100 Days of Hype
It isn’t just my imagination. The MSM is fawning over President Obama.
According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs:
The media have given President Obama more coverage than George W. Bush and Bill Clinton combined and more positive coverage than either received at this point in their presidencies. . . .
During his first 50 days in office, the three broadcast network evening news shows devoted 1021 stories lasting 27 hours 44 minutes to Barack Obama’s presidency. The daily average of seven stories and over 11 minutes of airtime represents about half of the entire newscasts. By contrast, at this point in their presidencies George W. Bush had received 7 hours 42 minutes and Bill Clinton garnered 15 hours 2 minutes of coverage, for a combined total airtime five hours less than Mr. Obama’s.
Emphasis added. And the MSM hasn’t just been obsessed with showcasing the President’s image, they’ve also, by and large, been promoting his policies:
Mr. Obama has received not only more press but also better press than his immediate predecessors. On the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news, fifty-eight percent of all evaluations of the president and his policies have been favorable, and 42 percent were unfavorable. CMPA’s previous studies of network news found that George W. Bush received only 33 percent positive evaluations by sources and reporters during the first 50 days of his administration in 2001, and Bill Clinton received only 44 percent positive evaluations during his first ten weeks (70 days) in office in 1993.
And I had thought the news media loved Bill Cliinton when he took office in 1993. If Obama falters, he may not only hurt his party, but he could well bring the MSM down with him as well.
FROM THE COMMENTS: MIchelle raises an interesting point:
I don’t doubt that the MSM has been falling head-over-heels for Obama, but do you think that just the pure AMOUNT of coverage has been because the news cycle has INSANELY ramped up their coverage since the days of Clinton and even Bush?
20 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Amen to that, I hope MSM does falter, they clearly aren’t doing their job.
Comment by Leah — May 1, 2009 @ 3:12 pm - May 1, 2009
#1 – Right on, Leah. They’ve gone from being junkyard dogs to lap dogs overnight.
Even the tone of the syncophants in the Drool-By Media is obnoxiously fawning. I suppose they only show their knives when the president has a (R) after his name.
Scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites all.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 1, 2009 @ 3:24 pm - May 1, 2009
Obama won’t falter, at least not according to those who report the news and teach and recount history. There is too much invested in decades of racial guilt and Obama granting the ability to say to the world we’re not a racist country (itself a racist premise).
Had W been a better president with a better administration, we just might not be in this fix.
Comment by Ignatius — May 1, 2009 @ 3:51 pm - May 1, 2009
I should add that it’s not the media’s job to provide news coverage that I don’t find offensive at least and agree with at most.
Comment by Ignatius — May 1, 2009 @ 3:53 pm - May 1, 2009
So, this research proves that:
* The media is covering an president who made large promises as a candidate, now governing in a time of enormous crises, some foreseen, some not. What should they be covering? American Idol? The mere existence of large amounts of coverage is somehow a bad thing? Do we not want an engaged populace? Covering the actions of the most powerful man on earth by our free press is bad? The Republicans really do hate the press, don’t they?
* The the media showed more good press on O than his predecessors. In order to show that this is somehow biased, don’t you need to first, you know, prove that Obama has messed up? You throw out a positive delta in coverage as if it somehow proves your point, when all it shows is your own bias is believing that you can ever judge a presidency by its first 100 days, let alone the media coverage of pundits’ opinions thereof.
Just because you’re losing doesn’t mean someone fixed the race.
Comment by torrentprime — May 1, 2009 @ 3:53 pm - May 1, 2009
Amen to that, I hope MSM does falter, they clearly aren’t doing their job.
“Mr. President, what has most enchanted you since taking office?”
Yeah, those MSM reporters are real ball-busters.
Comment by V the K — May 1, 2009 @ 4:16 pm - May 1, 2009
I don’t doubt that the MSM has been falling head-over-heels for Obama, but do you think that just the pure AMOUNT of coverage has been because the news cycle has INSANELY ramped up their coverage since the days of Clinton and even Bush?
