Washington Post: "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage"

The Ombudsman at the Washington Post writes this:

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 of last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4.

The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.

Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion."

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that. . . .

Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that from June 9, when Clinton dropped out of the race, until Nov. 2, 66 percent of the campaign stories were about Obama compared with 53 percent for McCain; some stories featured both. The project also calculated that in that time, 57 percent of the stories were about the horse race and 13 percent were about issues. . . .



Anonymous JFA in Montreal said...

Isn't it a tad late for the media, which publishes all of those very stories to do a pious mea culpa?

Bottom line is, they betrayed their readership. Period.

11/09/2008 6:14 PM  
Blogger Rio Arriba said...

NOW they ponder the numbers.

Dare we hope hope that a wee bit of Buyer's Remorse might be nibbling around the edges?

11/09/2008 7:23 PM  
OpenID DougHuffman said...

Welcome to the Obamination, "Yes, we deceived you with our talk of 'balance' but the ends have justified the means."

Prepare to be assimilated by the Bog!

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people should be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.

11/10/2008 6:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pot calling the kettle black! Look at your articles/posts.... they seem to have a decidedly right tilt t them. Judge not.

11/10/2008 3:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What? Those ardent lefty defenders of of a "sensational and shallow but not partisan" media have no comments?

11/12/2008 10:35 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home