Pew: Media treatment of Obama much more positive than Bush, Clinton

posted at 10:13 am on May 4, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Last week, the Center for Media and Public Affairs produced a study claiming that the national media treated Barack Obama better in his first 50 days than it had George Bush and Bill Clinton combined during their same 50-day introductions.  Critics dismissed CMPA’s study as biased, but they’ll have a more difficult time dimissing Pew Research as a right-wing flack.  In their 100-day look released last week, Pew notes that Obama got twice as much good press as Bush and 50% more than Clinton:

As he marks his 100th day in office, President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George Bush during their first months in the White House, according to a new study of press coverage.

Overall, roughly four out of ten stories, editorials and op ed columns about Obama have been clearly positive in tone, compared with 22% for Bush and 27% for Clinton in the same mix of seven national media outlets during the same first two months in office, according to a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The study found positive stories about Obama have outweighed negative by two-to-one (42% vs. 20%) while 38% of stories have been neutral or mixed.

When a broader universe of media—one that includes 49 outlets and reflects the more modern media culture of 2009, is examined, the numbers for Obama’s coverage are similar, though somewhat less positive and somewhat more negative. In this expanded universe of media—which includes news websites, additional regional and local newspapers, plus cable news, network morning news, and National Public Radio, 37% of Obama’s coverage has been positive, 40% neutral and 23% negative.

Clinton got good treatment from op-ed pages and tougher treatment in regular news.  For Bush, the opposite was true.  Obama, on the other hand, gets positive treatment from both.

Pew also notes that the types of coverage Obama receives seems designed to cast a halo on him.  Unlike Bush (22%) and Clinton (26%), almost half of all news stories on Obama (44%) focus on his personal and leadership qualities.  Those are the kinds of stories that usually take a soft focus, work in generalities, and put public figures in the best possible light.

Obama’s coverage differs in another key way.  Much of the Obama coverage (31%) reports on what can only be called Obama’s campaign mode, in which Obama communicates directly with the American people.  Only 8% of Bush’s coverage focused on those efforts.  The media focused much more on Bush’s relationship with Congress and his legislative agenda.

In other words, the media has given us a heapin’ helping of fluff in the first 100 days, and very little in specifics.  They’re allowing Obama to manipulate them into campaign coverage rather than shine a light on his governance.  The media seems quite “enchanted” with the new President, and this time it’s going to be tougher for them to dismiss the data that proves it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I’m outrageously outraged! In other news, water is wet, and the sky is blue. :P

Kid from Brooklyn on May 4, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Media? We don’t have a media. We have a propaganda machine for the Democrat party. A mouthpiece and a guard dog for Obama.

JellyToast on May 4, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Anything other then kid-glove treatment would be RACIST!
Actually, the gentle coverage is reverse racism, assuming that a Black President can’t handle scrutiny.

jgapinoy on May 4, 2009 at 10:16 AM

The American Pravda is a success then I take it.

darwin on May 4, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Yeah, we really needed a study for this.

Daggett on May 4, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Well, duh!
My only hope is that he gets way overconfident and believes the hype; overreaches and gets impeached.
Of course impeachment will not happen unless republicans gain some seats in ’10.

carbon_footprint on May 4, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Looking for excuses rather than reasons isn’t doing the GOP any favors. Former Republican Congressman Jim Nussle has some better advice for Republicans, if they’re willing to listen:

Nussle says GOP needs national shake-up

starfleet_dude on May 4, 2009 at 10:17 AM

I really find it difficult to name anything positive Obama has done.

Can anyone name anything? What would be the factual basis for any positive story?

darwin on May 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Why even bother putting this out…? It will (obviously) never get media attention, and even if it does no one will care (sadly).

angelwing34215 on May 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM

I think there should be a concerted movement to protest the MSM! Hit them where it hurts. Boycott. Thousands of people outside of CNN, MSNBC and all the rest.
Burn Olbermann if effigy.

carbon_footprint on May 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM

To quote Rush:

These guys aren’t reporters, they’re stenographers.

kingsjester on May 4, 2009 at 10:19 AM

It simple we elected a celebrity not a leader so we get celebrity style news coverage of him

William Amos on May 4, 2009 at 10:19 AM

GE – aka NBC and MSNBC should be investigated for the “Green” “Pay for Propaganda” conspiracy.

marklmail on May 4, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Most studies confirm common sense…

right2bright on May 4, 2009 at 10:21 AM

SURPRISE!!!

