Obama V. The Press

Ah, the burbling of complaints about Obama's accessibility to his traveling press corps. The Politico compares the Obama '08 press strategy to the Bush '00 press strategy.

But there are some important differences.

For one thing, the Bush press corps in 2000 liked their candidate personally and the Gore press corps -- at least, in the popular recounting -- found Gore aloof and unaccessible. In 2008, the McCain press corps, largely because of access, enjoys the company of Sen. McCain, and it's fair to say that some reporters covering Obama find him aloof and not especially interesting to interact with. It's a weird duality: Obama gets the best coverage of any candidate, anywhere, ever, and yet...

The Bush "strategy" worked in 2000 in part because of the nature of the differences between the experiences of the two press corps.

Also, neither Gore nor Bush predicated their campaigns on a new conception of politics; one that eschewed the stagecraft and predictable soundbites of the past. Obama's does.

But in fairness to the Obama campaign, whatever they've been doing... has sort of...worked.

(Though: is it really true that the press can't circulate at Obama events? Why's that?)

Comments

In Obama's defense, he's dealing with a massive number of reporters, journalists, photography folks. There's a basic operational need to instill a sense of discipline among the traveling press folks, or else they'd just royally abuse him.

Not-so-much in his defense, I think they, much like most of the political professional class, sees the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign as a sort of gold standard in how to manage the press and control the distribution of message. They clearly seek to implement as much of that as they can get away with because it's been proven to work.

Posted by dry_fish | February 26, 2008 10:28 AM

(Though: is it really true that the press can't circulate at Obama events? Why's that?)

The article says that they kept interrupting him as he talked to regular voters. I buy that response and actually respect Obama for controlling a media that can be selfish, instead talking to regular voters directly.

Posted by Mass-Hole | February 26, 2008 10:28 AM

"Obama gets the best coverage of any candidate, anywhere, ever..."

You know, you can keep repeating this Clinton talking point all you want, but it won't make it any truer. This weekend featured an AP story (presumably run in every major newspaper in the country) questioning Obama's patriotism based on nothing more than an already-debunked rumor about the Pledge of Allegiance. CNN posted a poll on its website asking readers whether Obama was sufficiently patriotic to be President. If that's not a push-poll straight from the right wing nutosphere, I don't know what is. So on what basis, exactly, is Obama's press coverage the "best of any candidate, anywhere, ever?"

Posted by south side | February 26, 2008 10:30 AM

marc, please explain this to me:

"Obama gets the best coverage of any candidate, anywhere, ever, and yet..."

this is a fairy tale.

EVERY SINGLE Clinton talking point against Obama has been reported by the media, often as fact.

for months it was: is he black enough, is he too black; he has no experience; caucuses almost became a dirty word in the MSM; Obama won because of blacks and rich whites; HIS SUPPORTERS ARE CULTISTS...

Hillary was the frontrunner for over a year, during which time, absolutely no major media outlet ever questioned her "35 years of experience." Pundits just quoted it as scripture.

Clinton's tax returns...no media pressure to release

Clinton's Presidential Library records (the only actual documentation which would reveal exactly what experiences she had on a day to day basis)...no media pressure to explain why they Bill/Hillary have dragged their feet/been obstructionist.

Its remarkable to me that intelligent people such as yourself continually recite this idea that Obama's been given a free ride by the media and Hillary has (again) been the victim.

Do we even need to mention the false stories about Obama that ran on MSM channels about being a muslim and attending a madrassa?

Obama's won 11 straight and is winning in every conceivable category (money, delegates, states, popular vote). I dont mind that the media hasnt asked harder questions about Hillary exiting, because, honestly, i dont think she should get out before next tuesday.

but this myth that Obama is the result of media hype is the same dismissive attempt to de-legitimize his success in this campaign, and its an idea that has its origins squarely in the Clinton camp. and yet, again, you guys report it as fact.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Brian_Williams_media_has_already_chosen_1104.html

Above is a SNL skit from last year, where NBC's Brian Williams explains how the Media has already chosen Hillary as the nominee. (if Hillary's pointing to SNL, i figure we can too).

short memories you guys have.

