For months the perception has been that the press is enamored with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, so much so that Republican presidential candidate John McCain even made a recent campaign ad about it. But that may not actually be the case. That’s according to a new study of the Big Three newscasts released yesterday by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit research group. It finds that since the primary season ended in early June, Obama’s coverage on the Big Three has turned sharply negative. On-air evaluations of Obama have been 72 percent negative, compared with 57 percent negative for McCain. From December to early June, during the primary season, Obama’s coverage had been 38 percent negative compared to 66 percent negative for McCain. On Fox News Channel’s “Special Report,” Obama’s negatives have risen even higher, to 79 percent, compared to 48 percent earlier this year. Donald Rieck, executive director of the CMPA, talks to Media Life about why the tide has turned, what it means for charges of liberal media bias, and why it matters for media people.
 
What prompted you to do this study? 
 
We have been analyzing presidential election coverage since 1988, so it is a long-standing interest of CMPA. We knew that this election, with its remarkable set of candidates, was going to be exceptional regardless of the outcome.
 
Also, the growing importance of the “new” media promise to create new campaign dynamics that will change how the mainstream media perceive the candidates, voters and the campaign.
 

What did you find most surprising or most interesting about this study? 
 
That some of the conventional wisdom has been wrong, particularly when it comes to Sen. Obama.
 
The fact that his coverage has turned more negative since the conclusion of the primaries suggests that his campaign is beginning to fall in line with general patterns of candidate coverage in previous campaigns.
 
The fact that so much media scrutiny was reserved until after he was the presumptive nominee may turn out to be another moment when television coverage failed to serve voters well.

What does this study suggest about the assumption that more coverage equals better coverage? 
 
There is little merit to the idea that more coverage is better coverage, otherwise we would probably see Larry Craig and Mark Foley running for president.
 
More coverage is only good when a candidate is a complete unknown; once a candidate reaches a certain threshold level of recognition the content of the news about them becomes critical, not only for the superficial concerns of image management but also for the candidates to successfully expound and explain their plans for the future.

You found a reversal of positive-negative statements about the candidates over recent weeks compared to during the primaries. How and why did this come about? 
 
It has been fairly common over many election cycles for candidates who rise to frontrunner status to receive more intense and more critical media coverage.
 
This would seem to be the dynamic at play in Obama coverage. While he led during the primaries, the gap was never large enough for the media to hold a coronation, until Sen. Clinton quit the campaign.
 
Events have also played out differently for the candidates. In the post-primary phase the Obama campaign has suffered some dust-ups over the business associations of campaign staffers as well as seeming position changes on major issues ranging from public campaign financing to the D.C. gun ban to the withdrawal from Iraq.
 
Meanwhile, the more experienced McCain campaign has been able to play up Obama’s missteps while avoiding their own.

Do you think perhaps that the news media has been overcompensating for the perception that it's very pro-Obama?
 
Not so much overcompensating as the idea that the media finally rubbed all of the luster off of the newest thing to come along. In many ways the media and particularly television became so caught up in the historic significance of an Obama candidacy (as well as Sen. Clinton’s) that they did not ask the tough questions or probe beyond the telegenic qualities of the senator.
 
While Obama’s candidacy remains historic, that aspect is now old news and it is time to look deeper. Again events have helped to create situations where Obama looks more like a “typical” politician and thus more open to scrutiny.
 

Regardless of what this and future studies find, do you think the idea of a liberal media bias will ever fade away? Or is it warranted? 
 
The idea will live on because it serves other purposes beyond attempting to explain media behavior.
 
Campaigning against the liberal media is successful for all sorts of candidates and organizations looking for votes or dollars.  The analogue on the left can be found when liberals or progressives complain about the stories and sources left unheard by the corporate-controlled media. 
 

What's the most important thing media planners and buyers can take from this study?
 
That media coverage of election campaigns is dynamic, changing both in response to real events and perceptions. Thus simple formulas like “more coverage is better” often fall apart in the course of the campaign.
 
Media strategies will need to be flexible and proactive to keep pace with changing events and to successfully reframe candidates and issues to best serve the end goals.