Not…

Aronne on May 4, 2009 at 10:21 AM

starfleet_dude on May 4, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Exactly what did he say? He said he doesn’t think Steele is the right person and the GOP needs to be “shaken up”.

We don’t need to be “shaken, we need to define our principles and act on them.

darwin on May 4, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Wait, what did they count as negative? Did I miss something?

Secondly, starfleet_dude, we know you don’t really have our interests at heart, but did you even read that article? What kind of “advice” is “well, it’s not working?” There’s no advice there, just whining.

Now that I think about it, perhaps that explains a lot. Maybe you think you’re trying to help, you just don’t know what words mean.

Merovign on May 4, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Let’s be clear about this: Obama “negative” [read "truthful"] = 20%.

BuckeyeSam on May 4, 2009 at 10:23 AM

20% of the media is NEGATIVE about Obama?

Show me.

My anecdotal would be 99% positive.

ex-Democrat on May 4, 2009 at 10:23 AM

I am shocked – SHOCKED! – at this revelation.

Red Cloud on May 4, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Overall, roughly four TEN out of ten stories, editorials and op ed columns about Obama have been clearly positive in tone,

FIFY pew….

Branch Rickey on May 4, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Perhaps Newsbusters could organize the MSM protests. They have kept score for a long time. Go after the networks and their advertisers. There are many, many of us who could vote with our dollars.
A concerted effort should be organized against them all but start with the whole NBC family. I wonder if a list of advertisers is available on the Internet for NBC?
Boycott.
Organize.
Do not buy GE or products from the advertisers.

carbon_footprint on May 4, 2009 at 10:24 AM

The affirmative action president….say anything negative and get sued.

Ris4victory on May 4, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Meanwhile, NPR and PBS offered the highest percentage of neutral stories of any outlets studied.

This is surprising considering that these two outlets are so heavily subsidized by the government. Then again why are they even in the poll? No one actually watches or listens to them.

Tommy_G on May 4, 2009 at 10:27 AM

How would a president who was part of a monstrous plot to destroy the United States behave different from Obama? I personally do not believe that Obama is a Manchurian candidate, but I find it an entertaining, if unsettling, mental exercise to contemplate.

Immolate on May 4, 2009 at 10:28 AM

The affirmative action president….say anything negative and get sued.

Ris4victory on May 4, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Not even comedians will touch him.


“If you’re a comedian and you die and go to heaven, Bill Clinton is your president,”

“If you’re a comedian and you die and go to hell, Barack Obama is your president.”

And that is from the LA Times.

carbon_footprint on May 4, 2009 at 10:29 AM

I really find it difficult to name anything positive Obama has done.

Can anyone name anything? What would be the factual basis for any positive story?

darwin on May 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM

He.. wait, no. Um. He .. well, that’s not right, either.

He played golf one day, which means we went one whole day without him talking to the press — that’s positive, right?

Daggett on May 4, 2009 at 10:30 AM

This is a lot of baloney. I personally saw some very hard hitting critical pieces detailing the puppy’s scruffy fur and tendency to bark a lot.

LibTired on May 4, 2009 at 10:31 AM

What a load of bullshiite.

The media whores MSM has been very tough on Oflyby. Why just yesterday there was a hard-hitting investigative article in AP that probed Ogabe’s troubling penchant for taking evening strolls with his wife.

AND they were seen holding hands!

Bishop on May 4, 2009 at 10:32 AM

on a positive note, obama appears to love his kids…..that is all I can come up with, but am unsure if he can emote love at all, except for himself

Ris4victory on May 4, 2009 at 10:32 AM

49% of press coverage was neutral to Bush?
49% of this poll is on crack.

JeffinOrlando on May 4, 2009 at 10:35 AM

The media have lied about Obama being the most wonderfullest, brilliant leader the world has ever seen for long enough that they’re going to defend that meme to the end. Ever confront a pathological liar? They’ll go through absurd contortions to maintain their lies even when confronted with undeniable truth. With many in the media ( I’m looking at you, Chris Matthews), they’ll do anything, including disconnect from reality and savage Obama’s critics, just to maintain the fantasy.

trubble on May 4, 2009 at 10:35 AM

What a load of bullshiite.

