slant they wanted and sick of politicians not telling the truth about their opponents. i feel like voters on both sides of the aisle consistently kept saying all they wanted was the facts, so they could make up their own mind.

i know it won't happen overnight - but if the public continues to demand that... change may come. that is me with my glass half full approach tonight. Chat Icon


not going to happen, ever. not as long as even newspapers endorse candidates.

what ever happened to "we report, you decide"? Chat Icon

Posted 11/10/08 8:44 PM
 

snowflake08
Love my boys!!!

Member since 8/07

5148 total posts

Name:
Laura

Re: Washington Post Ombudsman Says "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage"

Posted by SweetestOfPeas

Posted by snowflake08

Posted by SweetestOfPeas

Posted by donegal419

I must say I am shocked that they are actually admitting it!

what difference does it make now?

exactly
there was an audio clip of tom brokaw saying "we really dont know that much about him"

duh!!
too late now

the point is not how much or little we know about him, no one knew too much about Clinton either when he was running (at least I didn't, but I voted for him on issues).

the point IMO is how disgustingly ONE sided the media was/is.

they spent more time criticizing Palin's wardrobe than anything I saw about ACORN or anything else that would be perceived as negative towards Obama or Biden.



i know - i meant in terms of what donegal said about being shocked they were admitting it

Posted 11/10/08 8:50 PM
 

donegal419
St. Gerard, pray for us.

Member since 7/07

7650 total posts

Name:
K

Re: Washington Post Ombudsman Says "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage"

Posted by SweetestOfPeas

Posted by donegal419

I must say I am shocked that they are actually admitting it!

what difference does it make now?



it doesn't make a difference now in terms of educating the public about BOTH candidates, but it makes them (the media) look so stupid and one-sided.

Posted 11/10/08 9:45 PM
 

kellsbells7
LIF Adolescent

Member since 1/07

590 total posts

Name:

Re: Washington Post Ombudsman Says "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage"

GREAT article - thank you for posting!

While the fact that the media reported more on Obama than McCain is no surprise, keep in mind it also mentioned that the articles were largely "poll driven". They were doing what every news and entertainment corporation does - catering to what the people want so they can sell more papers.

That is sadder to me.

Posted 11/10/08 10:06 PM
 

DRMom
Two in Blue

Member since 5/05

20223 total posts

Name:
Melissa

Re: Washington Post Ombudsman Says "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage"

Posted by donegal419

Posted by SweetestOfPeas

Posted by donegal419

I must say I am shocked that they are actually admitting it!

what difference does it make now?



it doesn't make a difference now in terms of educating the public about BOTH candidates, but it makes them (the media) look so stupid and one-sided.



Well, in reality, educaated people should take the news media with a grain of salt. I made my decision based on my own research, debates I watched, conversations with my husband, etc. This is the reason why the electoral vote still decides because people make decisions based on what the media says. You can actually talk to people and hear them parrot what was said on MSNBC, FOX, CNN etc. the night before.

Posted 11/10/08 11:18 PM
 

mka06
LIF Adult

Member since 8/06

1079 total posts

Name:
Melis

Re: Washington Post Ombudsman Says "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage"

it doesn't make a difference now in terms of educating the public about BOTH candidates, but it makes them (the media) look so stupid and one-sided.


Well, in reality, educaated people should take the news media with a grain of salt. I made my decision based on my own research, debates I watched, conversations with my husband, etc. This is the reason why the electoral vote still decides because people make decisions based on what the media says. You can actually talk to people and hear them parrot what was said on MSNBC, FOX, CNN etc. the night before.


You are right that people should do their own research and not rely on the media alone, but sadly the vast majority of people do not do that. Your last line goes to show that. I'm all for personal responsibility, so I concur that people should educate themselves more, but the fact that most rely on the media emphasizes why it's important for them to maintain objectivity. That's what they are supposed to do in journalism and they should be held to that standard!

Posted 11/11/08 7:51 AM
 
 

Potentially Related Topics:

Topic Posted By Started Replies Forum
Washington Post editorial on Obama's statements about McCain's record on financial regulation mka06 9/19/08 2 Families Helping Families ™
(x-post) Need help finding a dress... CouponKT 11/10/08 0 Families Helping Families ™
How is the White Post Farm Holiday Extravaganza? Tine73 11/10/08 1 Parenting
X-Post: We Found Out This Weekend That..... nylisa 11/10/08 23 Parenting
Spinoff to allison's post about the toilet pinkandblue 11/10/08 6 Parenting
X-post "flying with young babies" sfp0701 11/10/08 0 Parenting
 
Quick navigation:   
Currently 372171 users on the LIFamilies.com Chat
New Businesses
1 More Rep
Carleton Hall of East Islip
J&A Building Services
LaraMae Health Coaching
Sonic Wellness
Julbaby Photography LLC
Ideal Uniforms
Teresa Geraghty Photography
Camelot Dream Homes
Long Island Wedding Boutique
MB Febus- Rodan & Fields
Camp Harbor
Market America-Shop.com
ACM Basement Waterproofing
Travel Tom

      Follow LIWeddings on Facebook

      Follow LIFamilies on Twitter
Long Island Bridal Shows