How Does The Press Fare In The Polls?
By Kathy Frankovic, CBS News director of surveys.
It's easy to complain when you think the candidate (or the president) whom you like is getting unfair treatment from the media. Pollsters have often asked Americans how they see media coverage of candidates. This year, at least on the Democratic side, voters are pretty much agreed on how the press has covered one of them.
Voters are certainly paying attention this year. In 2008's first national CBS News/New York Times Poll, eight in ten voters said they were paying attention to the campaign, and more than a third, 37 percent, are paying a lot of attention. This continues a trend we've been seeing all along -- that this campaign is raising attention levels. Four years ago in January 2004, just 22 percent of voters were paying a lot of attention. Eight years ago, in January 2000, it was about one in four voters, too. In 1988, 1992 and 1996, the percentage was even lower.
Presumably, most voters follow the campaign vicariously, getting information second hand from television, radio, newspapers and magazines, and the internet. What do they hear?
We know that Americans are more likely to say that the various media are liberal than to say they are conservative. In September, in a Gallup Poll, 45 percent said the media was too liberal while just 18 percent said it was too conservative. Only 35 percent said it was "just about right." But voters tend to judge media coverage according to their own political beliefs. Conservatives are more likely to see liberal bias than liberals are.
When it comes to looking at the way the media cover individuals, Republicans and Democrats usually see things differently. In 2006, 61 percent of Republicans said the news media was harder on President George W. Bush than they had been on other presidents. Just 11 percent of Democrats saw that sort of bias. Of course, when that question was asked about the coverage of President Bill Clinton in the 1990's, the views of partisans were reversed.
There has always been a sizable segment of the public that thinks the media have been harder on Hillary Clinton than on other first ladies. (In fact, more people saw harsher treatment of the first lady than saw harsher treatment of her husband.) In a CBS News Poll conducted in 1996, half the public -- 51 percent -- said that news media treated Mrs. Clinton harder than they had treated other first ladies. Nine percent said it had been easier, and 36 percent said there had been equal treatment. Partisanship played a role: two-thirds of Democrats said she had been treated harder, compared with 37 percent of Republicans who felt that way. And for at least some of these same people, being hard on Hillary was okay. Only 36 percent of all adults said the news media had been "too harsh" on her
The most recent CBS News/New York Times Poll looked into perceptions within the Democratic Party. Interviewing began right after Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, which followed five days of media discussion about her likely defeat there and the possible end of her campaign.
Did our poll find the perception of media bias? Democratic voters certainly noticed a difference in coverage. Fifty-one percent said the media had been harder on Clinton than they had been on the other Democratic candidates. Only 5 percent said the media had been easier on her.
It was a different story when it came to the media and Barack Obama. Just 12 percent said that the news media had been harder on him than on other candidates. Twice as many, 25 percent, said the media had been easier on him.
What's interesting is how those answers tracked with different groups of Democratic voters. Women were more likely than men to see the media as treating Clinton more harshly (56 percent of women, compared with 44 percent of men thought this). Blacks were somewhat more likely than whites to see harsh treatment of Obama (20 percent vs. 11 percent). But about one in five blacks also saw easier media treatment of Obama.
Attentiveness to the campaign had relatively little impact on the responses. But age did. Younger voters, perhaps because they hadn't experienced as many campaigns as older voters had, saw more media unfairness for both candidates. Clinton's supporters were quite a bit more likely to see media favoritism toward Obama than were voters supporting Obama.
But in the case of the media and Hillary Clinton, it almost didn't matter which candidates Democratic voters supported. Voters saw the same thing. Fifty-seven percent of those supporting Hillary Clinton thought she had been harshly treated, but so did about half of those supporting her principal remaining opponents -- Obama and John Edwards.
Both Clinton and Obama are popular candidates within their party. More than three times as many Democratic primary voters have favorable feelings about Clinton and Obama than have unfavorable opinions. Seeing either of those candidates treated harshly by the media is likely to raise disturbing feelings among the party faithful, no matter which candidate they actually prefer.
By Kathy Frankovic
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. It's easy to complain when you think the candidate (or the president) whom you like is getting unfair treatment from the media. Pollsters have often asked Americans how they see media coverage of candidates. This year, at least on the Democratic side, voters are pretty much agreed on how the press has covered one of them.
Voters are certainly paying attention this year. In 2008's first national CBS News/New York Times Poll, eight in ten voters said they were paying attention to the campaign, and more than a third, 37 percent, are paying a lot of attention. This continues a trend we've been seeing all along -- that this campaign is raising attention levels. Four years ago in January 2004, just 22 percent of voters were paying a lot of attention. Eight years ago, in January 2000, it was about one in four voters, too. In 1988, 1992 and 1996, the percentage was even lower.
Presumably, most voters follow the campaign vicariously, getting information second hand from television, radio, newspapers and magazines, and the internet. What do they hear?
We know that Americans are more likely to say that the various media are liberal than to say they are conservative. In September, in a Gallup Poll, 45 percent said the media was too liberal while just 18 percent said it was too conservative. Only 35 percent said it was "just about right." But voters tend to judge media coverage according to their own political beliefs. Conservatives are more likely to see liberal bias than liberals are.
When it comes to looking at the way the media cover individuals, Republicans and Democrats usually see things differently. In 2006, 61 percent of Republicans said the news media was harder on President George W. Bush than they had been on other presidents. Just 11 percent of Democrats saw that sort of bias. Of course, when that question was asked about the coverage of President Bill Clinton in the 1990's, the views of partisans were reversed.
