The New Republic

It's even more than that. Not only did he fail to win either of the first two contests, he failed to win the two contests where he had most heavily invested his resources. He practically lived in Iowa.

Of course, the loser is always going to come up with reasons he lost that misses the real point. Ditto the loser's followers

- miceelf

January 17, 2008 at 4:39pm

Hmmm...

A recent survey usa poll has Edwards in THIRD PLACE in NORTH CAROLINA.

I'm assuming he gets plenty of media in his home state...

There goes that theory.

- virginiacentrist

January 17, 2008 at 4:47pm

Virginiacentrist - you are "assuming", indeed. I am assuming you might be incorrect ;-)

- jobeek2

January 17, 2008 at 6:54pm

Otherwise, I can only reiterate what I just posted in the comments section to the other post -- if I had seen in time that there was a follow-up post I would have posted it straight away here instead. Now you'll have to forgive me the copy/paste... Except this time, it's in response to where Jason wrote, "If you want to make the case that the media ignored Edwards ... you'd be on stronger footing if you could find examples of his being ignored before he failed to win either of the first two nomination contests."

Well, the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which is part of the Pew Research Center, did a comprehensive media monitoring study of the coverage of the election candidates during the first five months of 2007. They covered both print and broadcast media, and gathered a wealth of data that resulted in a publication in October last year. You can read more here: www.journalism.org/.../8187

What they found regarding Edwards versus Hillary and Obama was that:

- Hillary had been the primary focus of 294 stories and the secondary focus of 240 stories (makes 534);

- Obama had been the primary focus of 148 stories and the secondary focus of 147 stories (makes 295);

- Edwards was way behind with only 71 primary and 49 secondary mentions (makes 120).

I.e., Edwards got just about 40% the coverage Obama received, and less than a fourth of Hillary. This despite the fact that during this time, Edwards was running at close to two-thirds of Obama's score in the polls, and at 40% of Hillary's scores, and was consistently polling in first place in Iowa.

Moreover, much of the coverage Edwards did get was not so much focused on him, but on his wife, after the news in March that her breast cancer had recurred.

And that's not all. As the Project's report concluded (see www.journalism.org/.../8196):

"While the tone of Edwards’ coverage was split (31% positive, 34% neutral, 35% negative), and thus more positive than Clinton’s and less positive than Obama’s, that is only part of the story.

The coverage began badly for him, with very little coverage in January, as his rivals were gearing up. And when the press did take more notice in February, the coverage was mostly negative (54%). He was largely invisible again in April. And in May, when he became a focus of attention again, 64% of the stories about him were negative and only 7% were favorable.

Elizabeth Edward’s illness made a measurable difference in how he was treated. March, when she announced her cancer’s return, was the only month of substantial media attention in which John Edwards’ favorable coverage outweighed his negative (45% vs. 12%). Elizabeth Edwards, in turn, got even more coverage than he did that month and none of it was negative.

Edwards’ coverage also varied noticeably by medium. On cable, negative stories outweighed positive by 2-to-1, thanks entirely to prime-time cable programming, both on Fox and MSNBC. It was evenly split in newspapers."

So yes, I think it's fair to say that, at least in those months, Edwards was screwed by the media, especially the broadcast media. I'd be interested in data from subsequent months, but I havent had the impression that since improved after that.

- jobeek2

January 17, 2008 at 6:59pm