Media Coverage of the Candidates

On a whim, I thought, why not check out the number of articles referencing the various Candidates? So I did searches on google news for the full name in quotes, and the full name sans quotes.

Here are the candidates (format: Name: Quoted Results | Unquoted Results):


Hillary Clinton: 16,757 | 34,458

Barack Obama: 21,816 | 22,117

John Edwards: 14,655 | 19,451

Dennis Kucinich: 2,025 | 2,120

Joe Biden: 4,425 | 9,183

Bill Richardson: 5,701 | 6,670

Mike Gravel: 768 | 1,392


Rudy Giuliani: 18,816 | 20,867

Fred Thompson: 13,385 | 14,356

John McCain: 16,010 | 16,599

Mitt Romney: 13,926 | 13997

Ron Paul: 2,974 | 7,468

Sam Brownback: 2,647 | 2,657

Tom Tancredo: 908 | 921

Mike Huckabee: 3,763 | 3,772

Duncan Hunter: 2375 | 3,082

Alan Keyes: 225 | 269

These are rather interesting numbers. Looking at just quoted searches, Obama and Giuliani get the most coverage, with Hillary, McCain, Edwards, Thompson and Romney not far behind. The rest of the candidates might as well not exist!

It is especially instructive to look at coverage among the “bottom of the barrel”. Looking at how little candidates like Kucinich, Paul, and Huckabee rate is instructive. Are they simply avoiding newsworthy activities? Or are they being ignored? We know pollsters are being biased in the Democratic race and cutting out Kucinich (Crooks and Liars). Would it be any surprise if this happened in the Republican polls as well?

Presuming at least some of this reflects a decision to regard certain candidates as more newsworthy (or more likely: buzzworthy), what kind of effect is this having on the race? What responsibility do the media have to offer better coverage?


8 Responses

  1. Interesting you should do this, I have been saying for months that the media “has” picked the nominee in both parties. This is a very dangerous practice since many voters only listen to sound bite news to make their decision.

    I hope the primaries will cast a much different picture of what the media has been saying. That would restore my confidence in voters.

    I actually think the number for Obama is a little high, considering a lot of the coverage he gets includes Hillary in some form or another. Clinton probable has the most coverage since the media has been touting her as the nominee before she even announced her run.

  2. Google news, fox news, msnbc, it does not matter, you will not get an unbiased account of any story or issue because there are agendas at work. There is no integrity in the reporting game any more. Back in the day the press would never show or report Roosevelt in his wheelchair for fear of making the country weak. Those days are gone. It’s all about ulterior motives and agendas. We need to sift through all the spin and rhetoric to discern the truth when it comes to news. The polls after the debates are a perfect example. Ron Paul crushed the other candidates and was dismissed because of poll spam. BULLSHIT!!! They don’t report anything they see as against their support and bias for fear of giving free publicity. It’s a shame that so many people don’t view the television for what it is, entertainment.

  3. On a whim, try a basic google search for the same candidates and look at the amount of results returned. That is an eye opener.

  4. nytexan,
    They have indeed. I wonder. Will people vote with the polls? Most polls suggest they will.

    Interesting point on Obama.

    Michael D,
    There is no back in the day for the press. Its the same old same old. You might find this very interesting.

    The google search isn’t quite as instructive. I mean, take Ron Paul for instance. He shows up in the forums for Gentoo. That’s right, a source based linux distribution. So I think that’s, oh, inflated in his case.

  5. Fitness, that article was interesting. Thanks.
    I guess I see the instructive point being as you were trying to make a different point than I. My point was to the “responsibility” of the media and how they don’t work that way. They don’t know the meaning of the word.

  6. Keep in mind also that all the good software for media, servers, law enforcement, military and most important matters is Linux/Unix not the hunk of shit that Microsoft keeps pushing on us so the inflation you speak of is inverted. Just saying…..

  7. Michael D,
    Crap, I can’t find it, but there is another really good article about that “responsibility”. Its a myth, they don’t have it, nor do they feel they should do anything other than pay lip service to it.

    Still inflated. Mentioning Ron Paul in a software forum just isn’t the same as seeing him written about in the news blogs, etc. Or is it? I might have to revisit that.

    As for software, a lot of stuff out there is microsoft, even in mission critical situations like the military. Not to say that its great. Personally I run kubuntu.

  8. I”m learning and loving ubuntu but it’s tougher than learning Thai. Phom pood pasa Thai nid noy.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: