Media Coverage Of The 2008 Campaign

The Project for Excellence in Journalism has looked at the 2008 primary campaign coverage:

From January 1, just before the Iowa caucuses, through March 9, following the Texas and Ohio contests, the height of the primary season, the dominant personal narratives in the media about Obama and Clinton were almost identical in tone, and were both twice as positive as negative, according to the study, which examined the coverage of the candidates’ character, history, leadership and appeal—apart from the electoral results and the tactics of their campaigns.

The trajectory of the coverage, however, began to turn against Obama, and did so well before questions surfaced about his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Shortly after Clinton criticized the media for being soft on Obama during a debate, the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical—and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself. What’s more, an additional analysis of more general campaign topics suggests the Obama narrative became even more negative later in March, April and May.

(h/t georgia10.)

Remember that as the Clintons and their remaining die-hard backers try to spin this as “we lost ‘cuz the press picked on us!” No, they actually left you alone compared to what they did to Obama. And he still won.

But one reason for Obama’s win has been all but ignored in the mainstream press’ dissections of the primary campaign: His early and vocal opposition to the Iraq war, especially when contrasted with Hillary Clinton’s not only voting for the AUMF, but refusing to apologize for that vote. This is what got him the progressive vote early on, split with Edwards; when Edwards bowed out, many if not most of Edwards’ people went to Obama’s camp. But the press, which backed and still backs the war, doesn’t want to admit that opposing the Iraq war is a benefit politically.