Comment by Michelle — May 1, 2009 @ 4:35 pm - May 1, 2009
I hate to do this. I was going to ease off the President a bit and give him some more breathing room to get his crew and gang together. But I can’t. I’m hoping announcing the DAILY gaffes, blunders, screwups and mistakes will be recognized for what they are and him and his people will get better. America deserves an administration and President who are professional and not boobs. BUT
today’s embarassment. Not from Democrat VP Jumpin Joe Biden, he has been locked in the attic for the time being. Not from Obama himself mangling the teleprompter, not from Napalatano, not even from tax cheats Sebelious or Geithner. Not from Robert “cone head” Gibbs or Sen Dodd. Today’s administration bungle and gaffe from none other than her highness Michelle Obama. That’s right, our first lady.
Michelle Obama travels to a DC food bank to admirably hand out some meals to the homeless in $600 shoes! Yep she got comfortable and casual and wore he ole throw me ons,
http://www.wowowow.com/style/michelle-obamas-sneakers-shiny-shoes-lanvin-540-photo-283003
When told of the first ladys shoes, one homeless shelter resident said….”damn, must be nice”!
Ona day when the Democrat Vice President didn’t declare the transportations system off limits for his family. A day when the Homeland Security Sec didn’t blast returning vets as possible terrorists, or Obamateleprompter himself didn’t fire a CEO or pass a $700 Billion pork bill. It was Michelle who gets the DAILY boob award.
Lady Foot Locker has some nice ladies sneekers on sale for $39.
http://www.ladyfootlocker.com/catalog/advancedSearch/supercat–home/keyword–sale/prod_tp–Shoes/sport–Running/brand–ASICS%25AE/price–%2425.00%20to%20%2449.99/
Boobs, bunglers, cheats and morons. Day 101. NICE A+
Comment by Gene on Pennsylvania — May 1, 2009 @ 5:28 pm - May 1, 2009
#5 – ToiletPaper, you are so ignorant it makes my head hurt.
For starters, let’s take your first supposed point:
“The media is covering an president who made large promises as a candidate, now governing in a time of enormous crises, some foreseen, some not. What should they be covering? American Idol?”
No, what they SHOULD be doing is covering the candidate (now president) who made these large promises that he has either failed to deliver or has angered so much of the electorate with his out-of-the-mainstream policies that they rallied en mass on April 15 – which he had conveniently “overlooked” – and hold his feet to the fire the same way they did for 8 years with GWB. Is that too much to ask?
Next supposed “point” of yours:
“The media showed more good press on O than his predecessors. In order to show that this is somehow biased, don’t you need to first, you know, prove that Obama has messed up?”
That is totally incoherent. You don’t need to PROVE anything about who “messed up.” What you do is show a direct correlation between the same parties who are asking how “enchanting” The Snob is versus those who browbeated GWB in his first 100 days.
In case you need a couple of examples, here you go:
1. Chris Matthews and his pre-inauguration pledge across the media: “I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work.” Can you imagine anyone else in the media – even on Fox News – making this kind of statement during Bush’s terms?
2. Time offered a cover story package complete with four pages of Joe Klein hosannas and ten pages of fanzine photos for Barack Obama’s first 100 days. Remember Time magazine’s cover package on Bush’s first 100 days in 2001? No? Maybe that’s because there wasn’t one.
There was only a story on Bush guru Karl Rove and how he won with “the least experienced presidential nominee of modern times.” (That’s no longer true, but you wouldn’t see that phrase laid on Dear Teleprompter.)
In fact, one of the writers of that article – James Carney – is now (get this) VP Biden’s press secretary. How exactly did that happen? I thought that “journalists” were supposedly “independent?” Oh, wait – that only applies to those who are employed by Rupert Murdoch. Silly me.
So you see, there IS bias in the liberal news media. After 100 days, the media still look more like the president’s advertising team than the people’s watchdog.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 1, 2009 @ 5:41 pm - May 1, 2009
No, the Proles don’t want to see Big Brother at every turn. Frankly, I’m getting tired of a flurry of alerts everytime he takes a breath.
So tell me, TP. Why is Chairman Obama still spank bank material for you?
