Skip to comments.Obama's honeymoon with media is history
Posted on 01/26/2010 11:02:20 AM PST by jazusamo
He has an official pre-presidential logo and a dramatic custom-built dais with columns even before he arrived at the White House. President Obama drew instant love from the press, who were captivated by the image before them.
Mr. Obama garnered more coverage and more positive coverage than former Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan during their comparable times in office, according to a study released Monday by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).
Much of the Obama coverage was breathlessly positive, even melodramatic. But then something happened.
"The press stopped covering President Obama the historical figure, and started covering President Obama the politician. It took a few months, but many journalists started returning to their old critical ways, and the coverage went negative," said CMPA Director Robert Lichter, who conducted the research in conjunction with George Mason and Chapman universities.
"Barack Obama had his honeymoon, but now the party's over. He got all the spectacular stuff when he was just beginning. Still, there's a silver lining for Mr. Obama his coverage would be envied by other recent presidents," Mr. Lichter added.
Indeed. The analysis was based on 3,859 news stories that appeared on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts, plus in the New York Times, Time and Newsweek from Jan. 20, 2009, through Dec. 31, plus a separate analysis of 1,728 stories on the Fox News Channel "Special Report."
During the entire first calendar year of his administration, Mr. Obama's mainstream media coverage was almost "perfectly balanced" he rated 49 percent positive and 51 percent negative evaluations by sources and reporters.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Tell that moron to get real. Balanced? No Fn way.
Oh sure, I'll believe this when pigs fly !
So why should anyone believe that this organization recognizes bias when they see it?
All things considered, it still is.
Is the media finally seeing that the party is over, that it’s time to get to work? It may be to late for the media since they didn’t want to see what was really going on. I believe that the general public no longer trusts them.
“By Sources” must mean bloggers and posters (including every negative comment on FR about BO.
It makes you wonder what they consider negative. Not openly gushing and drooling and more “nuanced” praise instead?
Utter BS. They are still relentlessly promoting, covering for him , deliberately ignoring negative stories about him and his administration and reliably attacking conservatives and his critics.
You mean the CMPA isn’t balanced? /sarc
I do believe his media praise is going to start taking a hit.
The point is that he is still getting 39% positive, that is staggering considering the p!$$ poor job he has been doing. There is no question that the media is in the tank for Obama still and they are finding it harder and harder to swim out.
If you want to see the definition of a biased WH reporter, check out Chuck Todd. Todd’s analysis often includes statements about what “we” need to do, including himself as part of the Obama team. If the day’s news is bad for the Obama WH, Chuck Todd looks like his puppy died. If the news is good for the Obama WH, Chuck Todd is visibly giddy.
Chuck Todd could be the poster boy for what’s wrong with the MSM.
The MSM is still deluded
I believe the media is starting to realize they can only go so far with their phony support and Obama’s reaction to Scott Brown being elected has had a lot to do with waking them up.
"His quest to secure the 2016 Olympics for Chicago failed in spectacular fashion," commented Fox News' Bret Baier in October.
Reporting the negative news should not count as a negative article...I suspect it did.
I don't. Want proof?
Listen to the overall media after he gives the State of the Union speech.
My guess would be F Chuck Todd got lots of wedgies and gym shorts pulled down in the high school locker room.
He just looks like the type.
Good example of an unabashed Obama media supporter that doesn’t even try to hide it, he and those like him should take up a different line of work.
I agree, their reporting after his SOTU will tell us if it truly is changing.
This goofball also forgets how the media slurped all over the Clintons.
What should be pointed out and shouted from the rooftops from now on is that the media bears primary blame for foisting this travesty on the country with their criminally biased and irresponsible coverage of the 2008 election and of Zero’s ascendancy to the Oval Office.
This should be driven home relentlessly.They should be made to pay for it by having their credibility thoroughly discredited for a generation.
It's getting to be a long time since that has happened.
Nothing will change until people cancel cable and sat TV service. We will keep losing until then.
Well, Chrissy Tingle-leg is still hot for Obozo.
“Balance” always depends on where you place the fulcrum.
LOL! I doubt Chrissy’s love for him will ever die.
Actually, I was surfing channels and happened to land on Chris Matthews twice now...he seems to be turning it around. He’s still pro Obummer, but he’s now questioning his guests in a much more probing way, disagreeing even, and really took Howard Dean (that giggling fool) on a few days back. Also, I think Chris Matthews is looking lack luster and washed out...I’m hoping he’s had an epiphany(sp?) and it’s wiping him out. About time.
I detect a tinge of “yeah, we were biased, but that’s all better now” here. Sorry, folks. Credibility is as difficult to get back as virginity.
All news vs. FOX I guess= balanced?
You know, I consider Fox to be moderate and balanced -- there are plenty of things on Fox that upset me and make me yell at the TV. It hardly spoonfeeds me all the news that I really want to hear, in a manner which is guaranteed to make me feel good. Nope. There's leftwing propaganda on Fox too. Just not as much.
But for the Leftist fanatics, Fox is an extremist station that taints all of American journalism by giving insufficient obeisance to Obama.
Good point and I know for most all of us there are very few with credibility nor is that likely to change.
This guy was dropped on his head as a baby. 49/51?
I would say, 80/20 and not like, excluding talk radio, Washington Times and Fox.
Matthews was very hard on Slick, for a year or so, when it looked like Slick might go down for obstruction of justice. Of course, he was very hard on George W, for a decade, in an attempt to keep his liberal media bona fides.
I do wonder now if Matthews was really that in love with BO, or if he just jumped on the bandwagon, knowing that the Clintons neither forgive, not forget, and that he couldn't get the Acting Deputy Undersecretary of the Interior for Public Restrooms in National Parks to come on his show in a Hillary administration.
If the honeymoon is over, I guess that makes his media spouses nymphomaniacs, cuz they’re still humping away.
HISTORY?? You’re KIDDING, right? Figure Katie and Olbermann are going to support the republican next time??!!
Just like the As-Seen-On-TV infomercials which make wild claims about a new product. “He will bring peace and prosperity and green to our planet. He will perform miracles and make our enemies love us.”
MSM acted as the producers of the OBamaRama infomercial and the Democratic party acted as the company selling ObamaRamas. At first people clamored to buy this new wonderful-can’t do without-Presidency but soon found out that it didn’t work like they promised and was way too expensive. Getting Conned leaves a bitter taste in people’s mouths. You can do most anything but don’t betray their trust.
Now people don’t want the MSM to make anymore infomercials and they won’t buy any products from the Democratic party for a long time,
this is from the Washington Times? We’re doomed
will he ever be the old chrissy that once guest hosted for Rush and felt that McCain deserved the presidency?