Weekend Muse; On Media Bias in the Primaries

June 8, 2008

Why The Media Counted Hillary Out

Throughout the primary season, a consistent complaint from the Clinton campaign, as well as from Clinton supporters, has been that the media has counted Hillary out too many times, that they’ve tried to force her out of the race, etc. Pro-Clinton pundit Dan Abrams pointed to a study by the Center for Media Studies that showed that Obama had significantly more pundits saying he could win than Clinton did from February 4th to March 20th to argue that the coverage was biased against Clinton, while Bill Clinton called this “the most biased press coverage in history.” The truth is the coverage they complained about boiled down to the fact that, starting on February 18th, Hillary had no chance at becoming the nominee.

First some background. In 2004, John Kerry effectively became the nominee after winning two states in a row, Iowa and New Hampshire. In 2000, Gore was easily considered the presumptive nominee by the time Iowa and New Hampshire voted. While some nominating processes have gone longer than others, this was really the third time in history that there wasn’t a presumptive nominee until after all the states had voted. And in both of those years, the parties with the lengthened primary processes lost.

Contrary to popular belief, the media has not been Demonstrably pro-Obama or pro-Clinton during this campaign. The Project for Excellence in Journalism reports that from January 1st to March 9th, 69% of narratives in the media about Obama were positive, while 67% of narratives about Clinton were positive. One must note, however, that media assertions were actually more pro-Clinton than pro-Obama down the stretch, as his media coverage soured in late February and never recovered. By March, only 53% of statements about Obama were positive, while over 70% of statements about Clinton in the media were positive. Indeed, there was actually a pro-Clinton media bias throughout the later stages of the campaign.

When Clinton did get negative press coverage, she typically earned it. There were few articles written about her path to victory because, from February 18th and on, she didn’t have one. There were journalists who didn’t like her personally because, by all accounts, her campaign was more rude to the press than any other campaign in modern history. There were more stories about gaffes and mis-steps she made than there were about Obama’s because she made more gaffes and mis-steps. There weren’t many articles on her chances to beat McCain because, barring lightning striking, she wasn’t going to be facing off against John McCain anywhere except in Gallup polls.

The bottom line is that Clinton received just as favorable coverage in the primaries as Obama did, if not more favorable, and the existence of media bias against her is a fabrication intended to provoke outrage.

…and that’s the Muse.

2 Responses

1. 9:12 PM on June 8th, 2008JayZee:

   Why don’t I hear such clear analysis on radio and TV?

2. 11:43 AM on September 2nd, 2008Anonymous:

   because it’s bought and paid for

Leave a Comment

All comments are moderated. If your comment contains profanity or libelous content, please don't waste our time.