Obama and the Media
A new study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs says President Barack Obama has received more favorable early coverage than his immediate two predecessors.
Here’s the press release:
The media have given President Obama more coverage than George W. Bush and Bill Clinton combined and more positive coverage than either received at this point in their presidencies, according to a new study by researchers at George Mason and Chapman Universities. But the study also finds that Mr. Obama’s positive media image hasn’t precluded heavy criticism of his policies.
This research was conducted jointly by researchers at George Mason University in Fairfax VA and Chapman University in Orange CA, and coordinated by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). It covers all news about Barack Obama’s presidency that appeared on the ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox evening newscasts (the first half hour of Fox News Channel’s “Special Report”) as well as front page stories in the New York Times, during the first 50 days of his term in office (January 20 through March 10). We examined all evaluations made by reporters and non-partisan sources, i.e., those not affiliated with either political party. For additional information on our methodology see http://cmpa.com/about_methods.htm
During his first 50 days in office, the three broadcast network evening news shows devoted 1021 stories lasting 27 hours 44 minutes to Barack Obama’s presidency. The daily average of seven stories and over 11 minutes of airtime represents about half of the entire newscasts. By contrast, at this point in their presidencies George W. Bush had received 7 hours 42 minutes and Bill Clinton garnered 15 hours 2 minutes of coverage, for a combined total airtime five hours less than Mr. Obama’s.
The networks varied in their attention to the Obama administration. CBS led the coverage with 365 stories and 10 hours 46 minutes of airtime, followed by NBC with 327 stories and 9 hours 38 minutes, and ABC with 329 stories and 7 hours 20 minutes. Thus, CBS has given more coverage to the Obama administration than all three networks combined gave to the first 50 days of George W. Bush’s presidency.
In addition, the first half hour of Fox News “Special Report” (which most closely resembles the broadcast network newscasts) devoted 10 hours 24 minutes to the Obama administration, nearly as much airtime as CBS gave him. And the New York Times devoted 115 front-page stories running 3385 column inches, the equivalent of over 28 full pages of text, to the Obama presidency.
Mr. Obama has received not only more press but also better press than his immediate predecessors. On the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news, fifty-eight percent of all evaluations of the president and his policies have been favorable, and 42 percent were unfavorable. CMPA’s previous studies of network news found that George W. Bush received only 33 percent positive evaluations by sources and reporters during the first 50 days of his administration in 2001, and Bill Clinton received only 44 percent positive evaluations during his first ten weeks (70 days) in office in 1993. (As noted above, these figures are based on judgments by reporters and sources not affiliated with either political party.)
The three networks have evaluated Mr. Obama very similarly – 57% positive comments on ABC, 58% positive on CBS, and 61% positive on NBC. But he fared far better in New York Times stories, where nearly three out of four evaluative comments (73%) by sources and reporters were favorable. And he fared far worse on Fox News, where only one out of eight such comments (13%) were favorable. Examples:
Positive Example: “I was blown away by President Obama’s grasp of the subject. How he connected the dots. How he answered the questions without any script.” — George Stephanopoulos, ABC, March 5
Positive Example: “President Obama has done more in one week to reduce oil dependence and global warming than George Bush did in eight years.” — Environmentalist, New York Times, Jan. 26
Negative Example: “The [employment] numbers the Obama administration is throwing around are absolutely inaccurate… a gross exaggeration.” — Economist, Fox, Feb. 20
While Mr. Obama’s personal qualities and leadership abilities have drawn mostly praise from the mainstream media, his policies have not fared so well. On the broadcast networks fewer than two out of five evaluative soundbites (39%) praised his policies and proposals. ABC’s policy coverage was relatively balanced (48% positive), while source and reporter comments ran over two to one negative at both CBS (32% positive) and NBC (31% positive).
TV news coverage of the president’s economic policies, which focused mainly on the economic stimulus and the various proposed and enacted industry bailouts, garnered support from only 37% of evaluative soundbites. He fared better on domestic issues other than the economy, where praise for his health care proposals and new stem cell research policy brought balanced coverage overall (50% positive). But only one out of four comments (24%) praised his foreign policy decisions, including the war on terror.
Negative Example: “The Obama administration is paying too much money to the wrong people.” – Economist, CBS, March 20
The New York Times policy coverage, while less positive than its personal coverage of Mr. Obama, was about evenly divided between praise and criticism (48% positive). Although similar to the broadcast networks in its treatment of economic policy (40% positive), the Times portrayed other domestic policy areas relatively favorably (60% positive), and its 39% positive coverage of foreign policy domains was still more favorable than the networks’ 24% positive coverage.
