Saturday, May 31, 2008

About that study: Geraldine Ferraro, Wise Sage II

In an op-ed yesterday, Geraldine Ferraro suggested that the Shorenstein Center examine the media coverage of the 2008 primary, to expose the unfairness of the media.

Guess what? The group did release a study, yesterday in fact-- the same day Ferraro asked for one. But why did Mrs. Ferraro ask for a study when one has been conducted. Oh, it did not provide the result she desired.

CHARACTER AND THE MEDIA 2008:

What Were the Media Master Narratives about the Candidates During the Primary Season?

Thursday, May 29Barack Obama did not enjoy more positive press coverage than Hillary Clinton at the height of the primary season, at least when it came to the candidates’ personal narratives. And as early as February, coverage began to turn even less positive toward Obama than toward his rival, according to a joint study released today by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

In contrast to accusations of the media being easier on the senator from Illinois, the dominant personal narratives about Obama and Clinton – their character, history, leadership and appeal—were almost identical in tone. Overall, they were twice as positive as negative narratives for both candidates. But the trajectory of that coverage about Obama got progressively more skeptical, immediately after Clinton herself accused the media of showing preference during a February debate.

As for John McCain, he has had a harder time controlling his message in the press. Fully 57% of the narratives studied about him were critical in nature, though a look back through the entire campaign, including 2007, reveals the storyline about the Republican nominee has steadily improved with time.

This coverage, however, did not necessarily always correlate with the views of potential voters. Opinion surveys conducted in conjunction with the content study found that public perceptions of McCain and Obama largely—but not entirely—tracked with the tenor of the major narrative themes in the press. With Hillary Clinton, however, the public seemed to have developed opinions about her that ran counter to the media coverage, perhaps based on other factors or views which had solidified before the primary season.
You can read the report here if you choose. I wait for a correction by Ferraro but I won't hold my breath.

3 comments:

harrogate said...

Good work, here. Lots to chew on, most of it unsavory. It is really unfortunate when heavily bastardized versions of what we hear more than enough of in the Universities, make it into the mainstream limelight. Sometimes, even an academic like Harrogate has to sympathize with the stigmas of it all.

Oh. And alas, Ferraro's once-inevitable status as Obama's VP nominee grows slimmer by the hour.

solon said...

I thought that she was in the running up until the last op ed. And, then her comments about how Obama's grand parents raised him was the straw that broke the camel's back.

If she would have discussed his lack of bowling skills, she still would have had a chance.

solon said...

There are problems with this study, as there are with all studies of elections because of problems with interpretation and perception. The same holds true with studies of bias in academia or in the media. Further, the summary of the study does not say that sexism did not occur. Maybe one of the reasons why people did not like Clinton before the primaries may be due to sexism.

But the fact that Ferraro's op-ed was published around the same time as this study and by the group she suggest, diminishes further her terrible argument.