Posted by go time | February 26, 2008 10:34 AM

With everybody else - the most favorable coverage of any candidate ever? What is the possible basis for this claim? People keep saying how Obama gets such favorable press coverage. I see no particular evidence that he does.

Posted by John | February 26, 2008 10:38 AM

south side,

According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism:

With their grueling primary battle possibly heading toward the endgame, Democrats dominated campaign coverage by about 2-1 in the period last week, which stretched from the day before the Wisconsin primary to three days after the big Texas debate. Obama, who ran his post-Super Tuesday winning streak to 11 primary contests, won the race for media attention last week. By appearing as a significant or dominant factor in 57% of all campaign stories, he attracted his highest level of coverage since the Campaign Coverage Index was launched in January. And although she trailed him, by registering in 50% of last week’s coverage, Clinton generated her second-highest total.

And that's only for this past week. Other independent media review organizations have drawn a similar conclusion for the coverage extending over the duration of the entire campaign. It's not just Ambinder's opinion.

Posted by dry_fish | February 26, 2008 10:40 AM

I found this to be the most interesting aspect of the article:

It's also true that press conferences with national media tend to veer into areas that do not necessarily underscore the campaign's message of the day. The focus is often not on issues like the economy or health care, but on process and punditry, which campaigns loathe.

"The questions that seem to dominate now are superdelegates, pledged delegates, Florida and Michigan," Gibbs said. "I just don't know that they provide a tremendous insight into the type of president" he would be.

So for all this bluster about Obama not being substantive, the truth is, the National Media doesn't care about substantive issues because it isn't "news," whereas the local press is meeting him for the first time, so they are asking questions that have been asked numerous times before, like about his policies.

At a core level, Obama's strategy towards the National media might be good...essentially, keep them wanting more, and when you do spend time with them, make 'em feel special. Sort of like a dating strategy.

Posted by Sean Braisted | February 26, 2008 10:41 AM

Why did Stephanie Tubbs-Jones drop a line on MSNBC this morning that Obama was a native of Somalia?

Posted by newblue08 | February 26, 2008 10:44 AM

Obama gets lots of positive press coverage because he:

1. Keeps winning. That's a good narrative to have.

2. Draws huge crowds that are noteworthy in and of themselves.

3. Attracts a nice young target demographic that the cable news networks would love to add to their viewership.

Aside from the occasional swoon over how great his speechifying can be, I've rarely sensed a personal love of Obama by the press. They all think McCain is their grandpa and love to sit on his bus. I think he wins the award for most loved candidate ever. The media is his main constituency, after all.

Posted by Gwen | February 26, 2008 10:46 AM

dry_fish, I'm not sure that quote proves what you say it proves. Of course he's going to garner the most coverage (and, unless I'm mistaken, there's no 1:1 correlation there with positive coverage) since, as your quote says, he's won 11 straight contests and is the clear front runner in the remaining contested primary.

On a related note, it'll be interesting to see how the press treats Obama once it's mano a mano with the Great White Maverick, but there are signs that McCain is already somewhat less accessible than he was in 2000 and the initial stages of this campaign. We'll see how that relationship holds up over the next eight months.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 26, 2008 10:48 AM

Even if you buy into the dominant meme about Hillary being old and from the past, and Obama being a messianic prophet from the future - and there's some truth to it - you don't have to believe the nonsense about Obama getting overwhelmingly positive media coverage. Instead, you can read the Pointer studies yourself.

Posted by Jeff' Larson | February 26, 2008 10:49 AM

It is obvious to me that Obama is training the press. At this point the press believes that they can control the message, they believe they can "make" the news. The press needs to report, not convince, they have lost that function.

