Media Bias in the Election of 2008

Connie Zhang Media Bias Against Hilary Clinton in the Election of 2008 The election of 2008 was monuwork forcetal in many respects, the about significant being the occurrence that in that respect was a chance that the first womanhood or African American would become president of the United States. After Obama won the nomination, claims that the media had been contradict and below the belt to Clinton were examined. In earlier studies conducted by DAlessio and Allen, it was concluded there were no significant soliduses in or so forms of media. However, from the focus of her marriage to the questioning of her social conduct, Clinton was definitely treated differently than Obama was.It is very evident that there was, in situation, negative bias towards Clinton, although it was non as numerous and severe as it seemed to be payable to historical, situational, and personal matters. Using meta-analysis, a method that allows for the combination of many studies from relatively few m edia outlets, DAlessio and Allen revealed no significant net centre of gatekeeping bias and no significant reporting bias. However, statement bias set up in intelligence activitymagazines was pro-republican, and those prove on TV were pro-democrat. The key here is that the net amount of gatekeeping bias was oppose to zero.What this meant was that the number of conservatively coloured forms of media was equal to the number of liberally dark-skinned forms of media. If someone only glance over a republican-favoring newspaper, then individually, he would be experiencing media biases which would impact his voting choices despite the position that net amount of gatekeeping biases was equal to zero. A nonher important fact demonstrated in this study is that Americans are increasingly relying on TV for budge information, so they are increasingly exposed to liberal biases, kick upstairs affecting their semipolitical choices.Although DAlessio and Mike Allen are certainly correct in their claim that the identities of the presidential expectations changed many times, biases most definitely existed in the election of 2008. Using a positive versus negative coverage analysis, Moldovan found substantial evidence that Clinton received less coverage than Obama did. Historically, this trend has been recorded, and in 2008, it held true even when the female candidate, Clinton, was a front runner.Six top newspapers ran 59 stories with Obama being mentioned in the headline, while only 36 mentioned Clinton. amid January 2007 and June 2008, 343 articles were written about Obama, while only 293 were focused on Clinton. In Time magazine, 2 covers have Clinton, 2 covers featured both Clinton and Obama, and a whopping 25 covers featured Obama only. Clearly, there is a bias favoring Obama in the case of agenda setting. Additionally, Moldovan found that coverage of Clinton was more negatively framed than Obamas was, in both specific cases and in general.When Clinton cried a fter winning the New Hampshire primaries, there was plenty of coverage deeming her a phony trying to rally emotional support as a woman, whereas her victory was exceedingly likely due to her administrations superior organization in that state. In dividing line, Obamas patronising Youre likeable enough, Hillary, watch, received substantially less time and focus. Another example where treatment of Obama was not was not as harsh or prolonged as it could have been was in regards to Michelle Obamas remark about being proud of her country for the first time in her life.Furthermore, the treatment towards Obamas connections to anti-American individuals, much(prenominal) as his former reverend Jeremiah Wright, was softer in comparison to criticism of Clintons fashion, overleap of feminine characteristics, and marriage. Overall, Clintons coverage was more negative than Obamas, from the amount the media covered her weaknesses to the way it framed them. moreover all the biases claimed to have existed may not historically have been actual biases, as Moldovan farther explains. Some may have only been believed to been there as a result of historical, situational, and personal situations.The socio-economic class 2008 was a crucial time. The country was in the worst recession since the Great De laborion, with foreign tensions only maddening the situation. Despite Clintons political prowess, her marriage to Bill Clinton and its scandalous complications gave her a very yesterday tactual sensation that Americans did not need in such a dire time. Additionally, her refusal to disclose her tax returns increased the feelings of secretiveness that retrogressively reminded race of the Nixon and Bush administration. Furthermore, coming out of George W.Bushs rule, the fact that she was a Clinton added to the feeling of the persistence of a family dynasty that Americans did not want again. Finally, Clintons approach to the run away itself was not only perceived negatively, e xactly was in fact negative. Clintons method to winning focused on questioning Obamas foreign form _or_ system of government experience, military capabilities, and economic policies. Her offensive remarks about Obamas kindergarten essay and her red phone call ad were things that didnt need the medias framing or bias for people to recognize that they were disrespectful and unappealing.Although the commove unnecessarily focused on these negative aspects, it cannot be denied that most of Clintons campaign was, in fact negative in itself due to the fact that it had been an attack on Obamas flaws as a person, kinda than a logical and fair assessment of his abilities and potential as a leader (Moldovan, 2009). When coupled with the fact that Obama revealed his maturity and professionalism by focusing on substance rather than resorting to mud-slinging, the situation worsened for Clinton.Additionally, the most negative coverage about Obama may have emphasized a trait that would have been unattractive in other times, but in this situation, served to help him. The