The media whores MSM has been very tough on Oflyby. Why just yesterday there was a hard-hitting investigative article in AP that probed Ogabe’s troubling penchant for taking evening strolls with his wife.

AND they were seen holding hands!

Bishop on May 4, 2009 at 10:32 AM

I think we just mind-melded.

LibTired on May 4, 2009 at 10:35 AM

the media has given us a heapin’ helping of fluff in the first 100 days, and very little in specifics. They’re allowing Obama to manipulate them into campaign coverage rather than shine a light on his governance.

Their campaign coverage of Obama was hardly typical, so I regrettably find it unsurprising that their coverage of his presidency would be anything like we’ve seen before.

I get this very sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, thinking that unless the press become disenchanted with Obama, a majority of Americans never will because they know what they now about his government from the press.

When did the role of the press become that of electing and ‘helping’ their favored candidates succeed (and get reelected)? The newspapers can’t collapse soon enough; may NBC, CBS and ABC follow them quickly.

ProfessorMiao on May 4, 2009 at 10:36 AM

I think we just mind-melded.
LibTired on May 4, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Get your hands off my skull, Spock.

Bishop on May 4, 2009 at 10:38 AM

NNNNOOOOO REEEEALLLYYYY????

sonofdy on May 4, 2009 at 10:44 AM

When your Constitutionally protected press becomes alapdog, you know you have trouble — And freedom is at risk.

No President before represents this better than Obama.

tarpon on May 4, 2009 at 10:51 AM

*yawn*

Wake me up when there’s some real news.

zzzzzz*******snore********zzzzzzz

UltimateBob on May 4, 2009 at 10:51 AM

In other words, the media has given us a heapin’ helping of fluff in the first 100 days

I don’t buy it, everybody knows they are impartial. You make it seem like Obama has been on 13 Time Magazine covers in the last year.. When in fact he has appeared on only 27% of them, or 1 in 4 which is actually 14 covers in all in the past year. You are such an exaggerator Ed.

/s.

saus on May 4, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Correlation does not mean causation. Percentage of positive stories does not mean much. Here’s one reason why the percentage may be more: neither Clinton or Bush came into office after a president so disliked as GWB. Bush 41 left office with 54%. Clinton left office with a 66% approval rating. GWB left office with a 22%–as close to universally despised as we’ve had. Obama walks in and immediately gets a 45% bump in approval ratings over his predocessor, it’s no surprise that there’s a lot of positive talk. Not to mention he won very very easily, compared to Bush losing the popular vote and needing court rulings to gain office. That started his term off on a very bad footing.

jonknee on May 4, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Pew also notes that the types of coverage Obama receives seems designed to cast a halo on him. Unlike Bush (22%) and Clinton (26%), almost half of all news stories on Obama (44%) focus on his personal and leadership qualities. Those are the kinds of stories that usually take a soft focus, work in generalities, and put public figures in the best possible light.

And this is how our Republic melts down into a leftist dictatorship – with the MSM leading the charge.

Seriously, this paragraph reminds me of how all the (other) dictators are protreyed in their respective country’s media – designed to show him in the best possible light and shedding little light in the way of facts. Keep the populace ignorant and uninformed, and the Dictator can stay in power as long as he wants. At least in some of these other countries, the dictator sent thugs to take over the media outlets. Our press is ready, willing, and more than able to help the mentdown along, and even accelerate it.

crazy_legs on May 4, 2009 at 10:53 AM

20% negative. No way.

reaganaut on May 4, 2009 at 10:55 AM

In another late-breaking story we’re watching very closely, the Pope has revealed that he is indeed Catholic.

CurtZHP on May 4, 2009 at 10:55 AM

What gave ‘em the first clue? It was the tongues hanging out of the mouths and the propensity to jump and clap and bow whenever OBambi entered the room, I’ll bet.