We are talking about the same press the lead us up to war (as Obama often mentioned in his IA stump speeches). Obama has noted that the press failed this country. They have been part of the problem

I have heard from local reporters that Obama, is more than open, and the same is said of the foreign press.

Once the media has learned that their job is to report the news and not make it, then things will change.

Why should he be open to the same press core that repeatedly pushes smears and attempts to swift boat him.

I think we are seeing the prisoner's dilemma played out.

Posted by Eh? | February 26, 2008 10:57 AM

dry_fish, just to build on Jeff Larson's point: the amount of coverage is not the same as the "best coverage ever". As Jeff points out, he's the one that's been winning, and with the Republican nomination all but clinched, the Democratic race is the story.

But Marc echoes the Clinton talking point that he is somehow receiving disproportionately favorable coverage. That's just false. See the comment by "go time" above for elaboration.

Posted by south side | February 26, 2008 10:59 AM

Whatever is going on w/the press they are making a mistake. People are already stating the old lines about the revolution not being televised. Conservatives and Liberals do not trust the press. The press as a whole increasingly only speaking to themselves.

Whoever wins this election, mark me words, the press will loose.

Posted by Eh? | February 26, 2008 11:04 AM

Obama has had the press advantage all along. He's a friendly guy, he's black, and he's a fresh face. Reporters love to crush a figure like Hillary - and her horrible campaign has provided plenty of ammo.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | February 26, 2008 11:14 AM

I went to several Obama events in SC and received press credentials at the event and went pretty much whereever I wanted other than on the stage.

Maybe the traveling press corps differ from local credentialed press?

Logan

Posted by Logan | February 26, 2008 11:17 AM

The Press can circulate but not in an uncontrolled, pushy way that interferes with everyday people trying to get close to him on the rope-line. It's O'Reilly prophylactic.

Posted by Melanie | February 26, 2008 11:18 AM

So Obama getting more coverage than Clinton after running up 11 straight primary wins is evidence of a media basis in favor of him?

This just in: the New England Patriots attracted more media attention during the 2007 season than any other NFL team. More news at 10:00.

Posted by TH | February 26, 2008 11:43 AM

Re: press circulating at Obama events; my wife and I attended the Super Tuesday victory party in Chicago. I overheard multiple interviews with volunteers. I was photographed by the NY Times and my wife and were interviewed by a Chicago NYT stringer.

Posted by Bruce | February 26, 2008 11:45 AM

Obama doesn't need free media as does McCain. If McCain had Obama's resources, he'd limit access too.

Posted by Chuck | February 26, 2008 11:47 AM

One other reason for Obama getting better coverage than Camp Clinton might be spelled out in this morning's Washington Post, in Dana Milbank's story on page 2. The passage in that story where David Singer angrily lectures folks like Milbank, David Broder, Ruth Marcus, and Mark Shields on how to cover a campaign was particularly embarrassing to read.

Posted by CHinVA | February 26, 2008 11:53 AM

Wolfie: Jump !

Ambinder: How high ?

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2008 11:55 AM

This is off topic: I would like to know, why is Rhode Island so staunchly pro-Clinton? What explains its immunity to the Obamaphenomena?

Posted by Westcoaster | February 26, 2008 12:35 PM

There's a long way between now and November.

Hillary is probably going to drop out of this race by late next week.

After that happens all of you will see first-hand the difference between the media coverage he is getting now versus what he eventually will be getting. He won't be running against a person the press implicit distrusts and have a rocky relationship with. The national press corps likes McCain personally better than Obama, which probably cancels out the "Obama phenom" aspect of the coverage.

I agree with many of you, like Jeff, who have discussed how Obama's string of victories have driven positive coverage. I don't think that's the whole thing at all, but you're right it is part of it.