media revealed Obamas elitism, from his food choices, to his education, to his up-scale Chicago neighborhood. Normally, this would have harmed a candidates campaign, but in 2008 when Americans really needed a talented and intelligent president, it seemed to make smell to want more than nevertheless an average American candidate.Despite his race and lack of professional experience, in contrast to Clintons feelings of backwardness and her attack tactics, Obamas youthful charisma and focus on hope were hardly more appealing to the American people, and although the media did give him an unfair amount of attention in his positive traits and was biased in focusing on his image rather than his experience, Obama didnt need the medias framing for it to be known that the way he approached the campaign was much more mature and professional then Clinton.Because people tend to react much stronger to emotional appeals rather than dense, political facts, the fact that Obama handled the campaign better as a person really assisted him to victory (Moldovan, 2009). Clintons circumstances may have been further exacerbated not by the medias bias, but by the fact that in general, people are just harsher when judging a woman. In a representative national sample, 51 percent of the surveyed believed that Americans were not falsify to elect a woman into high office (Lawless 74).In general, women are more likely to receive media coverage based on their appearance, feminine traits, and ability to handle womens issues. The situation was worsened by fact that Clinton was not the average female candidate. From the perceived lack of affection towards her pets to her hard, tough demeanor, Clinton lacked many of the stereotypical womanly characteristics people expected from her. But as soon as she cried after her New Hampshire victory, the press had an unnecessarily generous and negative focus on these womanly qua lities.Although there is a general and accepted consensus that Clinton did not lose the race because she was a woman, she was forced to operate in a sexist environment and hump with different expectations and standards. Thus, her campaign in general was more difficult as voters relied on stereotypical ideas of women and mens attributes, affecting the way people judged and viewed her differently from Obama. In this case, the media may not have been biased against Clinton, but simply reinforcing these sexist norms (Lawless 2009).A further reason why these biases may not be as strong as they are claimed is demonstrated by Watts, Domoke, Shah, and Fan. After examining shifts in public perception of media bias, press coverage of media bias, and coverage in presidential campaigns, they concluded that the ascent in the belief of media bias is a result of increasing news self-coverage focusing on the topic of news content bias itself. These authors discover that a lot of peoples evaluatio n of media credibility is misinformed, especially when comes to political news and campaign coverage.In presidential campaigns, candidates may merely be attempting to generate support for themselves and opposition for their opponents, not intentionally absentminded to create bias. With the increase in these patterns, allegations of biases may now be a part of the presidential campaign rhetoric, and journalists feel increasing pressure to make these claims of the existence of biases to prove that they are not biased themselves.The rise in media sources has further contributed to the pressure traditional media sources have felt to reinforce their reliability by load-bearing(a) claims of biases. Doing so not only generates credibility from their audience, but their peers as well. In consequence, a cyclic belief has taken place in which news media find their attention as sources of information in political campaigns to be of increasing importance.In these ways, biases that are claime d to exist may not be as severeor even existentas people believe them to be. Due to these historical, situational, and personal matters, the negative biases against Clinton may not have been as frequent and harsh as they seemed, although biases against her existed for sure. In both agenda setting and framing, the media seemed to be against her as she received less coverage overall, and the coverage she did received tended to be harsher than the coverage on Obama.Other biases that were claimed to exist, however, such as emphasis on her marriage to Bill Clinton, however, may not really have been biases, but true, negative facts that just didnt help her campaign. In addition, she was operating under a sexist environment, so it cannot be said that the media was being biased against her gender since everyone else was too. Finally, assertions of biases may not have actually arisen from real biases, but could have been a result from increasing news self-coverage focusing on the topic of ne ws content bias.Overall, as Moldovan points out, the press true biases lay in conflict, because conflict generates both viewers and revenue. It just happened to be that out of the two candidates, Hilary Clinton had more problems to talk about. Works Cited Lawless, Jennifer L. Sexism and Gender Bias in Election 2008 A More Complex Path for Women in Politics. Politics & Gender (2009) 70-80. Print. Media Bias in presidential Elections A Meta Analysis. Journal of Communication 50. 4 (2000) 133-56. Print. Miller, Melissa K. , Jeffrey S. Peake, and Brittany Anne Boulton. Testing the Saturday Night Live dead reckoning Fairness and Bias in Newspaper Coverage of Hillary Clintons Presidential Campaign. Politics & Gender (2010) 169-98. Print. Raluca, Moldovan. A tale OF TWO CLINTONS MEDIA BIAS IN THE COVERAGE OF HILLARY CLINTONS 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN1. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai. Studia Europaea (2009) 41-59. Print. Watts, Mark D. , et al. Elite Cues and Media Bias in Preside ntial Campaigns Explaining Public Perceptions of a Liberal Press. Communication Research 26. 2 (1999) 144-75. Print.