Michael Traugott on Obama's Press Coverage

OurBlook interview with Michael Traugott, professor of communications studies in the political science department at the University of Michigan.

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?

MT: No, because this coverage generally conforms to and explains any president’s honeymoon period. The coverage is generally most positive at the start of a (first) term and then eventually becomes more critical. The interesting question would be whether this shift (and its magnitude) has been greater than in previous new administrations. As for CMPA, it may be registered as nonpartisan, but it is not without a tilt in the conservative direction, based upon its funding sources and reports.

The study then measures positive and negative coverage of him on various issues. Do any of those findings jump out at you?

MT: Again, this is a relative research finding. The reference in the press release is to “reporters and sources” that have been critical. Given the increasingly polarized nature of politics and policy in Washington and the ambitious Obama policy agenda since his inauguration, it is not surprising that the media (as defined by CMPA) have been negative; it is not difficult to find Republican elected officials and conservative voices, including talk radio personalities and Dick Cheney, who have actively criticized his initiatives.

I would also want to know more about the details of their coding of policy areas. Is the criticism on the “war on terror” on specific policy initiatives in that area or about concerns he has expressed about Gitmo and the treatment of captives there, and/or including concerns about interrogation practices in the previous administration?

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

MT: The press release seems to indicate that there were seven media sources used in the content analysis: three networks, two newsweeklies, the New York Times, and the Fox News Special Report. Among these, it seems likely that the Times would be the most favorable.

I searched the CMPA web site for a description of whether they sampled articles in the eight-month period covered in their study, which I assume they did, but I could not find it. This might also have affected the relative level of critical coverage they coded, although I don’t imagine it would have altered the general finding.

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

MT: For the same reason stated above, it is not surprising that the Fox News Special Report was the most critical. Everyone knows this, including the White House, which explains why Fox did not get a presidential interview over the (Sept. 19-20) weekend. And the Pew studies show that Republicans hold more favorable views of Fox than Democrats and independents.

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/ . Your thoughts?

MT: There has been a pretty steady secular decline in these attitudes about the press since 1985. Most of the shift in the last two years has come among Democrats, who now are much more likely to see instances of bias and inaccuracy in the media. Republicans have more consistently felt this way for a longer period of time.

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?

MT: His opponents understand that conflict is a central value in determining newsworthiness, so the level of criticism (and opposition) from Republicans has been very high for the sake of maintaining the viability of the party. I would not describe the coverage as unfair or biased, but it focuses on the differences between political (partisan) elites rather than on the consequences of proposed policies and what little alternatives the Republicans offer for average Americans. So the coverage is not in the service of citizens learning more about the policy alternatives at stake or what the consequences of alternatives are for them in their daily lives.

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

MT: Only by domain. The Bush criticism, following the period when the media took anything the Bush administration said about Iraq at face value, was centered on the war effort there. Most of the Obama criticism has been on the domestic front, with the exception of issues related to efforts to close Guantanamo Bay .

(Editor's Note: Professor Traugott has long studied the mass media and their impact on American politics. He has a particular interest in the use of surveys and polls and the way they are used to cover campaigns and elections. His most recent book is "The Voters' Guide to Election Polls.")