Of Course the Media Coverage of Obama Has Largely Been Positive

Obama is neglecting his duties in the job he was elected for in order to pursue a more powerful job. His surrogates point out that it's the freshman Senator from Illinois' judgement, that we took our eyes off the prize by going in to Iraq, as the justification for his elevation to the Presidency. I agree that we let Bin Laden off the hook by neglecting Afghanistan and going into Iraq. He is neglecting his position as Chair of the Sub-committee that oversees NATO's activities in Afghanistan. This is tremendously important to the security of this country, but he has yet to chair a single meeting (since Jan. 2007, when he assumed the Chair) in his pursuit of higher office. If he doesn't take this job seriously, what assurances do we have that he will take the position of the Presidency seriously?

The only thing of substance that obama says is when he says he agrees with Senator Clinton. My husband calls him oblahblah because he never says anything of substance (my husband is a Vietnam Veteran and a member of MENSA). My husband's question is, "Where's the Beef?" Where's the plan, besides agreeing with Senator Clinton?
hillary4change

Just another media created celebrity "product" all wrapped up in a fancy package.

I think that alone turned me off to Obama.

The longer I hear the same empty crap from Obama, he reveals his ability as an actor which what the media are looking for. To hear the Obama message the media should play his first speach over and over again, in this way he wouldn't have to travel!!!! Who was that other actor who became president? Stay tuned for: From the Whitehouse It's Saturday night live. [What a Joke]

I remember seven years ago when a white man who had no experience got elected.
The media gave him a free pass because of his name not because of his experience. Speaking of experience his was owner of a baseball team and a no show governor. Baseball is in the shape it is in because of owners like Mr. Bush and our country is in the shape it is in because of Mr. Bush.Texas is still recovering slowly.
Mr.Obama is getting a free pass because white men who rule this country can not and will not let a woman tell them what to do. God forbid. Where were Mr. Kennedy and how did he vote for the war? Camelot is over the Kennedy's are elitist and can get by with anything. They are not for the common person they are big business.
If Mr. Obama is really not Washington then why does he have Mr. Kennedy campaigning for Him?
If I did not know better The Rock Star
Mr. Obama thinks he is Jesus Christ.

Thanks for those citations that indicate media bias against Senator Clinton. Unfortunately, they are months old. Coverage in the last month alone dwarfs that of previous months. We're lucky that fairness groups will be looking at this; however, in the meantime, Clinton's opponent enjoys a free pass and all this talk about momentum and inevitability.

I've stopped watching two major outlets and will be dropping my subscription to the Boston Globe based on their overwhelmingly slanted coverage during the primary season - they really blurred the line between their editorial side and news reporting side in a way that I hadn't seen before. Even pulling back on critical coverage of Obama's pal, Deval Patrick who has been largely MIA in Massachusetts while he campaigns around the country.

I have to hope that people in Texas and Ohio realize that his campaign is media driven - shows no substance and that he has outspent Clinton 2 to 1. People may get tired of "all Obama all the time".

Subtract the 'positive coverage' Obama's received from the press in correcting lies and smears being spread through whispering campaigns.

Absolutely, the media has given Obama a pass on just about everything. It's sickening. As media, you can argue that's not the case, but let's put it another way---Why isn't the truth about Obama coming out, his flip-flopping, his shady pals, his lobbyists, the extremist church he belongs to, his wasted time in the senate, just for starters. This guy has major character flaws, what is it with the media--they're willing to take a virtually "unknown" and believe him at his word. It's the media responsibility to do their jobs. I do not watch NBC, or MSNBC anymore after that so-called journalist made those ugly comments about Hillary Clinton and her daughter. What if the same was said about Obama's wife and daughter!! It's shameful what the media has become.

The coverage of Clinton was negative before she lost any contests. In fact, one has to ask what effect the negative portrayal had on her contests. Self fulfilling prophecy? We saw with the selling of the war how much influence the media has.
Plus it's not just negative versus positive stories, it's the gushing tone of voice and smiles versus cutting comments and frowns.
I really think it's time for the media to take a hard look at what they are doing.

Technically speaking, Hillary is always sending negative responses against Obama. She is rude on both debates in Texas and Ohio. She saisd obama worked for slum apparments in Chicago during his lawyer leadership. It hurt to know that a young lady running for president has those negative thoughts, and she cried on national tv, becuse she wanted the voters to vote for her and after all of that she was only ahead by one percent of the vote. We just need a string leadership to run our country and some one who does not whine when she get asked the first question. America love Obama. Through Christ anything is impossible. I trust in God that Obama will win for president.

