The Media Hearts Obama

A couple of weeks ago, SNL had a sketch showing debate pundits giving Obama softball questions. Hillary used it in the last debate as she whined that she always got the first question. SNL has apparently pulled the sketch from YouTube, which has resulted in much of the usual Internet conspiracy theory speculation.

Matt Yglesias says that Obama has gotten better press than Hillary, but that Hillary supporters are going overboard.

I think that the media doesn't give a crap who's elected to office. They just want viewers and advertisers and bucks. Obama makes for good TV. People are tuning in to see his speeches, not Hillary's or McCain's. A couple of weeks ago, Steve noticed that they cut off John McCain's speech to show Obama's victory speech, which they showed in full. But this isn't anything new. Viewers = money.

So, Obama's getting more face time in the general coverage of the news. However, I never picked up any advantage in the with  the debate pundits or in one-on-one interviews. Those guys' reputations are based on objectivity. The opinion page writers have been mixed. Most of the Times op-ed writers have been pro-Obama, but the newspaper endorsed Hillary.

Obama is also doing very well with new media. That Will-i-am You Tube video cost him nada, but raked in 5.5 million viewers. Hillary blew wads of cash on that stupid Hallmark show that no one watched. The Hillary 1984 video gave him an early boost.

Perhaps the new media angle is that the youth may for the first time have an impact on elections. Sure as a whole they don't show up to vote, but a few smart ones make cool Internet videos that provide free advertising support for candidates.

Comments

[denise]

However, I never picked up any advantage in the with the debate pundits or in one-on-one interviews. Those guys' reputations are based on objectivity.

I can't believe a professor of political science actually wrote this.

[laura]

Why? Thinking about the motivations of actors is pretty standard political science. While the media industry as a whole has certain motivations, each reporter and newspaper professional has their own motivations. In the case of the debate pundits, their reputation is based on appearing to be impartial. If there were too overtly partisan, they would lose credibility and not be asked back to host a debate. By hosting the debate, they get increased exposure, which can translate to higher pay and better positions. I'm sure that they are partisan, but they have to keep their bias to very low levels or risk losing their pundit status.

[timna]

The SNL sketches are still available (or at least they were last night when no longer on YouTube) on the SNL site, except I couldn't seem to find the one with Hillary and Obamagirl.

[Kai Jones]

I think that the media doesn't give a crap who's elected to office

I think you're wrong. There is no "the media" that has a goal, there are thousands of individuals working in the field, each of whom has political opinions. I think most of them contribute money to and vote for Democractic candidates.