Positive Example: Mr. Obama’s actions “reaffirmed American values and are a ray of light after eight long, dark years.” – ACLU executive, New York Times, Jan. 22
By contrast, Fox News coverage was even more negative toward Mr. Obama’s policies than the Times was positive. Only one out of twelve evaluative soundbites (8%) praised any of the president’s policies, including six percent positive judgments on the economic matters, seven percent on other domestic issues, and 17% on foreign affairs.
Negative Example: “It’s easy to spend someone else’s money…. It’s not only irresponsible, it’s unethical.” President, Peterson Foundation, Fox, February 20
Across all outlets, the ten most frequently debated issues were: 1. Economic stimulus — 287 stories; 2. Industry bailouts – 114 stories; 3. Budget/deficit – 74 stories; 4. Terrorism — 64 stories; 5. Healthcare – 61 stories; 6. Taxes – 45 stories; 7. Economic conditions – 38 stories; 8. Afghanistan – 31 stories; 9. Defense – 16 stories; 10. Iraq – 12 stories.
CMPA is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization which is affiliated with George Mason University. It has monitored every presidential election since 1988 using the same methodology, in which trained coders tally mentions of candidates and issues and evaluations of candidates. For CMPA findings on the 2008 elections: http://cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election08.htm
Tom Cole on His Town Meetings
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Moore, says in a column that President Barack Obama is changing America’s basic characteristics.
“During the past two weeks I hosted a series of town halls throughout the Fourth District. These meetings were an important opportunity for me to listen, take questions and provide answers directly to my constituents. While the questions were diverse, a sizable number of them revolved around policies that the President has proposed or implemented since taking office. Many Oklahomans are deeply concerned over the President’s out of control spending, as well as with his apparent neglect of our nation’s military. While he is clearly committed to growing the size and scope of the federal government, the one area in which he does not propose to spend more is in the defense of our nation. These two issues have Oklahomans gravely concerned.
“Our nation is facing a growing economic crisis the likes of which most of us have never experienced. And while the Oklahoma economy remains relatively strong compared to the rest of the nation, our citizens know that we cannot remain an oasis of prosperity while the rest of the nation sinks ever deeper into recession. Plunging our country deeper into debt and dramatically expanding the federal government’s role in the private sector has hard-working Oklahomans worried that the economic misery that is plaguing the rest of the country may soon be visited upon us.
“The amount of government spending is bad enough, but what makes it even worse is what the money is actually being spent on. In both the stimulus legislation, as well as the President’s proposed budget, the vast majority of spending is going to be used on expanding existing government programs, or imposing government programs in areas currently being served by the private sector. Had this money been used to rebuild our military, or to invest in our crumbling infrastructure, it would have created jobs and helped jump start our economy. Instead, it will be spent to make more people dependent on the government by permanently expanding its role in our day-to-day lives.
“To put things into perspective, the budget presented by President Obama weighed in at $3.55 trillion dollars – an amount that will borrow more than at any time in our nation’s history – and it will also trigger the largest tax increase in American history. The 2010 federal budget proposal is so massive that an independent estimate suggests it would take 250,000 new federal bureaucrats to spend it all. And those borrowed billions will come from China, the Middle East, and other nations who own a large-portion of our growing debt. Oklahomans instinctively know that this does not bode well for the future of our country.
“The changes being imposed on our nation by President Obama go well beyond simple political differences. These are policies that will change the very character of the United States of America. During my lifetime the character of this country was defined primarily by the American Dream and the United States’ role as the beacon of freedom and hope to oppressed people around the globe. Our capitalist economic system allowed Americans to work hard and achieve things that would be unthinkable in most other countries. And our principled foreign policy, combined with a fighting force second to none, made us the preeminent global superpower for the past 65 years. The path we are being led down by President Barack Obama is placing both of these characteristics at risk.”
Coburn Sitting Tight on Reelection Plans
Many people here expect Sen. Tom Coburn to seek another term next year, but the Muskogee Republican isn’t ready to make an announcement.
In an interview last week, Coburn said, “I ran for the Senate (in 2004) because I felt like I was called to run for the Seante. It was something I’m supposed to do. And I’m not about to announce to run again until I know I’m called to do that. And until I know that, I’m sitting tight.”
Coburn said he didn’t want to be here if his heart wasn’t in it.
“Can you imagine me being here and not being involved? Just coasting? How good would that be for Oklahoma if I was just here coasting, just collecting a check and being one of the boys?
“If I’m going to be here, I need to know I’m supposed to be here. It’s something that’s on my mind a lot.
