Op-Ed: The Curse of Coverage, Barack Obama and the 2008 Presidential Election

Many have claimed (with merit) that Obama has received much more media attention than McCain during the 2008 presidential race; thus indicating a pro-Obama media conspiracy. Yet as we look, this favoritism is likely detrimental to the Obama campaign.

It is a fact that during the 2008 presidential race Barack Obama has received much more press coverage than John McCain. It is also a fact that the majority of the coverage received by Obama has been positive. For many, the domination of Obama related stories in the media has been a source of anger. For them, the preeminence of Obama stories is indicative of a biased favouritism that is openly showcased by many media outlets. They argue that because Obama is featured in the news more often than McCain that (as a general trend) the media is trying to secure a democratic presidency. The argument is based on the idea that all press is good press, and that you can’t have too much of a good thing. But the press hasn’t been all good. In fact, a large portion of the coverage Obama has received has been negative. Well, first off, it should be noted that is not a figment of our collective imaginations that Obama is receiving more media attention. As reported by Deborah Howell of the Washington Post, “Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party's presumptive nominee June 4.” Howells continues, “In overall political stories from June 4 (…), Obama dominated (…) 142 to 96. Obama has been featured in 35 stories on Page 1; McCain has been featured in 13, with three Page 1 references with photos to stories on inside pages.” Let’s assume that Washington Post coverage of the 2008 presidential election serves as a microcosm for overall American media coverage. In doing this, we are to assume that overall media coverage has favoured Obama (in terms of air/print/talk time) over McCain roughly 3 to 1 (or 6 to 2, 9 to 3, or 12 to 4 (remember that one)). It is hardly a stretch to say that this equation is similar, if not perfectly identical, to the overall American media coverage involved with the 2008 presidential election. So, as illustrated in our theory, it is true that Obama is receiving more coverage than McCain. However, now let’s consider the previously mentioned argument – the one that is held among theorists who believe Obama’s increased exposure is the result of a widespread media-conspiracy to have Obama elected. Let us consider that Obama’s (over)exposure may be a bad thing. To examine this theory, we will have to turn to math and make a few more assumptions. First, as mentioned before, we will assume that Howell’s assertion is true for all of America – that Obama is receiving a 3 to 1 media coverage edge (i.e., 12 to 4). Of those articles, let’s assume that three quarters of them are positive (in support of Obama), with the last quarter being either indifferent or negative (against Obama). That would mean that Obama, with every twelve stories printed, would have nine in support of him and three against or indifferent to him. Of McCain’s coverage, let’s assume that the equation is very similar (though we will have to adjust it slightly). It should be no surprise to anyone that McCain, on average, dishes out more criticism than Obama, which then should be true of his supporters. With that said, we will change the equation (for the sake of accuracy and simplicity) somewhat. Of McCain-based articles let’s assume that half are positive, one quarter are indifferent or against, and the last quarter are against Obama. That would mean that while Obama receives nine pro-Obama articles and three indifferent or against articles, McCain would receive two pro-McCain articles, one negative piece, and one anti-Obama work. So as we work out this equation, we quickly realize that Obama’s heightened coverage may in fact be horribly detrimental to his campaign. If Howell’s equation is correct as well as these assumptions, during the same period of time Obama would receive more attack articles than McCain would receive overall (Obama would receive nine pro-Obama articles, four bad ones; McCain would receive two pro-McCain articles, and one bad one). Of course, it could be that this equation is completely bogus; so, let’s continue to analyze it to make sure it's solid. If we look at all the stories featured on Fark.com/politics (an admittedly left-leaning, though self-declared non-partisan website) for Sunday, August 24, 2008 the disparity is quite similar. On Fark.com/politics (check for yourself), there were 11 stories in which Obama was a central, if not the central figure. Conversely, there were four stories that featured McCain (pretty close to 12 to 4, eh?). Of McCain’s stories, one was pro-McCain, one was anti-McCain, and two