Comparing coverage of McCain, Obama

For readers of newspapers, election seasons are a time of suspicion, mistrust and political paranoia.

We're all at our partisan peaks now, and every story is sifted through our political screens. So, my inbox is full of not-subtle accusations that The News & Observer is biased in favor of ... fill in the blank: Obama, McCain; McCrory, Perdue; Hagan, Dole. Just ask the readers:

"I am sickened by the way the media has 'been in the tank' for Obama. McCain has not gotten fair coverage. What happened to journalism in the U.S.?" -- LISA HOAGBERG, Raleigh.

"Over the past few months, the articles chosen for print are nothing short of planned attacks on the Democratic candidates." -- ARTHUR JOHNSON, Garner.

Some of the comment has been more pungent.

The question of political bias was addressed in a study that came out last week about national coverage of the presidential race. The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism found that press treatment of Barack Obama has been slightly more positive than negative, while coverage of John McCain has been "decidedly unfavorable, and worsened over time."

The study examined more than 2,000 stories from 43 news outlets from print, online, TV and radio from the end of the conventions through the final presidential debate. It found that 36 percent of Obama stories were positive in tone, 35 percent were neutral or mixed and 29 percent were negative.

For McCain, the breakdown was 57 percent negative, 14 percent positive, 29 percent neutral. The Project for Excellence in Journalism, based in Washington, is a respected, nonpartisan journalism think tank. (You can read about the study at www.journalism.org.)

That caused your Public Editor to take a look at The N&O's coverage of the presidential race for the month of October, through Friday. I divided stories into positive or negative based on whether the campaigns might find the stories to be good publicity, or bad, about their candidates.

There were 18 stories about Barack Obama, of which 14 were positive and four negative. About John McCain, there were 10 stories, seven positive, three negative.The paper ran another 34 stories about the two candidates that I wouldn't categorize as positive or negative.

l l l

EXAMPLES OF POSITIVE STORIES? For Obama, two stories last Sunday about his endorsement by Colin Powell. For McCain, stories about his visits to Wilmington (Oct. 14) and Concord (Oct. 19). The candidates would judge these to be good publicity.

Negative stories: Obama's massive fundraising overwhelms campaign finance reform (Oct. 20), "Anxiety brews in McCain's party" (Oct. 13).

What do we make of all this? It's simplistic and misleading to tote up stories and toss them into positive and negative piles -- it is a matter of judgment, and you no doubt would sort differently from me.

Some of the coverage is driven by news, which is what newspapers do. The Powell endorsement was big news, although I'm not sure two stories were necessary. Was Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe news? Just as much as John Edwards' $400 haircut (although I wouldn't have put either on the front page).

Let's note also that most of the coverage in The N&O comes not from the local reporting staff, but from the wire services that The N&O uses. Obama did get more local coverage than McCain in October, but he spent more time in North Carolina.

But I'd have to say that The N&O coverage in general does indeed reflect the trend in the Pew survey of more positive coverage of Obama than McCain. Not only were there more positive (and negative) stories about Obama, there were more stories period.