Hey, hey, hey, it’s ma-agic, you know-ow-ow…

TeeDee on May 4, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Shocker!

nickj116 on May 4, 2009 at 10:55 AM

It’s far worse than this poll suggests.

artist on May 4, 2009 at 10:57 AM

… like I told my other Floppingaces writers yesterday:

Reminds me of the movie Patton, ‘…in ancient times when a Ceasar was crowned there would be a grand parade, and Ceasar-adorned in olive branches, roses, and the finest robes would ride a golden chariot behind white horse, and a slave rode with him whispering in his ear the same thing again and again, “All glory is fleeting. All glory is fleeting. All glory is fleeting.”‘

In other words: the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

scottm on May 4, 2009 at 10:58 AM

darwin on May 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM

I really find it difficult to name anything positive Obama has done.

Can anyone name anything? What would be the factual basis for any positive story?

President Obama has not gone topless before the cameras 99.9% of the time.

But that’s not enough. And that’s a fact.

Loxodonta on May 4, 2009 at 10:58 AM

I really find it difficult to name anything positive Obama has done.
Can anyone name anything? What would be the factual basis for any positive story?
darwin on May 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Good Question..

Of course, the answer all depends on your political perspective – if you’re a Socialist/Fascist/Marxist/Statist…. on and on.. everything Fauxbama has done is positive

If you believe in Freedom and Liberty…….

SeanTate5 on May 4, 2009 at 11:00 AM

The weird part is how they say “OBAMA to crack down” OBAMA being stressed as the only one doing things…He is being portrayed as omnipotent.

tomas on May 4, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Enchanted In heat

Schadenfreude on May 4, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Shockah!

thebrokenrattle on May 4, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Presstitution.

Del Dolemonte on May 4, 2009 at 11:06 AM

jonknee on May 4, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Ummm, the news is the news. It shouldn’t be positive or negative. Editorials are a different thing. You ignore the fact that Obama received adulatory press coverage leading up to his taking office. Add to that, WaPo’s own review of its articles showed clear bias in favor of Obama and against McCain. You can attempt to explain it away b/c of Bush’s unpopularity (naturally it’s Bush’s fault not the enchanted press), but that doesn’t even come close to passing the smell test and we all know it. You know it too, if you could be honest w/yourself.

JAM on May 4, 2009 at 11:17 AM

The MSM is full of Fluffy Unicorns.

kirkill on May 4, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Presstitution.

Del Dolemonte on May 4, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Golf clap, nice.

kirkill on May 4, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Not to mention he won very very easily, compared to Bush losing the popular vote and needing court rulings to gain office. That started his term off on a very bad footing.

jonknee on May 4, 2009 at 10:52 AM

While he lost the popular vote, Bush won the electoral vote. Bush didn’t need the courts to put him into office, the Constitution put him in the office, it was the Democrats filing the lawsuits to prevent the certification.

elgeneralisimo on May 4, 2009 at 11:22 AM

The media has devalued my vote and my voice… where do I go to get their full value back?

drunyan8315 on May 4, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Specter, reminding us why he is one of the biggest mendacious jerks in the world.

Mr. Joe on May 4, 2009 at 11:28 AM

If you really look back to the 2004 Democrat National Convention, then come forward – you’ll likely see the same trend over the past 4+ years.

It’s creepy. And yet….as we say in Boston: wicked shocka.

KrisinNE on May 4, 2009 at 11:35 AM

…compared to Bush losing the popular vote and needing court rulings to gain office. That started his term off on a very bad footing.

jonknee on May 4, 2009 at 10:52 AM

And here I’ve always thought that it was Al Gore who started and needed the court rulings to gain office.

Patrick S on May 4, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Ummm, the news is the news. It shouldn’t be positive or negative. Editorials are a different thing. You ignore the fact that Obama received adulatory press coverage leading up to his taking office. Add to that, WaPo’s own review of its articles showed clear bias in favor of Obama and against McCain. You can attempt to explain it away b/c of Bush’s unpopularity (naturally it’s Bush’s fault not the enchanted press), but that doesn’t even come close to passing the smell test and we all know it. You know it too, if you could be honest w/yourself.

JAM on May 4, 2009 at 11:17 AM

This study counted op-eds, but news in general can’t be neutral and comprehensive at the same time. Let’s say president X handles situation Y in a way that Z% of people are happy with. A report about this will be treated as positive for president X, even if 100-Z people disagree. This in itself is still news and isn’t even biased–it’s an honest assessment of what’s happening.

