The New York Times has been going easy on President Obama, according to the newspaper's public editor, but studies show the rest of the mainstream media isn't following suit. The Times and the MSM are not one in the same, it appears.
In a column that undoubtedly ruffled feathers insides the Times newsroom Sunday, Arthur Brisbane said his paper is going easy on Obama during his re-election campaign, a failure it already committed in 2008. While hammering away against Mitt Romney and his financial investments this cycle, Brisbane says "we haven’t heard as much from The Times about President Obama’s re-election effort." To illustrate his point, he cites a study in Politics & Policy by media scholars Stephen Farnsowrth and S. Robert Lichter who say The Times has given Obama more favorable coverage than any of his predecessors "who also brought a new party to power in the White House: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan." He also offers examples of favorable coverage of the president, like the book The Times published titled Obama: The Historic Journey and a long profile of him in the Times Topics section, coverage neither George W. Bush nor his father got.
With a boost from the conservative news portal the Drudge Report, It didn't take long for Brisbane's criticism to go viral but if conservatives want to use the column as evidence of widespread media collusion for Obama, they'll probably want to avoid the other recent media studies. It appears The Times' favorable coverage this election cycle is an outlier in the mainstream media landscape.