Andrea Hickerson on Obama's Press Coverage

OurBlook interviews Andrea Hickerson, Ph.D., assistant professor, Department of Communication, Rochester Institute of Technology. Questions are on the latest study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs on press coverage of President Obama.

What do you think of the study's basic finding that press coverage of President Obama has dropped from 59 percent positive during his first 100 days to 43 percent in the period since then? Are you surprised?

AH: I’m not surprised that press coverage of President Obama has trended more negatively since his first 100 days in office. There could be several explanations for this. First, the press, like the public, had a honeymoon period with the new administration. During this time, perhaps the press was still learning how the Obama administration was going to operate, as well as who the key players would be, and what policy issues would be addressed first. The positive coverage during this phase was merely the result of the press giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt and the natural shift in journalism routines due to the change in administration.

Another related possibility is that over time, as the administration began to provide concrete plans of action, the press had more material to criticize. In other words, it is more difficult to criticize vague future plans than clearly articulated policy or legislation. For example, now that health care policy is taking shape, as is Republican opposition to health care reform, there is more potential to cover and discuss conflicts and shortcomings.

Third, it is possible that the press might have favored Obama in the beginning because his attitude and accessibility to the press was in sharp contrast to his predecessor President Bush. Bush, unlike Obama, had few press conferences and rarely took random questions from the media. Obama has proved much more willing to address the press. This might have created good will. Undoubtedly, however, Obama’s candidness with the press also opened new pathways for criticism, such as Obama’s off-the cuff remarks about the police officer who confronted Harvard University Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.

Finally, it is important to note that Obama’s poll numbers have tapered off as well. One could ask if the current trend in press coverage is merely a reflection of popular public opinion, or if the press is driving the declining poll numbers. For its part, communication research favors the latter perspective, suggesting the press is successful at not only telling the public what issues to think about, but how to think about them.

Coverage of Obama in the New York Times, however, has been consistently favorable. Your reaction?

AH: I do think it is interesting that the New York Times has consistently rated Obama more favorably. One might be inclined to insinuate the positive coverage is reflective of editorial preferences. However, editorial opinions should not guide news coverage. Nevertheless, one has to wonder if reporters for the New York Times are unconsciously framing Obama positively due to their own personal beliefs.

Another intriguing possible explanation for this discrepancy may be due to the emphasis the New York Times puts on the news value of conflict. Journalism students are taught that audiences enjoy stories where there is conflict or disagreement. It captivates and appeals to our sense of drama. The New York Times, however, may value analytical and explanatory articles more than simple political stories bent on relaying conflict. Indeed, the New York Times is one of the few print organizations that still has the intellectual and monetary resources to pursue analytical and explanatory pieces. Perhaps in pursuing these types of articles, Obama has come off more favorably than in journalism driven by a desire to dramatize conflicting sides of a story. Sometimes good stories don’t have conflict and have value merely in their telling.

Coverage of Obama in Fox's "Special Report" has been consistently unfavorable. Your reaction?

AH: I find the fact that Fox is harder on President Obama than other mainstream news sources less surprising. Although Fox bills itself as "Fair and Balanced," its lineup of overtly conservative and partisan pundits suggests otherwise. Fox itself has done little to deter the public of its conservative perception. Many academic media studies do not include Fox in a bundled sample of media for fear it will skew the results.

This is not to suggest that Fox News could and should be ignored. Fox News is undeniably popular. As with most media, Fox’s audience is made up of people whose views are already consistent with the ones being exposited by the organization. To their audience, Fox is a voice of reason. Its journalism is authentic and an antidote to perceived liberal media bias.

About the same time, a new Pew Research Center for the People & the Press media attitudes survey came out. It found that public trust in the major broadcast and print media is at an all-time low ever since such polls began in 1985. In particular, it found a big plunge in the most recent two years ... in July 2007, 39 percent of the respondents thought the media got the facts straight, compared to only 29 percent this time around. http://people-press.org/report/543/ <mhtml:{BCBD47EE-2181-4607-A3F5-844367BB2EF7}mid://00000203/!x-usc:http://people-press.org/report/543/> . Your thoughts?

AH: The news media have been in the midst of a credibility crisis for some time. For example, in the past decade, reporters for major news organizations have been caught plagiarizing (ex. Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass), and organizations have been criticized for not scrutinizing the lead-up to the Iraq War more thoroughly. But why this big plunge in trust in just the last two years?

One possibility is that the media are actually contributing to the crisis by engaging in partisan name-calling on editorial pages. For example, allegations of liberal and conservative bias at other media are regularly found in the editorial pages of major newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. This name-calling fuels the public perception that media are biased and cannot be trusted.

Another possibility is that new media have tarnished the image of major news organizations. New online media can be an eager watchdog on major media organizations. By serving as a watchdog and exposing factual media errors and or bias, new media make a case for their own relevance. What better way to recruit an audience than to convince them your product is better?

Going beyond these statistics, just from your own reading of newspapers and viewing of TV news, what is your opinion of the quality of coverage of Obama and the administration that you see?

AH: In general I think the press coverage of President Obama has been fair. Accepting that some news organizations may be more favorable than others attests to the fact that the public forum .. a metaphorical place where citizens and the media with opposing viewpoints can exchange and debate views ... is alive and well.

The question is, however, are people engaging with a range of media, or are they tending to gravitate to like-minded media and individuals in a corner of the forum? In other words, while I believe there is fair cover of Obama as a whole, I doubt the average citizen cares to or has the time to fully engage with the range of opinion about Obama presented.

Instead, individuals are seeking media which confirm their pre-existing feelings and do little to challenge their views. This makes accusations of bias in editorial pages all the more depressing. Believing, rightly or wrongly, that one news organization is biased may deter people from even looking at what that organization has to offer to the greater issue debate.

Do you see any contrast between the press' general coverage of Obama and its general coverage of Bush and his administration?

AH: I believe it is too early to make any grand comparisons between coverage of the Bush and Obama administrations. If anything, the Bush Administration exemplified that the press’ relationship with any administration is cyclical with peaks and valleys. For example, after 9-11, Bush was almost unanimously celebrated. This was not the case in the last year of his presidency. I expect that over time coverage of Obama will drop and rebound periodically. Some of this will probably correspond to events somewhat out of his day-to-day control, such as international confrontations or the economy.

Perhaps the biggest difference in coverage of the Bush and Obama administrations so far concerns something I referenced earlier ... the fact that Obama has made himself so much more accessible to the press than Bush. With Obama, we are more likely to hear his opinions straight from his mouth through press conferences or other public appearances like the Jay Leno show.

Recently some pundits have begun to wonder if Obama isn’t actually overexposed in the media .. spending too much time on TV and not taking care of important issues. For now, I believe this can only be speculative. Again, as time goes by and more policy issues are forced to a decision, the press and the public will have more concrete grounds on which to critique the new president.

(Editor's Note: Dr. Hickerson earned a B.A. in journalism from Syracuse University, an M.A. in journalism and an M.A. in Middle Eastern studies from the University of Texas and a Ph.D. in communication from the University of Washington.)