Remember that between March and November Obama will have to go without any significant victories. In that whole time I only expect the Veep announcement and his convention speech to be big opportunities for him. Until now his primary victories have served to change the channel when questions about his candidacy were raised, and he won't have that advantage any longer.

Posted by Tim K | February 26, 2008 12:53 PM

Ambinder, the Clinton Shill, now pretending like all the press coverage about Obama being a Muslim, Obama being a Jew-hater, Obama's wife hating America - all this somehow equals the "best press coverage ever"????

Seriously, Ambinder, what's going to happen once the Clinton campaign folds and they take your shilling off their payroll?

Pathetic and sad, the Atlantic should be ashamed of itself for keeping up this charade.

Posted by Jimmy James | February 26, 2008 1:21 PM

I have some suspicions that those behind the MSM want McCain as president, since he'll keep up both the wars and he'll continue allowing all the cheap labor they want to come here, one way or another.

They're deliberately inflating Obama now in order to knock him down later. If the MSM had done their job he wouldn't be in the race now, considering his various questionable activities and statements. The MSM will probably suddenly "discover" those later this year.

But, even so their coverage will be weak and focus only on the things they understand: smears and trivialities.

What those in the MSM don't understand is that they might get a lot of competition from regular citizens doing the job they refuse to do: asking the questions the MSM is too corrupt to ask, and then uploading the responses to video sharing sites.

The media should be holding the candidates accountable, but refuses to do its job. That includes people like Ambinder.

Regular citizens doing the job they won't do will go a long way towards cleaning up both politics and the media.

Posted by TLB | February 26, 2008 1:24 PM

Seems to me his media strategy (focus on local versus national) is just a replay of his campaign strategy (focus on early states and not worry about national polling).

He apparently understands that he's got to introduce himself to voters in each state and the most effective tool is through LOCAL media. Recall all of those interviews he did with local papers in Iowa.

Seems to me he knows what the hell he's doing. I suspect once the Democratic nomination is sown up, he'll turn his attention to the national press (at least moreso).

Posted by Keith | February 26, 2008 2:00 PM

"(Though: is it really true that the press can't circulate at Obama events? Why's that?)"
Obama camp says that the press interfere with supporters at the ropelines, but frankly, I suspect the rules are there to make it difficult for the press to round up the supporters who are there more for the rock concert than the political rally. Fox & others have already attacked him through the political naivete of his supporters.

Posted by taricha | February 26, 2008 2:03 PM

Hillary Clinton has more experience than one might imagine. She just won't release those documents, because she's too modest to talk about it: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | February 26, 2008 2:16 PM

The national press corps has basically become another special interest to be dealt with rather than a real source of news and information for most people.

The traveling press corps has outlived its usefulness. They play games and try to trip up the campaign and the candidate. They'd be better off back in NYC or DC, doing substantive reporting, rather than just pointless horse race coverage of rally after rally.

By all means make a few trips to Ohio and Texas and interview some voters if you'd like, but following the candidate around all the time while they generate so little new news seems like a waste of time.

Posted by bob | February 26, 2008 2:59 PM

To all those who are intent on dismissing Barack Obama's rise as some media creation, there are so many counter-examples:

1) 2007...a full year of HIllary inevitability narratives...

2) Summer 2007...Obama is too professorial....Winter 2008....Obama lacks substance!

3) Summer 2007...Obama is not black enough....Winter 2008, Obama is now "the black candidate!" (while Pat Buchanan squeals in delight)

4) 10 times more echo chamber for Rezko than Guistra/Borat or Burkle.

5) Yeah, the Obama nuclear power thing was barely echo chambered (did get the Lisa Myers treatment, though)...but neither was the far worse $10 million in Saudi money for the Clintons, nobody is pressing them on their tax returns

6) Nonstop coverage and replay of tears, woe-is-me victim baiting about being cheated upon, etc.....which predictably help Hillary rile up the female vote.

7) About ten times more coverage of "the snub" than Hillary not congratulating Obama after many of his victories

8) Calling every debate in summer 2007 a hillary win when polls and focus groups usually said otherwise.