Economy was great when Clinton was in office.The saying don't mess up a good thing.What kind of change other then a black president.You idiots deserve what you ask for.Is your black president going to get you that new home new car new job.I guess you will still be where you are.BROKE but at least you'll have your black president.IDIOTS!!!

The two sources cited for this article deserve comment. 1) Center for Media for Public Affairs. While this group certainly has an excellent reputation, it's hard to accept the credibility of any study which calls FOX News the least biased network. 2) Joan Shorenstein Center. This article failed to mention that this center is funded by Walter H Shorenstein - who is such a fixture in the DNC machine that he received the 1997 DNC Lifetime Achievement Award - and has supported this Clintons for over a decade. Work harder.

This is definitely the understatement of the century.

Hillary will even be happy if the media has it as 80/20 with 20% positive towards her. Right now, it feels like 98% for Obama and 2% Clinton. The 2% I credit to Saturday Night Live.

Actually, I am still waiting for one positive coverage of Clinton from main stream media. The media must stop making the news and just report it.

The US media have been grossly negligent in failing to analyze the ridiculous protectionist and isolationis pledges of Clinton and Obama to gut NAFTA.
Under NAFTA, the US gets guaranteed access to Canada's oil and gas at the same price paid by Canadians -- and Canada is by far the biggest supplier of these precious resources to the US. If NAFTA is reopened by a President Obama or Clinton, then Canada will strike a harder bargain, and the result will be more unemployment south of the border.
Moreover, China and India -- not Canada or Mexico -- are the cause of job losses in Ohio!

If it is okay for a presidential candidate to plagiarize, then it should be okay for the white house employee to do the same.

To those who say that the white house guy case of "plagiarism" is different, I can imagine what college they attended - where plagiarism is allowed as long as the person you are plagiarizing gives his okay. Now, this definition is completely out of whack.

I am beginning to understand the thinking of the Obama supporters or ditto-heads.

Wake up people!

Bush was largely favored by the press against Gore and Kerry because of "likeability."

There is nothing more superficial.

Just a thought of course, just adding one or two cents here, but could it be, I mean could the possibility exist that 'positive coverage' of individuals in the press largely depends on these individual's positive, appealing and impressive qualities?

Why would the media coverage of say Nelson Mandela have been 'largely positive' when compared to that of say Robert Mugabe over the years? Could an explanation be that these 2 African leaders have shown some differences in politics, character, style, content etc?
Just a thought of course.

Might it be possible that a majority of the people of therefore of the press have sounding reasons to think more favorably of Obama than of Clinton? And that the difference as shown in all the favorability polls is not an expression of bias but of judgement?

The concept that the media has given Barack Obama a free ride is ludicrous. In a single week this February, almost every mainstream American publication printed articles with a common lock-step theme: that the Obama campaign lacked substance and that the millions of Americans who supported Obama were “cultists.” (Tapper, ABC 2/7; Stein, LAT 2/8;, Klein, Time 2/7; Brooks, NYT 2/8; and Krugman, NYT, 2/11, among others). All of these articles shared a common mantra, which was that Obama supporters and by association, the Obama campaign was composed of cult-followers. The coincidental timing of these articles is either a miracle of Old Testament proportion or implies that that something has gone deeply astray with the legacy of an independent press corps. What we expect from the American tradition of great journalism is objective reporting and independent thinking; what we are receiving in this campaign season is precisely the opposite. Edward R. Murrow didn’t spend a lot of time writing about kool-aid in the midst of a conflict in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were being slaughtered.

Obama has no experience and none or little past records for press to discuss about.

Hillary on ther hand helps media to sell their shows on discussing about debating on the Hillary's experience claims, her days as first lady, pre first lady and as senator.

Obama has to sell himself with help of Oprah or polititians to get media coverage.

I think both the campaign has their own challenges.

It's nice to see folks in the media finally acknowledging what the rest of us can see: the sharp bias against Clinton in favor of Obama. Now that Obama is clearly the frontrunner one hopes he finally starts to get some scrutiny. But the admissions of the press folk are incredible- tough to not get swept up in the Obama rapture etc.
I agree with you Jake - these folks are in the wrong business! The choice of a particular photo here, the choice of a word here -- it all adds up to millions of dollars worth of free advertising for Obama.

Fair and balanced what a joke. Who ever is the medias darling wins the election because the elderly, young and working poor only have tv to help them make a decision. The same old tired faces each night spit out the same old tired crap: their opinion not fact. So if you want to know who is going to win its the candidate whos mug is constantly being flashed to your tv eyes. [subbliminal messages]