Mike Huckabee argued this week that unless Americans watch Fox News, much of the public "will assume that Obama really is just doing a great job."
I'm not sure if Huckabee has thought this one through. Voters who rely on professional news organizations will come to believe President Obama is doing great work? Isn't that a Democratic argument?
Of course, Huckabee's point is that he believes the non-Fox media outlets favor the president and present the news from a skewed perspective. The failed former presidential candidate is certainly entitled to his opinion, but it's worth considering the point on a more quantitative level.
The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism tracks reporting for Obama and Mitt Romney, and breaks down coverage into "positive," "negative," and "neutral" reports. Here, for example, is the trend for Romney, with a solid line pointing to positive coverage, and a dotted line pointing to negative coverage. Neutral stories aren't included in the image.
Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism
Looking back over the last year, you'll notice that some months Romney has enjoyed mostly positive coverage, while other months, negative stories dominated. It's gone back and forth. Now consider the same analysis of Obama coverage.
Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism
Every single month, the coverage has been more negative than positive. As James Fallows put it, "At no time in the past year has coverage of President Obama been as positive as that of Governor Romney. Indeed, at no time in the past year has it been on-balance positive at all. You can argue that negative coverage of the administration is justified. You can argue that incumbents are -- and should be -- held to a tougher standard, since they have a record to defend. But you can't sanely argue that the press is in the tank for Obama."
Someone might want to let Mike Huckabee know.
Leave a Comment:
What's confounding about this (and frustrating as hell, given Mitt's inability to speak truth) is how Romney gets positive coverage. Clearly the media are not calling him out on the constant lies, lack of detailed plans, or positions on important issues.
I prefer honest, ethical elected officials, especially Presidents. None are perfect, but Obama is the best we've had in a long time in these areas.
One thing i do not understand is that Mitt Romney claims to be in business for the last 25 years, but working capital someone else has it in a blind trust. Rachel can you please explain?
Mitt Romney working capital has been in a blind trust for the last 10 years, and someone else manage that capital. I do not understand how he can claim to be in business for the last 25 years.
Conversely, if the only channel someone watches is Fox News, they probably wouldn't know that Mike Huckabee pardoned a convicted rapist, who then went on to kill and rape again, just because the first victim had ties to the Clintons. Of course, you probably won't learn that from the regular media either.
It would be great if we could get the same chart for each news outlet, and then compare that to the chart for Fox "news."
Actually, I'd bet you could approximate it by putting a dotted line at 100% and a solid line at 0%.
Fox could only be called "fair and balanced" if the two ends of it's spectrum are Sen. McConnell and Orly Taitz.
"Someone might want to let Mike Huckabee know."
Only God talks to Huckabee!
And even then it can take weeks to get an appointment.
I read this quote yesterday and got quite a laugh from it. Everyone would think Obama was a great president if it weren't for Fox news! Boy, and that will carry the day for Romney, he thinks? After all, Fox is on HIS side...
It is not Huckabee's responsibility to provide his viewers/readers this information.
It's yours.
If the press weren't in the tank for Obama, there wouldn't be any positive coverage at all.
While Fox is a pure propaganda organization and an arm of the Republican Party the remainder of the mainstream media is not much better. Everyone needs to keep in mind that the mainstream media is owned wholesale by huge multi-nationals and billionaires the vast majority of whom are right wing Republicans. One has only to watch/read/listen to independent or foreign news sources to see the huge bias in U.S. news. Not only are there huge misrepresentations in reporting but there are many partials truths reported done so for the sole purpose to mislead. In addition, there are huge gaps in news that the American public are simply unaware of and this is due to the fact that the multi-nationals simply do not want the American aware of the facts relating to the many misdeeds they are involved in. Our mainstream media constantly tells us all the information, or more information is out there now on the "internets," more so than any point in history, but that is also true of the amount of mis-information. Trustworthy award winning independent news sources like Democracy Now and foreign news sources like the Irish Times are great ways to fill in the gaps left out by American corporate news.
Take a shower Hippie!
All you self righteous leftist might want to get out from time to time and actually watch, read, and listen to what the rest of the Country believes, because we know what you're all about and come November Pres. Obama is going to be packing his bags for the first flight back to corrupt Chicago where he belongs.
***ROMNEY/RUBIO 2013***
As a commenter on another site put it: "Well respected scholars Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann wrote a book detailing how Republicans are sabotaging the economy as well as the entire government. And these two men can't even get an invite to the Sunday morning news shows, but Donald Trump and his birtherism can."
And the press is in the tank for Obama??? THE PEOPLE are in the tank for Obama.
Another anti-Obaman eager to see the nation go under from right winged obstruction.
Fortunately, Chris Hayes had Mann & Ornstein on his Sunday show.
Gabe Nava, as a self-righteous leftist, I'd challenge you to spend anywhere near the time (3-5 hours daily) I spend assessing what is fact and what is fiction. Or as Chris Mooney points out; " Liberals will rally with data and strong, logical arguments, and conservatives will hammer away about family values and stability." If you want to match data, let's go, otherwise, identify with your group even though its sources, like Fox, are consistently in error. The point is that what you believe and what is actual may be quite different, but you probably don't send the time and effort to know otherwise. Good luck with that.
Well now since I for one am limited to "facts" gathered by organizations that always seem somewhat biased or even permanently listing to one side...enlighten me. Perhaps a few research tips? Maybe some explanation as to how you see Keynesian versus Rand on economics or maybe your feelings on Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal?
Seriously-instead of merely ranting on how you see others , please show us how you have come to be so self assured.
Paul,
You forgot Hayek. My favorite economist.
Lets not travel down "The Road to Serfdom."
Well now I ain't into economics that much. I just like eating.--well that and being a smartass.
I agree with Sedwinmars, above, that Democracy Now is the most unfiltered news outlet. Yet the comparison between Amy Goodman and R. Maddow is, "sorry Amy", not registering on any meter. The intuitive questioning and analysis existing in R. Maddow's manner is unmatched only by her delivery. No payments received here for accolades but Maddow is "hands down" the best I've listened to in 53 years of keeping up with news from the U.S. and abroad. B.H.
In the context of our current media landscape, I don't think it's premature to suggest that Dr. Maddow is the E.R. Murrow of our time! Like Murrow in his own time, others (like Amy Goodman today) were also doing fine reporting, but his (and now Rachel's) ability to frame and deliver the information in memorable ways that audiences could understand and appreciate made all the difference. (No disrespect at all intended to Ms. Goodman - she and her crew do great work!)
Interesting, to see how much negative press was given to the Bush Adm.?
And compare the two between Bush and Obama.... Then let them explain, why they suck-up to the Bush era... Cover-up, carry water for the lied for the war, Insurance Part-D, ousted CIA agent, Deregulation of Financial sys. (Cheney Secret Task Force), AG going after senators, congressperson, Secret Torture....
As far as, I'm concern, basely all msm is on the take...
I'd love to see the charts adjusted to take out FOX News. If they are part of this, it's no doubt that the coverage skews negative, it's almost an assumption. Removing FOX would be interesting but also show how real journalism is portraying the campaign
Can someone please tell me why main stream media pulling for success of their own president is a bad thing?