were indifferent. Of the Obama stories, (just) one was pro-Obama, six were anti-Obama, and four were indifferent. Yikes. If Fark.com, a generally left leaning website, is linking far more negative stories than positive stories, it would be scary to consider what right-wing sites like DrudgeReport.com must be airing. So, in two independent cases (Washington Post and Fark.com) we see the formula as presented by Howell holding true. And in the latter case we see the assertion that Obama’s increased exposure is likely working against him. The next question then become, is this media bias warranted? Well that is a tricky question to answer. While it can’t be denied that a presidential candidate who is African-American, 47 years of age, and in fervently in opposition to the current president makes for great news stories, there is plenty to be talked about with regards to the McCain campaign too. As pointed out by Garrison Keillor of the International Herald Tribune: “It's an amazing country where an Arizona multimillionaire can attack a Chicago South Sider as an elitist and hope to make it stick. The Chicagoan was brought up by a single mom who had big ambitions for him, and he got scholarshipped into Harvard Law and was made president of the law review, all of it on his own hook, whereas the Arizonan is the son of an admiral and was ushered into Annapolis though an indifferent student, much like the Current Occupant, both of them men who are very lucky that their fathers were born before they were. The Chicagoan, who grew up without a father, wrote a book on his own, using a computer. The Arizonan hired people to write his for him.” So as we hear that Obama is inexperienced and that he has smoked marijuana before, what we do not hear is that his raw intelligence landed him a scholarship at one of the nations most prestigious law schools (Harvard). And as we hear that Obama has been entangled with Tony Rezko, we do not hear that in dealing with Rezko, Chicago saw the construction of a $14 million dollar apartment project for low-income seniors ($855, 000 of those $14 million dollars became profit for Rezko and his partner). As for the rest of the Rezko controversy (for those who are unfamiliar with the story, yet constantly hear it brought up), Newsweek sums up the affair quite well: “In 2005, Barack and Michelle Obama found a house that they wanted to purchase. The property had been divided into two parcels, one containing a house and the other undeveloped land. The owner had listed the properties separately. After considerable haggling, the seller accepted the Obamas' third bid of $1.65 million for the parcel containing the house. Tony Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining lot for $625,000. “When the Obamas wanted to increase the size of their yard, they approached the Rezkos about purchasing a strip of the adjacent parcel. Obama told the Sun-Times that a 10-foot strip of the 60-foot lot appraised for $40,000. The Obamas nevertheless paid Rita $104,500 (or 1/6 of the total purchase price of her lot) for the strip.” On top of not hearing of Obama’s achievements (at least in comparison the coverage of his imperfections), we do not hear of McCain’s faults. We do not hear of McCain's history as a compulsive gambler. We do not hear that McCain was fifth worst in his graduating class at Annapolis (and that he most likely would not have graduated if not for the esteem of his father and grandfather). We do not hear of his many connections to corruption; from Abramoff to Keating 5 to Paxson to Viacom (the list goes on (and on and on)) . We do not hear of his ties to Big Oil. We do not hear of him being booed by labour leaders due to his policies toward immigration and Iraq… We do not hear of his faults (unless of course we dig and dig and dig). The point is - in whole - that as we consider this 2008 presidential campaign, we can not deny that Barack Obama is receiving more coverage than John McCain. And on surface, that would appear to mean that the media must be trying to secure an Obama presidency. However, as we delve into the media coverage, a much different picture is painted. In looking at the issue, it becomes clear that Obama - on top of being over-exposed - is being negatively portrayed more often than McCain is being talked about in any way (talk about flying low under the radar) – and that, although indicative of a conspiracy, is not indicative of the conspiracy many of us thought was in the works. I guess we could call it Obama’s curse of the coverage – and it just might result in McCain presidency. What do you think? Is the 3-1 equation correct? Is the pro-anti-indifferent equation correct? How influential is the media in shaping public opinion of a candidate? Who wins if this equation is correct? Thanks for reading. GRMM