How Does The Press Fare In The Polls?

CBS' Kathy Frankovic: Public Sees Media Treating Obama Better Than Clinton

(CBS)  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.

[ov442]

Just because President Mush and his crack team of crack addicts in the white house screws up and harms more people and breaks the law more than any other president in history, and the media does their job by investigating and reporting it, doesnt mean they are biased against him.
Its PURE Common sense to note that Republicans tried everything they could to attack Bill Clinton to the point of impeaching him because he lied about an extramarital affair, while 67% of the populace approved of his job was media reported daily and rediculously since the majority of Americans didnt really want to know what he was doing with other women and just that he was running the country well.
While GWB has approval ratings in the 20% range because he just plain BITES as a human and a disgrace as a president, the media has actually be LIGHT on him because they should have been digging deeper and doing a tougher job keeping his crimes against all of us in the limelight.
I''d say the media are a bunch of PU55IES for not fighting back against the GOP spin machine telling them they are being liberal, when they should be doing more of their job pounding this guy and his Congress that controlled everything for the previous 12 years and is responsible for every mess we are in.

[ov442]

You hear that Media? YOu are bent over a railing by the GOP and you will all be Republican Evil Automatons within 10 yrs owned and operated by Murdoch.
Understand? you will no longer be journalists and you WILL have no more integrity or you wont have a job.

[aldon61]

I agree with the previous 2 writers that the news media hasn''t been engaging and following up on reports of abuse, whether it''s this administration, or the unbalanced supreme court that has been backing large corporations with it''s rulings. When I was young, our press was very much independent and careers were launched with good investigations and follow-up reportings. The reporters were bulldogs; they didn''t let go until there was a proper resolution. Those guys were heroes to most of us. Today, with big business owning the news media, (GE and Murdock come to mind), our reporters are no longer independent; they are pretty much told what they can report and who they can go after. This is just plain wrong! A free and independent press is one of our four estates, we need it. Don''t blame the press; pass laws that require corporations to divest their ownership interests and restore free press for our nation''s sake!

[hwy71so]

More than 2/3s of this article is about the democrats. That should tell you something. Once again they''re biased toward the democrats!

[hwy71so]

ov442, you poor thing.

Its obvious that you can''t see the distortion of truth poured on us by the media today. The media is nothing more than their own mafia proving that the pen is mightier than the sword. If they decide that Hillary is no longer ready for prime time, the media will crucify her. If they decide the same for anyone they disagree with, that person/agency is toast. The media rules this country through their brainwashing lies.

[taotxzen]

CNN VIDEO: President BUSH PARDON''''s HIMSELF against POTENTIAL WARCRIMES

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ
7Prwh7Gc

Setting aside the issue of whether a President can pardon himself, this bill violates the ex post facto provision of the Constitution. Note: Talk about knowing you are a war criminal and seeking a pardon BEFORE being legally charged by an institution of justice for the crime, this admission of guilt pales in comparison to any other suspicion or conspiracy theorist.

Buzzflash.com

[infidel_us]

The LAMEstream media is biased to the left. It is a proven fact on three studies I am aware of. Two from universities and one from MSNBC - if you can believe that.

Fox is fair. Get over it.

[candide777]

The Press totally sucks -- they give no coverage at all to Edwards, despite his showing as a very strong candidate. But, he has a better shot at beating the republican nominee than either Hillary or Obama, which is why the conservative press doesn''t want anyone to know about him. Once Hillary or Obama are picked, the republican sleaze machine will crucify either pick. Hillary will be made out to be a cold ___, or Obama will be made out to be a crack ____. And this country will buy it, hook, line and sinker, just the way they fell for the swift boat scam.

[denn034]

There are so many candidates that it''s impossible to give equal coverage to all of them. That should be considered, people.

[scorp01-2009]

I totally agree with Candide 777. The media totally sucks ! John Edwards has been pretty much ignored even though he is a strong candidate. I''m SICK of Hillary & Obama. John Edwards has shown nothing but class, graciousness & strong character through this campaign so far, even with the hard hits he''s taken.

[pakaal]

"Infidel_Us: "The LAMEstream media is biased to the left. It is a proven fact on three studies I am aware of. Two from universities and one from MSNBC - if you can believe that. Fox is fair. Get over it."

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.

[glxyent]

Barack Obama, equal opportunity candidate.

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

[quatrops]

The supposed "political slant" of the media (either to right or left) is a myth.

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.

[cyberus-2009]

OK lemme get this straight.
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.

[mcvet]

Fox is fair. Get over it.


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

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!

[quatrops]

Fair? Fox???

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!

[knyghtwolf]

This IS a joke, right??? The news BIAS in anyway??? Okay, Mr. Funt will be popping up somewhere soon and saying Candid Camera or America''s Funniest Home video''s right??? The media sells it, and you play the role is what Ozzy says in part of the lyrics of Crazy Train, and boy oh boy does the media cram it in every *** the human body can hold as we dash to the outhouse to regurgitate it. Being BIASED & LYING is the ONLY truth in news these days.

[knyghtwolf]

You gotta be kidding me, O*R*I*F*I*C*E is BANNED!!!! They make the S*H*I*T sandwich of life every day of our lives & force us to gag a chunk of it down every day for one idiotic reason or another. Maybe my mom WAS right, the computer is a tool of satan, I mean if I believed in that ***, oops there I go again, speaking what I believe within myself, forgot that I need to believe in what I am told or I am not a good human being. I really am not antisocial, I dislike everyone equally and unbiased straight across the board.