OOPS! Sorry. I thought you were being serious in your comment above. Nevermind.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 1, 2009 @ 5:45 pm - May 1, 2009
In a vacuum, I might say that the increase in coverage was due to the historic nature of his election. i.e. he’s black.
But, the coverage that I’ve seen – certainly not hard data – hasn’t even mentioned that facet since his inauguration.
No, Obama’s coverage has been as fawning as his predecessor’s was damning. The only constant is the folks doing the coverage.
Is this surprising?
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — May 1, 2009 @ 6:26 pm - May 1, 2009
Gene – it doesn’t bother me that Michelle has $600 sneakers (although I’ve never in my life spent $600 on any piece of clothing).
What bothers me is that the Obamas hold such contempt for us “greedy” proles who dare to “wave tea bags around” because we don’t like seeing OUR money squandered on vote-buying schemes and bailouts of big-money political donors.
Comment by SoCalRobert — May 1, 2009 @ 8:17 pm - May 1, 2009
Re: 24/7 Obama coverage.. One word: overexposure.
Comment by SoCalRobert — May 1, 2009 @ 8:17 pm - May 1, 2009
I agree with the overexposure point by the way. Having a monthly prime time “press conference” will get old and when things go badly he will withdraw and the press can then rightly complain about his lack of transparency. And we need to come up with a more discriptive phrase for these “press conferences”. Reporters are generally allowed no followups. He or his handlers pick reporters ahead of time. If you ask a tough question, you are frozen out next time. This last one was a joke. Imagine a republican President with record unemployment, 6.3 million, and a devestating drop in GDP -6.1% in the first quarter. They would have been screaming questions and demanding answers. Now they sit patiently like church mice. Waiting for the all powerful to call on them. I think the public sees them as a sham already quite frankly. Look at the ratings:
http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/04/obama-press-conference-draws-288-million-viewers.html
The April viewers are down 42% from February. He’s losing the American people. But it is boring TV.
Comment by Gene on Pennsylvania — May 1, 2009 @ 10:02 pm - May 1, 2009
Want some interesting reading? Check out the unconstitutional Obama administration dealings with the Chrysler debt holders. Is this and impeachable offense?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/05/01/establishment-media-ignoring-white-house-threats-chryslers-non-tarp-lend
Comment by Gene on Pennsylvania — May 1, 2009 @ 10:19 pm - May 1, 2009
The press & the PRESSident’s popularity…
I heard Glenn Beck say yesterday that while doing his radio show that the press lauded the black community in Dallas as supporting BHO by 96% and 4% with no comment.
However many black callers to the show who were critical of Obama said that no one ever asked them their opinion.
Comment by EDinTampa — May 2, 2009 @ 12:03 pm - May 2, 2009
#16 – Maybe they were the “wrong kind of blacks” as deemed by their Poverty Pimps (i.e. Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan). Just like HRC and their GayLeftLib allies view us as the “wrong kind of gays.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 2, 2009 @ 3:15 pm - May 2, 2009
#12 So Cal right. What galls me is the liberal hypocrisy. Studies show conservatives give far more to charities than Democrat liberals. I think it is a Kodac moment that democrat first lady, Michelle Obama is working at a food bank in $600 shoes. How much was the sweater, the pants? I wonder how much her whole outfit was? Glad she could stop by for a 20 minute visit. NICE.
Comment by Gene on Pennsylvania — May 2, 2009 @ 3:39 pm - May 2, 2009
It is not just in the USA where there is this disgusting fawning by the press. We get it here in Australia.
Colour has nothing to do with the reason that I really do dislike the man. I did not like Clinton because I thought he looked shifty. Obama is not able to look directly into a camera lens. That tells me something about the man – and I thought Clinton was shifty!!!!
Comment by thestraightaussie — May 3, 2009 @ 5:09 pm - May 3, 2009
[...] The Barack Obama Show! The American Spectator: FDR and Obama: Their First Hundred Days GayPatriot: 100 Days of Hype California Conservative: So Far, So Good? Doug Powers, Michelle Malkin: A Flickr of Hope Hot Air: [...]
Pingback by 100 Excruciating Days Today… And Counting « Frugal Café Blog Zone — May 23, 2009 @ 12:09 pm - May 23, 2009