There has always been a sizable segment of the public that thinks the media have been harder on Hillary Clinton than on other first ladies. (In fact, more people saw harsher treatment of the first lady than saw harsher treatment of her husband.) In a CBS News Poll conducted in 1996, half the public -- 51 percent -- said that news media treated Mrs. Clinton harder than they had treated other first ladies. Nine percent said it had been easier, and 36 percent said there had been equal treatment. Partisanship played a role: two-thirds of Democrats said she had been treated harder, compared with 37 percent of Republicans who felt that way. And for at least some of these same people, being hard on Hillary was okay. Only 36 percent of all adults said the news media had been "too harsh" on her
The most recent CBS News/New York Times Poll looked into perceptions within the Democratic Party. Interviewing began right after Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, which followed five days of media discussion about her likely defeat there and the possible end of her campaign.
Did our poll find the perception of media bias? Democratic voters certainly noticed a difference in coverage. Fifty-one percent said the media had been harder on Clinton than they had been on the other Democratic candidates. Only 5 percent said the media had been easier on her.
It was a different story when it came to the media and Barack Obama. Just 12 percent said that the news media had been harder on him than on other candidates. Twice as many, 25 percent, said the media had been easier on him.
What's interesting is how those answers tracked with different groups of Democratic voters. Women were more likely than men to see the media as treating Clinton more harshly (56 percent of women, compared with 44 percent of men thought this). Blacks were somewhat more likely than whites to see harsh treatment of Obama (20 percent vs. 11 percent). But about one in five blacks also saw easier media treatment of Obama.
Attentiveness to the campaign had relatively little impact on the responses. But age did. Younger voters, perhaps because they hadn't experienced as many campaigns as older voters had, saw more media unfairness for both candidates. Clinton's supporters were quite a bit more likely to see media favoritism toward Obama than were voters supporting Obama.
But in the case of the media and Hillary Clinton, it almost didn't matter which candidates Democratic voters supported. Voters saw the same thing. Fifty-seven percent of those supporting Hillary Clinton thought she had been harshly treated, but so did about half of those supporting her principal remaining opponents -- Obama and John Edwards.
Both Clinton and Obama are popular candidates within their party. More than three times as many Democratic primary voters have favorable feelings about Clinton and Obama than have unfavorable opinions. Seeing either of those candidates treated harshly by the media is likely to raise disturbing feelings among the party faithful, no matter which candidate they actually prefer.
By Kathy Frankovic
Anyone in the Fox audience with a reasonable degree of intelligence is watching only for the laughs. There''s a bit of cynical itch in many of us that needs to be scratched. Watching Fox and knowing that, at that very same time, there are a goodly number of intellectually challanged dimwits out there actually taking Fox seriously is always good for a few head-shaking chuckles.
The only reason Fox has a better following than the NRO is that they use shorter words. Otherwise, both entities view reality through the same fascist optics.
Picture a typical Fox viewer: The good-ol''-boy sits in his trailer watching Fox. Bondo-patched pickup in the driveway. The channel selector is always on Fox (his hound dog ate the remote) except when Wrestling World is on another channel. The last of his six-pack slams down with approval on his particle-board coffee table as the Fox "commentator" sneeringly spouts some anti-progressive half-truth.
Fair? Fox?? Get a life!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Infidel_Us at 04:33 PM : Jan 22, 2008
+ report abuse
BAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA Right and YOU''RE not a Nazi! ROFLMAO Sieg Heil Bush!
Before Iowa everyone was complaining that the media was treating Clinton like the *Inevitable* shoo-in candidate.
Now that Obama has shown that he IS a candidate the media is treating him too well?
Somebody make up their mind which way it is.
It provides the stories and reportage that readers/viewers/listeners want and are willing to pay for by subscription or by supporting advertisers. If the media fails to do that, they will go out of business. Their prime objective is to make a profit.
The ownership end of the business tends to be conservative while the writers/reporters probably tend to be liberal. That''s a fair balance.
What the media is "about" is CONFLICT. Do your own quick survey of any newspaper page, any "news hour", any magazine table of contents. I wager you''ll find that less than 5% of articles are about something other than CONFLICT, while 95% are about conflict of some kind: political, moral, philosophical, sports, religious, literary, nature, science. You name it . . . you''ll find conflict in there somewhere . . . one person or group disagreeing or contesting another person/group.
Needless to say, I''m talking about the MSM here. There are many outlets that provide a biased point of view. They either target a select audience (from whom they can make a profit), or they''re money-losers and don''t care.
The MSM exception that proves the rule might be Fox, which discovered that there was a profitable audience out there that didn''t care about fact, but simply wanted the FEAR myth the neocons sold us reinforced as long as possible.
It''s obvious that Obama is not white enough and certainly not black enough. He does however presents himself as an equal opportunity candidate.
There''s a piece of him for the white color conscious voter and a piece of him for the black color conscious voter. It would be nice if race was not a factor but let''s not kid ourselves; we are all not so blind.
For the first time, African-Americans are presented with a candidate who shares their heritage and has a legitimate chance to be nominated and eventually elected president of the United States.
Obama is not an ordinary candidate. He is specially gifted and standing head to head with Hillary, is far superior both in judgment, character and intellectual endowment. He also has sufficient relevant experience to make good decisions where others like Hillary failed. Moreover, he will do more for blacks than Hillary will ever do.
The tag teams of Bill and Hillary Clinton have mounted a serious negative campaign to diminish the stature of Obama. They have introduced the race and gender cards in an effort to bait and destroy him.
This is the moment for African-Americans to stand for something. This is the time to make their vote count. If they capitulate to the Clintons and allow themselves to be duped into selecting Hillary, then they will be for a long time relegated to the bottom.
Blacks should cease this moment and set a new course for their future.
Wordtodawise
Right, Fox Noise, that repeats to this day lies about Obama attending a "madrassah", and whose viewers still believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Get a clue.