Study: Media Narrow Field Of Candidates

Within First Months Of Race, Field Had Been Effectively Reduced To Five Candidates

(AP)  When it comes to presidential politics, the news media love front-runners. And seem to hate them, too.

Within the first five months of the presidential contest, the media effectively had reduced the field to five candidates, even though there were 17 mainstream Democrats and Republicans, a study of political coverage found.

But the tone of the coverage for the top two front-runners - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani - hardly was friendly. Nearly four out of 10 stories were negative, more than three out of 10 were neutral and only the rest were positive.

The study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, to be released Monday, also portrays the political press as a hidebound institution out of touch with the desires of citizens.

Among the findings:

Stories focused more on fundraising and polls than on where candidates stood on the issues, despite a public demand for more attention to the policies, views and records of the candidates.

The public's attention to campaign news is higher now than it was at similar points in the past two elections, but that interest is only shared by less than one in four people.

Five candidates - Democrats Clinton and Barack Obama and Republicans Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain - received more than half the coverage. Elizabeth Edwards, the cancer-stricken wife of Democrat John Edwards, received almost as much media attention as her husband.

Democrats, overall, got more coverage - and more positive ink and airtime - than Republicans.

Obama enjoyed the friendliest coverage of the presidential field; McCain endured the most negative. That was due in part to the media's focus on fundraising; Obama raised more than expected and McCain raised less.

The report is the most thorough analysis yet of media coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign and offers both a sober evaluation as well as a dash of guidance on how to improve. But the report's authors are not necessarily optimistic. They note that a study of the 2000 presidential election reached similar conclusions.

They argue that this election could represent a generational struggle in both parties, but that early media coverage failed to capture that fundamental tension.

"If American politics is changing," the report concluded, "the style and approach of the American press does not appear to be changing with it."

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said journalists face a conundrum: In a campaign that started as early as this one, why spend resources in a detailed analysis of candidates views and stances when the public is not that engaged? Or is the public not engaged because the media are focusing on tactics and insider stories that don't affect readers, viewers and listeners?

The report analyzed 1,742 articles about the presidential contest that appeared from January through May in 48 news outlets including print, online, network TV, cable and radio news and talk shows.

© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Candidate Profiles & RSS Feeds

• John McCain
• Sarah Palin

• Barack Obama
• Joe Biden

Share:

Digg

Facebook

Yahoo! Buzz

Twitter

Mixx

Video and Galleries from Politics

• Video Something To Walk For
• Video Is The Honeymoon Over?
• Video The President Meets The Pope

Latest in Politics

Obama "Hope" Artist Gets Probation

Obama Slave Fort Trip Steeped In Symbolism

Obama Hints at World Cup Appearance

Add a Comment See all 17 Comments

by hwy71so October 29, 2007 12:12 PM PDT

The media should remain neutral on ALL candidates. Unfortunately, the mainstream media, save Fox, favors a liberal candidate to a conservative and plays that favor big time.

Reply to this comment

by nolalou October 29, 2007 12:27 PM PDT

I agree most mainstream media focuses too much on polls and fund raising and not enough on where candidates stand on the issues. I disagree however that they favor ''liberal'' or ''democratic'' candidates. The so called ''liberal media'' is largely a myth, as most major networks are owned by conservative companies, with conservative CEO''s. What drives the coverage is not so much the political positions of the candidates, but ratings. News in a business, and coverage is determined by ratings, just like everything else on TV.

Reply to this comment

by papabc October 29, 2007 12:27 PM PDT

Democrats, overall, got more coverage %u2014 and more positive ink and airtime %u2014 than Republicans.

That is because the major news media leans to the left and Move-on groups.

This modern media does not get us balance reporting as they once did. (San Jose Mercury Newpaper is one good example.

Reply to this comment

by gangesdak October 29, 2007 12:32 PM PDT

Obama does not cut it for toughness. He should stay a Senator, and help legistlate for health, welfare andd education. That''s where his strength lies.

Reply to this comment

by gangesdak October 29, 2007 12:36 PM PDT

And Edwards has the inimitable Dan Qualic irrelevant air.

Reply to this comment

by shingson October 29, 2007 12:37 PM PDT

The media puts way to much focus on the man with the money! They push for who they want to see in office, too many people sit at home watching tv and let the media make their decision on who to vote for instead of doing a little research on the candidates. Myself I have done the research and Huckabee is the man for me! Go Mike!

Reply to this comment

by papabc October 29, 2007 12:53 PM PDT

The media puts way to much focus on the man with the money! They push for who they want to see in office, too many people sit at home watching tv and let the media make their decision on who to vote for instead of doing a little research on the candidates.
.....

You are so right on this comment.

Reply to this comment

by mcvett October 29, 2007 12:59 PM PDT

Located in this CBS article:

"Democrats, overall, got more coverage %u2014 and more positive ink and airtime %u2014 than Republicans."


GEE, WHAT A SHOCK!!!

LOL

Reply to this comment

by one_american October 29, 2007 1:23 PM PDT

THE DEBATE IS OVER!

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS NOW PROVEN TO BE LIBERALLY BIASED.

Reply to this comment

by random_radar October 29, 2007 1:33 PM PDT

The agenda of the media is set by those who own the media. That is the wealthy and powerful.

The intention of the media is to narrow the field of candidates to those who will serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful. There is no such thing as liberal or conservative, only compliant and non-compliant with the wishes of the wealthy and powerful.

The issues don''t matter because ultimately the person who gets elected will faithfully serve their masters--the wealthy and powerful. A two-party system is a charade to make Americans believe they are not ruled by a monolithic dictatorship.

The genius of American politics is that you give people a choice between two candidates who both serve the same master and the people naively believe they are still living in a free country. A lot of people suspect something is wrong with the government, and I just told you what you are too afraid to accept as true. You don''t live in a free country.

Reply to this comment

by mike71067 October 29, 2007 3:05 PM PDT

From the article: Democrats, overall, got more coverage %u2014 and more positive ink and airtime %u2014 than Republicans."

Gee, now THERE''S a shock. Look, everybody knows that there is a left-wing slant in the major U.S. news media. When will CBS/MSNBC/ABC/New York Times/Washington Post finally admit this? And they all complain about the presence of Fox News, because they''re a conservative voice in a field that should only (in their opinions) be populated with liberals.

Reply to this comment

by bobebenson October 29, 2007 3:12 PM PDT

If one candidate had 44 million dollars to spend, and another had 6 million to spend, and you were looking to make gobs of money selling TV air time which one would YOU promote?? Hey, that''s the American way! :-)

Reply to this comment

by tylenol6 October 29, 2007 3:31 PM PDT

"MEDIA NARROW FIELD OF CANDIDATES"

You better believe it. All the media is owned by the elites, including CBS. All they want to focus on is HITLERY, EDWARDS, OBAMA, GUILIANI, THOMPSON AND MC CAIN THE INSANE. Well, if you did some research you will find that most americans are not happy with these 6 idiot CFR members. RON PAUL, GRAVEL AND KUCINICH
get no air time. RON PAUL is getting alot of money
donations but the news media don''t want you to know
about him. Actually, he gets alot of donations from
the MILITARY. Yes, it''s true. That should tell you
something right there. Check out RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT. It will be your last chance for democracy.
Ron Paul is the democrats and republicans worst nightmare.

Reply to this comment

by gunownerdan October 29, 2007 4:37 PM PDT

Whichever candidates are the best prostitutes for big money will get the most media attention.
The White House is for sale to the highest bidder!

Reply to this comment

by geezer62 October 29, 2007 5:02 PM PDT

gunownerdan...
Your statement could not be more correct. I once heard that we have the best politicians that money can buy. Another poster here mentions that both candidates are actually working for the same master and I think that is true. For many years I bought into the big lie but have come to realize that it''s all smoke and mirrors. Ultimately, the elected politician will do as they are told. Big oil wanted their interests in the Middle East protected and that''s exactly what was done. Even Bush isn''t stupid enough to make that kind of decision by himself. He did as he was ordered to do. I just hope they don''t tell him to invade Canada.

Reply to this comment

by simonsez40 October 30, 2007 9:13 AM PDT

THE DEBATE IS OVER!

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS NOW PROVEN TO BE LIBERALLY BIASED.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by One_American

That''s a myth - have you ever watched Fox News - if the media was liberally biased they''d have exposed Bush and his crimes a LONG TIME AGO. They are all bought and paid for by both parties. Find another myth to perpetuate!

Reply to this comment

by jacksteen1 October 30, 2007 6:22 PM PDT

The media has been engaged in a vain attempt to paint Willard Romney as a viable candidate despite his leadership role in the mormon cult. It isn''t working.

No one with an ounce of sense believes that a man who thinks a White Salamander spoke to a rural rube in upstate New York in 1830 and told him to dig a hole in a hill where he would find golden tablets that he would miraculously translate with the aid of magic glasses that would tell him how to found a cult that has as its major tenet the taking of multiple wives for the flourishing of the little cult, is a Presidential candidate worthy of support.

Neither do Christian people consider normal a cult that believes Jesus was a SpaceMan, or that their chief priest (''President'') speaks on a regular basis with God Almighty by putting a stone in his hat, clopping it over his wizened face, and getting revelations about daily life.

Willard and his creepy cult are flawed - and they should just go away.

Reply to this comment

See all 17 Comments

Add a comment

Comment SUBMIT

Click here to add another comment.

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Comment reply

Submit Cancel

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CBSNews.com Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

Select type of offense:

Offensive: Sexually explicit or offensive language

Spam: Advertisements or commercial links

Disruptive posting: Flaming or offending other users

Illegal activities: Promote cracked software, or other illegal content

Comments (optional):

Report Cancel

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to: (Separate multiple e-mail addresses with commas. Limited to 10 addresses.)

Your e-mail address:

Send me a copy of this message

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.

Add your own personal message: (Optional)

Hi, I found this user's comment on CBSNews.com and thought you might be interested in reading it. Send e-mail Cancel

[hwy71so]

The media should remain neutral on ALL candidates. Unfortunately, the mainstream media, save Fox, favors a liberal candidate to a conservative and plays that favor big time.

[nolalou]

I agree most mainstream media focuses too much on polls and fund raising and not enough on where candidates stand on the issues. I disagree however that they favor ''liberal'' or ''democratic'' candidates. The so called ''liberal media'' is largely a myth, as most major networks are owned by conservative companies, with conservative CEO''s. What drives the coverage is not so much the political positions of the candidates, but ratings. News in a business, and coverage is determined by ratings, just like everything else on TV.

[papabc]

Democrats, overall, got more coverage %u2014 and more positive ink and airtime %u2014 than Republicans.

That is because the major news media leans to the left and Move-on groups.

This modern media does not get us balance reporting as they once did. (San Jose Mercury Newpaper is one good example.

[gangesdak]

Obama does not cut it for toughness. He should stay a Senator, and help legistlate for health, welfare andd education. That''s where his strength lies.

[gangesdak]

And Edwards has the inimitable Dan Qualic irrelevant air.

[shingson]

The media puts way to much focus on the man with the money! They push for who they want to see in office, too many people sit at home watching tv and let the media make their decision on who to vote for instead of doing a little research on the candidates. Myself I have done the research and Huckabee is the man for me! Go Mike!

[papabc]

The media puts way to much focus on the man with the money! They push for who they want to see in office, too many people sit at home watching tv and let the media make their decision on who to vote for instead of doing a little research on the candidates.
.....

You are so right on this comment.

[mcvett]

Located in this CBS article:

"Democrats, overall, got more coverage %u2014 and more positive ink and airtime %u2014 than Republicans."


GEE, WHAT A SHOCK!!!