“I’m prepared when I announce, if I announce, I will have everything set to do what I need to do to win this election big-time, big-time. And if I run, I relish anyone who wants to run against me. I can’t wait to have the debates.”
Some of the speculation about Coburn’s plans has focused on the fact that he has relatively little money in his campaign account _ less than $55,000 at the end of 2008.
In the 2004 race against former U.S. Rep. Brad Carson, Coburn spent $5 million.
However, Coburn raised that money despite not announcing for the race until March of that year. And, so far, no big-name Democrats have signaled an interest in running against him.
In fact, the only Democrat in the state’s congressional delegation, Rep. Dan Boren, said he won’t run against Coburn.
“I’m not worried about raising money,” Coburn told me.
He said he didn’t want to start raising money until he’s sure he’s going to run again.
“Is it unethical to ask people to give you money for an election you’re not sure you’re going to run in? I think it is. You’re asking people to give you money for something you haven’t committed to.”
Coburn said he had no internal timetable for making a decision.
If he did decide against running, a lot of prominent Oklahoma names would likely be interested, including Boren and U.S. Rep. Tom Cole, a Republican from Moore.
Coburn Hugs Obama
Fellow freshman senators in 2005, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, and President Barack Obama still look like they have a close relationship here:
OU President Boren on Bipartisanship
University of Oklahoma President David Boren, a former U.S. senator and governor, penned a column on bipartisanship that ran in the Washington Post today.
It’s a big topic in Washington, particularly after the stimulus package was opposed by all but three Republicans in Congress.
Coburn Criticized
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, hasn’t officially announced that he will run for a second term next year, but the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is already gearing up to fight him.
After the vote on the stimulus package yesterday, the committee released a statement saying:
“President Obama and the American people asked Congress to work together to pass an economic stimulus, many in the Congress headed their call unfortunately Senator Coburn was not one of them.”
Coburn opposed the stimulus package from the get-go, and in the strongest possible terms. He backed an alternative offered by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, that would drastically cut the size of the package and made it more weighted to tax cuts.
Inhofe Finds Silver Lining in Stimulus
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, gave a speech on the Senate floor today criticizing the $800 billion stimulus bill — which is expected to come up for a critical procedural vote later today — but said it could “wind up being a positive thing for Republicans.”
Noting that no Republicans in the House voted for the bill and that only two or three Republicans in the Senate are expected to vote for it, Inhofe said voters would hold Democrats responsible for the bill.
He predicted that the political climate next year would be similar to that in 1994 when, two years into former President Bill Clinton’s first term, Republicans took over the House and Senate. That was the year Inhofe was first elected to the Senate.
Inhofe, Coburn Oppose SCHIP Bill
Both of Oklahoma’s senators voted against a bill last night to expand the state children’s health insurance program. The bill passed by a vote of 66-32 and should go to the president’s desk soon.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, a physician, tried to change the bill so Congress would help people buy private insurance policies rather than expanding the Medicaid-based program. Coburn said Medicaid recipients often receive second-class medical care.
“When senators visit with their constituents, they should ask them whether they would want their children in SCHIP or a top tier plan senators provide to their own kids,” Coburn said today.
“Senators should also ask whether parents should have the right to make choices about health care for their kids or whether those choices should be made for them by career politicians and government bureaucrats.
“Sadly, this debate showed once again that Congress, unlike President Barack Obama, is not interested in change but in recycling the same failed Soviet-style health care policies of the past.”
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, said, “I could not lend my support to this legislation because it did not focus its efforts on the low-income children who have no other resource for health insurance and pushes middle income families with access to private insurance into government sponsored health care.”
Rice Tries to Rally Support for SCHIP
State Sen. Andrew Rice, the Oklahoma City Democrat who ran unsuccessfully last year against U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, is helping gather “citizen co-sponsors” of a bill in the U.S. Senate to expand health care coverage for children.
The bill to expand the state childrens’ health insurance program could come up for a final vote today.
Rice’s letter, sent to the e-mail list he used for his campaign, provides a link to a web page sponsored by U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat who is a major supporter of the bill.
“We can’t leave this vote to chance,” Rice’s letter states. “For too long, partisan bickering has blocked of efforts by Senator Lincoln and others to expand this successful program. It’s up to us to show her colleagues in the Senate that the American people are ready for change.”
Inhofe, R-Tulsa, and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, are expected to vote against the legislation which, according to one group, would cut in half the number of uninsured children in Oklahoma.
Sullivan Writes Letter to Obama
Rep. John Sullivan, R-Tulsa, sent this letter today to President Barack Obama:
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the
The White House
Dear President Obama:
John Sullivan
Member of Congress
