Clinton’s Negative Press

Interesting study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, found at
Journalism.org. It helps explain why so many people
stopping by here are surprised by the coverage I present on Clinton. It doesn’t
mimic the negative press she’s hammered with across the media, especially on
talk radio. I criticize her when it’s due, but I offer praise when it’s earned. The same cannot be said for the media at large.

You’ll never guess who gets most of the positive press on the Democratic side.
It isn’t John Edwards. In fact, Clinton gets far worse treatment in the press
than Edwards, simply because outside of Iowa his poll numbers are miserably
low. As bad as his coverage is the worst of it is that he’s off the radar. But for all of the glowing press stories of the other top tier candidate, Mr. Obama hasn’t been able to capitalize
at all. As for Clinton, the negative focus on her hasn’t daunted her rise. It
illustrates the strength of the candidate, which has surprised many and infuriated others. If you don’t follow the hack pack crew, which I most assuredly do not, any positive reference to her campaign or her primary prowess is seen as something insincere, even stacked. Obama’s fans can’t understand that considering his press advantage, many of whom have ignored his abominable campaign, he continues to slide. What Clinton is pulling off is in spite of the onslaught of the negative press focused on her is significant. If the energy spent on the web bashing Clinton was included in the Joan Shorenstein Center’s study, her negatives would be off the charts. But again, the study sure does explain the head on collision some people feel when stopping by this blog, which treats Clinton fairly, while applauding her campaign for an amazing job so far in the campaign. No Democrat has run a better race to date, though Chris Dodd should be commended for his courage and tenacity.

As for Republicans, Rudy is getting slammed as much as Clinton. However, part of the picture is also
how Republicans are walking away from the most conservative Republican in the
race, as his negatives pile up, too. John McCain’s negative press is actually 10 points higher than ‘Mr. 9/11′s.”

A big part of the negative press is wingnut radio, which hammers Clinton continually.
They’re the ones who helped start the rumors and hit pieces in 1990s and if
not start them, then most assuredly gave them wings until Drudge came along. The forces and reach of their megaphone should not be ignored, though the Democratic leadership remains virtually unphased, much to our detriment.

The press also gave some candidates measurably more favorable coverage than others. Democrat Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year—followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running. Arizona Senator John McCain received the most negative coverage—much worse than his main GOP rivals. Among other findings from the PEJ-Shorenstein study: Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband. Democrats generally got more coverage than Republicans, (49% of stories vs. 31%.) One reason was that major Democratic candidates began announcing their candidacies a month earlier than key Republicans, but that alone does not fully explain the discrepancy. Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced. Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical. There were also distinct coverage differences in different media. Newspapers were more positive than other media about Democrats and more citizen-oriented in framing stories. Talk radio was more negative about almost every candidate than any other outlet. Network television was more focused than other media on the personal backgrounds of candidates. For all sectors, however, strategy and horse race were front and center. A First Look at Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign