Is Barack Obama getting better press than George W. Bush got?
The ombudsman — readers’ advocate — for the Washington Post has tackled that question a couple times in recent days. The question also was the focus of a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, which found the answer to be “yes.”
This subject was raised with the Washington Post’s Andy Alexander in an online chat this morning:
Washington, D.C. : You wrote on Sunday about the survey that found more “favorable” stories about Obama — as if that was a reflection of bias in the press corps. Couldn’t it be a reflection of reality? I’m guessing that writing that Obama is making people feel more optimistic and has a high approval rating would be coded a “positive” story — but writing that Bush had a credibility problem and a low approval would be coded a “negative” story. But wouldn’t you consider both “fair”? Doesn’t this kind of thinking put pressure on reporters to write negative stories about positive events and positive stories about negative events, just to be “balanced”? What good is that?
Alexander answered:
Good question. I’m not suggesting that coverage needs to be measured so that it’s precisely 50-50. And the Pew study that I referenced explained some of the reasons that President Obama is enjoying favorable press. For example, he came to office with a sizable electoral majority (unlike President’s Clinton or George W. Bush). Also, he’s had a very activist agenda in response to extremely challenging issues confronting the nation.
My advice to reporters covering Obama is simple: be critical, be accurate and be fair. That means asking the tough questions and paying attention to what’s being raised by the loyal opposition. It’s the job of the press to hold public officials to high standards and to closely question them.
Finally, about my Sunday column. . .the Pew study was raised in the context of how readers often see bias in The Post’s coverage. I focused on very favorable pieces Tom Shales has written about Obama’s TV appearances. Shales is a superb TV critic, perhaps the best. It’s his job to offer his view of what’s on television. My only point was that it should be clearly labeled as a “review” or as “criticism.” Surprisingly, not all readers know his role.
In his Sunday column, Alexander said the Pew study concluded that Obama “has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House.”
Alexander wrote:
Conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, the survey was based on a sampling of stories on network television newscasts and in national publications, including The Post.
The study found that “positive stories about Obama have outweighed negative by two-to-one” — 42 percent to 20 percent — while 38 percent were neutral or mixed.”
Two newspapers — the New York Times and the Washington Post. One news magazine — Newsweek. Four TV evening newscasts — ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and PBS Newshour.
Steve Parker is the deputy managing editor for news, and oversees the Post-Dispatch's front page. STLtoday's online news editors are on his newsroom team. Parker has been at the paper since September 1980. 
Quick show of hands. How many of you remember all those stories and jokes when Pres GW Bush choked on that preztle? Yes, I see a lot you recall that.
Now, how many remember when Pres Obama did a face plant into the door of Marine One? None of you? OK. Then how when he walked into a window at the Whitehouse instead of a door? Come on. None of you? The almost daily teleprompter-induced hiccups? A knowledge of history, language, and geography less than most middle-schoolers?
Well if you don’t remember those stories, then that probably explains why so few know about the foreign dignitaries practically laughing at him during his tour of Europe last month, how he’s failed to submit for approval dozens of appointees to two of the currently most critical federal agencies, or his near daily flip-flops of opinion on everything from abortion to how to handle the wars. Never mind the fact Obama’s reneged on almost every one of his campaign promises.
I can think of no other president in my lifetime who’s enjoyed less scrutiny and almost total sycophantic coverage from the professional media than this one. Journalism in this country is dead.
“Is Barack Obama getting better press than George W. Bush got?”
DUH! How about some other self answering questions;
Is the Post Disgrace’s “editorial staff” a bunch of liberal hacks?
Is a frogs A** watertight?
Does a bear s*** in the woods?
Just the other day, Obama stumbled when his teleprompter messed up, and he asked the operator to move it forward. Was this even mentioned in the mainstream news media? I didn’t hear any mention of it. Now if a conservative did this… Oh, and what about this CNN reporter’s “objectivity:”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2H170pf3a8
So the public is expecting to be served fair, balanced news, and we see things like this. Are we getting the whole picture, or just the side NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times reports?
One major source of negative stories in the early portion of GWB’s first term concerned serious scandal: Anyone remember Enron? Being so closely tied with Enron and pals forced GWB to start playing political defense early in his first term. But Enron was conveniently forgotten when…
… 9/11 happened. For many months afterward, GWB enjoyed a nearly unrivaled streak of positive stories and bipartisan support. The nation rallied together, and no one wanted to hear anything ill spoken or printed about American leaders.
But, as history will now attest, GWB squandered this unity and support. Unilateral militarism, no-bid military contract giveaways to political cronies, gutting civil liberties, and a near-Nixonian contempt for the rule of law all contributed to an increasingly skeptical press and American public.
So too shall Obama eventually face increasingly harsh criticism in the news media. For now, he’s being given the benefit of the doubt by the media and the majority of the American public. Just as most first-termers are given for at least several months (Enron-type scandals notwithstanding).
The core question of this column can’t truly be answered until a little more time has passed and some historical perspective can be given to the subject.
I agree with Fark that the long term will better answer this question than the first hundred days, but at the same time Fish has brought up sevearl things that I thought of when reading this blog. Don’t forget the furor that erupted over Obama’s portrayal in cartoons too. It was no less demeaning than some of the things Bush and Clinton were made out to be but no one got upset about those situations.
Obama and his administration have coasted so far (and we still have a long way to go) but they have definitely been given the royal treatment so far.
It is completly obvious the Obama gets better press than Bush did, the question is why? Did every media outlet in America get together and say let’s all write about how Bush messses everything up? Did they all get together and say let’s only write about the positive things Obama does? I seriously doubt it. Maybe, just maybe, Obama is a better president.
You ask why the favorable coverage? Because Obama is their candidate and they don’t want him to fail. He has the worst 100 days poll numbers of any president, but they didn’t tell you that.
Remember all the Bush and McCain jokes? Letterman still has not told a derogitory joke about Obama and most likely he never will. He should be boycotted for this. He should not even be a late-night comediene if this is what he is going to do.
A CENTRIST - I can probably answer this whole thing. Because he’s 1/2 black, the liberal media is sooo afraid to say anything negative about the man, because they’re afraid of being branded “racist.” We’ve raised a crop of ultra-sensitive, wimpy, touchy-feely, Tele-Tubby generation types in this country that are graduating from these universities after being brainwashed by their communist professors (yes, I had two). Does any of this surprise you? Oh, and try getting a job now that the first question most companies ask is if you’re a non-white male on the application…
There are so many ways to go on this question, but let me limit it to just one hypothetical: If George Bush were still president and the swine flu pandemic were spreading across the country, would the media’s reportage focus on the possible inadequacies of the Administration’s handling of the situation?. I have not read/heard a word of condemnation of the Obama team vis-a-vis the epidemic.(Of course, I am not suggesting Obama should in any way be blamed for swine flu. But if it had happened under Bush’s watch, the national media’s tone would have been decidedly more negative i.e. the administration.)
I just don’t get this thinking by the press that they are somehow not biased and base their reporting on factual data. They don’t. Everyone on this board has mentioned several examples of that bias.
Finally, the reason Bush had such unfavorable public opinion ratings is due to the negative reporting on nearly everything the man did. You press people are supposed to relay the truth so we can form a fair opinion. If 90% of the press reports negative things about Bush and positive things about Hussein, don’t you think that’s going to influence the general opinion of the electorate? Of course it will. The press knows that and did a masterful job (unfortunatley) in engineering the hatred of Bush and promotion of King Hussein.