I’m not saying that Obama isn’t getting positive coverage, only that it’s not proof of anything. He’s a popular person right now and his coverage is in sync with that. What will be interesting is how coverage changes if Obama’s poll numbers drop significantly. Right now positive coverage of a person who’s viewed very positively isn’t very surprising.

If you read the Pew study they mention most of this. Basically he’s more popular than Bush or Clinton were at this time and also came into office with a higher percentage of the vote. On top of that he’s also replacing the least approved president since the opinion polls were started 70 years ago.

Simply because you’re upset with Obama doesn’t mean that positive coverage is dishonest. (And conversely, it may very well be but this study can’t show that.)

jonknee on May 4, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Why be surprised?
The media was always a shoe in for any 1st affirmative action president.

Badger40 on May 4, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Sorry, Gomer Pyle has laryngitis.

corona on May 4, 2009 at 11:44 AM

The media went from being the watchdog for the people to house organ for the socialists.
I have to admit I laugh each time a newspaper goes down in flames – small victories for truth over propaganda.
The people are voting for whom they trust to tell the real story with their money.

n0doz on May 4, 2009 at 12:00 PM

The media seems quite “enchanted” with the new President, and this time it’s going to be tougher for them to dismiss the data that proves it.
Ed Morrissey

They don’t need to dismiss it, Ed, they only need ignore it.
No accountability ever.

SKYFOX on May 4, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Did we really need research, and polls to come to the conclusion on something, most of us already knew?

This won’t deter the msm’s one bit. They will continue on, to skew, hide, pander, and obliterate, to keep “the one” safe, and looking cooooooooooool!

capejasmine on May 4, 2009 at 12:12 PM

In other words, the media has given us a heapin’ helping of fluff in the first 100 days, and very little in specifics.

How dare you, sir! You call reporting on the Obama’s going to dinner then walking and holding hands “fluff”!?

RightWinged on May 4, 2009 at 12:19 PM

22% positive for Bush? Bull Schnizzle, I guess “positive” is a relative term.

Alden Pyle on May 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Bush losing the popular vote and needing court rulings to gain office. That started his term off on a very bad footing.

jonknee on May 4, 2009 at 10:52 AM

LOL, your “knowledge” of this case is no doubt gleaned from Alan Dershowitz’ hastily-researched and totally biased book about the recount. Try reading an objective book about that recount; I highly recommend “The Perfect Tie”, written by a couple of political scientists.

Gore was the one who conceded the election, then took his concession back. He’s also the one who started the lawsuits.

If you take a sober, objective look at all of the court rulings in that attempted theft by Gore of the Presidency, Bush won nearly all of the decisions. Including the decisions by the Federal Judges in Florida, most of whom were Democrats.

The only “major” court rulings going in Gore’s favor came from the totally partisan (all Democrats) Florida Supreme Court, which injected itself into the circus unsolicited. Their first joke of a ruling was bitch-slapped by SCOTUS by a 9-0 vote. And their second attempt was overruled 7-2.

Gore’s popular vote “victory” nationwide, which of course is totally irrelevant due to the Electoral College, turned out to be 1/2 of 1% more votes than Bush got. That margin was the same small margin that triggered the recount in Florida.

But the real reason Gore lost in 2000 was not because of Florida-it was because he was rejected by the voters of his own home state of Tennessee. Had he won that state’s Electoral Votes, he wouldn’t have needed to win Florida.

It would have also helped him to win the traditionally Blue state of West Virginia, but he couldn’t even do that.

Del Dolemonte on May 4, 2009 at 12:37 PM

I really find it difficult to name anything positive Obama has done.

Can anyone name anything? What would be the factual basis for any positive story?

darwin on May 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Yes, he failed as a “community organizer” and did almost nothing of note as a State Senator or Federal Senator.