LOL

[one_american]

THE DEBATE IS OVER!

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS NOW PROVEN TO BE LIBERALLY BIASED.

[random_radar]

The agenda of the media is set by those who own the media. That is the wealthy and powerful.

The intention of the media is to narrow the field of candidates to those who will serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful. There is no such thing as liberal or conservative, only compliant and non-compliant with the wishes of the wealthy and powerful.

The issues don''t matter because ultimately the person who gets elected will faithfully serve their masters--the wealthy and powerful. A two-party system is a charade to make Americans believe they are not ruled by a monolithic dictatorship.

The genius of American politics is that you give people a choice between two candidates who both serve the same master and the people naively believe they are still living in a free country. A lot of people suspect something is wrong with the government, and I just told you what you are too afraid to accept as true. You don''t live in a free country.

[mike71067]

From the article: Democrats, overall, got more coverage %u2014 and more positive ink and airtime %u2014 than Republicans."

Gee, now THERE''S a shock. Look, everybody knows that there is a left-wing slant in the major U.S. news media. When will CBS/MSNBC/ABC/New York Times/Washington Post finally admit this? And they all complain about the presence of Fox News, because they''re a conservative voice in a field that should only (in their opinions) be populated with liberals.

[bobebenson]

If one candidate had 44 million dollars to spend, and another had 6 million to spend, and you were looking to make gobs of money selling TV air time which one would YOU promote?? Hey, that''s the American way! :-)

[tylenol6]

"MEDIA NARROW FIELD OF CANDIDATES"

You better believe it. All the media is owned by the elites, including CBS. All they want to focus on is HITLERY, EDWARDS, OBAMA, GUILIANI, THOMPSON AND MC CAIN THE INSANE. Well, if you did some research you will find that most americans are not happy with these 6 idiot CFR members. RON PAUL, GRAVEL AND KUCINICH
get no air time. RON PAUL is getting alot of money
donations but the news media don''t want you to know
about him. Actually, he gets alot of donations from
the MILITARY. Yes, it''s true. That should tell you
something right there. Check out RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT. It will be your last chance for democracy.
Ron Paul is the democrats and republicans worst nightmare.

[gunownerdan]

Whichever candidates are the best prostitutes for big money will get the most media attention.
The White House is for sale to the highest bidder!

[geezer62]

gunownerdan...
Your statement could not be more correct. I once heard that we have the best politicians that money can buy. Another poster here mentions that both candidates are actually working for the same master and I think that is true. For many years I bought into the big lie but have come to realize that it''s all smoke and mirrors. Ultimately, the elected politician will do as they are told. Big oil wanted their interests in the Middle East protected and that''s exactly what was done. Even Bush isn''t stupid enough to make that kind of decision by himself. He did as he was ordered to do. I just hope they don''t tell him to invade Canada.

[simonsez40]

THE DEBATE IS OVER!

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS NOW PROVEN TO BE LIBERALLY BIASED.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by One_American

That''s a myth - have you ever watched Fox News - if the media was liberally biased they''d have exposed Bush and his crimes a LONG TIME AGO. They are all bought and paid for by both parties. Find another myth to perpetuate!

[jacksteen1]

The media has been engaged in a vain attempt to paint Willard Romney as a viable candidate despite his leadership role in the mormon cult. It isn''t working.

No one with an ounce of sense believes that a man who thinks a White Salamander spoke to a rural rube in upstate New York in 1830 and told him to dig a hole in a hill where he would find golden tablets that he would miraculously translate with the aid of magic glasses that would tell him how to found a cult that has as its major tenet the taking of multiple wives for the flourishing of the little cult, is a Presidential candidate worthy of support.

Neither do Christian people consider normal a cult that believes Jesus was a SpaceMan, or that their chief priest (''President'') speaks on a regular basis with God Almighty by putting a stone in his hat, clopping it over his wizened face, and getting revelations about daily life.

Willard and his creepy cult are flawed - and they should just go away.