9) Echo chambering negative personal info about Obama (drugs) and keeping squashing negative personal innuendo on Hillary's and Edwards' sex lives.

10) Giving a surrogate, Bill Clinton, more media oxygen than many other candidates.

Apart from specific examples, do this thought experiment:
If Obama's campaign made 10% of the mistakes that HIllary's has over the course of this campaign, the media would have stuck a fork in him and declared him done.

The media has consistently graded on a curve...Obama earns an A, the media gives him a B. Hillary earns a D, and the media gives her a B minus. And then you have folks saying, "Aha!! a B is higher than a Bminus...therefore the media is stacked against Hillary!!!" Clinton rules! Clinton rules!

And John McCain coverage is similar...he is doing special favors for lobbyists, and the media make the story all about the NY Times and the lack of sex evidnce. This was the exact same playbook that the media employed with the Bush national guard story....and buried in the outrage about Dan Rather was the fact that Bush had dodged his responsibilities big time.

These folks deliberately neglect to consider the actual performance of the candidates and take a superficial look at the coverage and play critic because their horse ain't winning.
AS much as the media is piling on Hillary now, if Obama had lost 11 contests in a row, the piling on would be about 10 times worse.

People need to put things in perspective here.

Hillary may have gotten some bad press, but she probably deserved even worse press. She should count herself lucky.

Posted by RKA | February 26, 2008 4:58 PM

Don't confuse press coverage with bias. Obama's candidacy could be more newsworthy on the merits. If he has less scumbagginess, you can't complain that news is more negative for his opponent. That's on the merits, not favoritism.

Anyone want to suggest that the Clinton's campaign hasn't earned more negative coverage than Obama's?

Posted by Jeff Morgan | February 26, 2008 5:36 PM

I am outright furious with Obama backers who just last week questioned McCain's ties to lobbyists.

Now there's word that Obama gave tax breaks specifically tailored to benefit the very companies that are contributors to his campaign.

Money quote:

"Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has accepted $54,350 from members of a law firm that in 2006 lobbied him to introduce a tax provision for a Japanese drug company with operations in Illinois, according to public records and interviews. The government estimates the provision, which became law in December 2006, will cost the treasury $800,000."

Here's the story:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-25-tax-breaks_N.htm

John McCain, by the way, has a policy of not introducing these kinds of tax breaks because he considers the practice unethical and corrupt.

Posted by Jesse | February 26, 2008 7:03 PM

No wonder he doesn't want to talk to the press. There's a chance they might start to ask some of the questions their cousins across the pond have begun asking:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece

Looks to me like a veritable s-storm is about to break for poor Barrie. You gotta love the Iraqi angle most of all! Good thing for the Donkeys their superdelegate system gives them a means of dumping a lemon candidacy, 'cause it sure looks to me they'll otherwise be stuck with one. Now I can see why the Clintons have been peddling those photos. All the better to set up their Barack Hussein Obama/Rezko/Nadhmi Auchi/Saddam Hussein narrative. Whodathunkit? Barrie Obama's only two degrees of separation from Saddam himself! I love it! I gotta feeling the American people are going to get a lot more familiar with the name "Nadhmi Auchi" than they want to be.

Think I'll stop by Blockbuster and rent "The Manchurian Candidate" on the way home. It'll be just the thing to pop in the DVD player after the debate!

Posted by Wellbank | February 26, 2008 7:25 PM

Wellbank, I'd hardly call the Times (London) 'cousins across the pond' when it's owned by Rupert Murdoch. Of NYC, NY. Whose daughter-in-law worked as a consultant for the Clinton Foundation. Anyway, the article's about Rezko's various business deals, and I don't see how you can blame Obama for them. If you go down that road, there are lots of people the Clintons did business with....

Posted by Tom J | February 27, 2008 12:43 PM