Media Bias in the 2008 Election

[Person Man]

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/624/invisible-primary

[NDN]

Not surprising, but very interesting nonetheless.  It figures that with the near obsessively positive media portrayal of Obama that teens would be infatuated with him, given what a media-driven, consumer-based, mindless generation we are.

I wouldn't say it's just because of the Media. Obama has a lot going for him, not the least of which is his storybook sounding background. A young black man from a broken home, who gets off drugs and goes onto Harvard Law and later politics? Come on, that's pretty impressive even if you disagree with what he stands for. There's a reason why even a lot of Republicans like him.

[NDN]

I disagree, I think we're seeing him establish himself. If anything, he's been doing that since 2004 when he first came into the public eye. I do think that the media has presented him in a very positive light, but I think again that has to do with the uniqueness of his background. Ordinarily someone like that would be seized upon as a 'human interest story,' this man is running for President. Is it any wonder the media is eating it up? Not to mention he's exceptionally sharp at interviews, something I can't really say about the majority of people on either side.

I'd note however that Hillary has been routinely pointed out as the most 'experienced' of the Democratic field by the media too. Not that it means much, a huge chunk of that 'experience' was simply miserable failures like Hillarycare plus backing the now wildly unpopular (and IMO failed) Iraq War. So did a lot of the other candidates. From that perspective, Obama's relative 'newcomer status' could actually be an asset, especially since on a lot of issues people view him as being 'right the first time.'

To sum it up, in ordinary circumstances I'd say you were right, but in 2008 people are pretty desperate for any kind of change. Barrack Obama in 2008 is probably a much stronger candidate than people on either side give him credit for. In fact, his main obstacle to the nomination (other than race) at this point may not even be Hillary Clinton, but John Edwards.

[Verily]

And, just on experience itself, few if any of our successful Presidents have been particularly experienced in politics.

We can go very early and look at Washington, though then we have to skip the time when you had to have been involved in the Constitution to run for the Presidency. Then we come upon Jackson, who was in stark contrast to the much more experienced JQ Adams (regardless of whom I would have supported, certainly Jackson was a more effective President). Skipping down the line we get the dichotomy of Buchanan (experienced and a disaster) and Lincoln (inexperienced and a near-miracle), and then also [Andrew] Johnson (experienced and a near-disaster).

Further down, we get McKinley (experienced but ineffective and overwhelmed), followed by [Teddy] Roosevelt (inexperienced and very effective). Taft was very experienced and did very poorly; Wilson was also experienced and bungled the post-War. Coolidge was experienced and didn't do anything (so his effectiveness may be regarded as low, whether you think he was successful or not), and Hoover's milieu of experience couldn't salvage the Great Depression. Nor could [Franklin] Roosevelt's, in the short term.

Truman was effective as an experienced President, but so was Eisenhower as an inexperienced one. Kennedy's short Presidency seemed effective, though he was inexperienced; Johnson, despite experience, bungled Vietnam. Nixon's experience led to his fall from grace in a massive scandal; Ford's experience only made his short Presidency lackluster. Carter was inexperienced and ineffective, but Reagan thereafter was inexperienced and effective (having last held any office nearly a decade before assuming the Presidency). [George H. W.] Bush was experienced but very ineffective; Clinton was inexperienced and effective. [George W.] Bush was inexperienced and ineffective.

The data for experience as a benefit are at best inconclusive, and at worst suggest that experienced candidates actually perform poorly compared to inexperienced candidates, on average.

[bgwah]

Not surprising, but very interesting nonetheless.  It figures that with the near obsessively positive media portrayal of Obama that teens would be infatuated with him, given what a media-driven, consumer-based, mindless generation we are.

Hmm, well considering you aren't supporting Obama I'm not sure he's got the mindless behind him.

[Beet]

I wonder if there is an update of this.