The one thing he did succeed at though as a State Senator is denying *born* children legal protection. For some odd reason he and his flacks don’t want to talk about it though…

18-1 on May 4, 2009 at 12:38 PM

This is not surprising.

nazo311 on May 4, 2009 at 12:39 PM

The one thing he did succeed at though as a State Senator is denying *born* children legal protection. For some odd reason he and his flacks don’t want to talk about it though…

18-1 on May 4, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Oh please, there are many valid criticisms of Obama, but this is not one of them. This case was already covered by Federal law and the state laws in question were little more than political posturing by a few right to life groups. It wasn’t about giving born children legal production (they already have it), it was about making inroads to banning abortion by granting legal status to nonviable fetuses. A clever technique to be sure as it got some good sound bite votes out of Obama (he wants your baby to die!), but not legitimate criticism if you actually look at it. He’s for abortion, you’re not. Neither want a living breathing baby to die.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/oct/09/illinois-born-alive-abortion-law-becomes-campaign-/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/oct/09/illinois-born-alive-abortion-law-becomes-campaign-/

jonknee on May 4, 2009 at 12:54 PM

I can’t wait to see how Tom_Shipley spins this one.

rockmom on May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Here’s a thought, maybe Bush and Clinton were a) not voted on by a majority and b) weren’t that good?

PresidenToor on May 4, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Here’s a thought, maybe Bush and Clinton were a) not voted on by a majority and b) weren’t that good?

PresidenToor on May 4, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Here’s a thought, they were both Southerners and therefore presumed stupid by the Eastern elite media.

rockmom on May 4, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Here’s a thought, they were both Southerners and therefore presumed stupid by the Eastern elite media.

rockmom on May 4, 2009 at 1:29 PM

You may have something there.
My experience with Easterners has been the majority of the city dwellers are elitist p*ick$.
But then that is just my experience.

Badger40 on May 4, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Here’s a thought, they were both Southerners and therefore presumed stupid by the Eastern elite media.

rockmom on May 4, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Clinton is from the South, Bush is from the North East. Both are far from stupid, but the media was especially sure about that with Clinton.

jonknee on May 4, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Positive reporting? Nah, I’d call it worship from adorning whores….er….fans.

GarandFan on May 4, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Bush is from Texas, it is where he was raised. Born in Connecticut but the family moved to Texas when he was 1 year old.

Bush and Clinton were both sneered at by the Eastern media, from the day they were inaugurated. The only reason they even tolerated Clinton was because of Hillary.

I’ll bet that if you go back and look at the coverage of George H.W. Bush it will be universally better. He was considered an intellectual, diplomatic Eastern-elite type even though he was a Republican. The media were relieved to cover him after 8 years of the California actor/cowboy Reagan.

rockmom on May 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM

If you keep whining about the media just a little bit more, I am sure your party will bounce back from laughable insignificance.

benny shakar on May 4, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Bush is from Texas, it is where he was raised. Born in Connecticut but the family moved to Texas when he was 1 year old.

From a longtime elite NE family… Summers in Maine. Highschool at a boarding school in Mass. College at Yale and Harvard. Etc. He’s a calculated “southerner”. Not that it mattered, I think he could have been the most elite Pres ever and still would have had bad coverage if everything else was the same.

jonknee on May 4, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Oslime-a is too black to fail.

csdeven on May 4, 2009 at 2:31 PM

The poll is reporting that nearly fifty percent of stories on Bush were NEUTRAL. What are they smoking? I guess neutrality for republicans is WAY different from neutrality given to democraps.

eaglewingz08 on May 4, 2009 at 3:22 PM

White house reporters stand for Obama, but not for Bush.

I saw this on Google Video. It was the main video that appeared on the page. It’s just wrong.

I try to believe that there is some representation for the conservative viewpoint in the media. I do try. But seeing this makes it more difficult to believe that.

tartan on May 4, 2009 at 7:02 PM

I try to believe that there is some representation for the conservative viewpoint in the media. I do try. But seeing this makes it more difficult to believe that.

Bah, criticizing my own post, There is representation for the conservative viewpoint in the media to a degree, but to see this sort of difference in the behavior of the WH press corps, makes me seriously question whether Obama’s actions and decisions will ever get the scrutiny and critical analysis, of those of Bush by the WH Press corps. That’s what I meant to say.

tartan on May 4, 2009 at 7:09 PM

Tougher for them to dismiss the data… how? Tougher how? In that the denials will be harder to make?

Not remotely – these guys are now the definition of sycophant, and they care not at all about how that looks.

Midas on May 4, 2009 at 7:43 PM