Well I am glad you discussed it with 30 PHD students. Is that supposed to be impressive?
It is comments like that give people a bad taste about intellectuals. You won't even understand what I mean by that probably.
As to your point about the bolded section...
If that were the case the media would have been far more sympathetic to Clinton. This is why I really think this study hit some nerves.
It clearly shows the absolute infatuation with Obama on behalf of the press.
Why else are there double standards? You know like leave his kids out of the politics (which they did) but they couldn't leave the Palin kids out of the attacks!
How else do you explain the complete lack of accountability on the part of the media when it comes to pointing out Obama's failures to keep his campaign promises?
This is an ideologically driven discussion. Just not the politically motivated one that you want to make it out to be.
You were the one that asked if I had read it. I simply gave you a COMPLETE ANSWER to that question. Sorry that it bothers you that my class discussed this prior to our BWOT discussion. It has nothing to do with intellectuals, it has to do with specialists in a field. At some point you might understand the difference.
As for the difference between NOW and Clinton, it is too great to place in the simple metrics that the PEW study provides. As an example, in 1993, there was no Internet, blogging, minimal cable news, minimal news sourcing and much more of our news was via print which is edited different than instant cable.
Also, we have a difference in the way the three Presidents use the media. If we use Clinton as a control X for the amount of media exposure, times he provided press conferences and times he gave televised appearances in the first 100 days and compare that to Bush who would be 1/3X and Obama who is 3X. Those factors also are integral to the coverage. The flood of information that we have coming from this White House provides a different perspective.
As for accountability for Obama's campaign promises, there are two things. Using the Sunshine issue as one example, the media did cover it and apparently that is now addressed. Regarding many of the other promises, they are more long term, in process items that are not at their end game so, only those in "opposition" jump in and declare them failures before they have had time to run their course. Most of what is called mainstream media don't do that. Their analysts might report that things are taking longer than hoped but not that they are failures as we don't know, at this point what the results are.
As for the KIDS issue, the only time the kids were brought into the media discussion was when the candidate had brought them in first. Even after tabloids tried first, mainstream did not break it until Palin brought stuff up. Now, comics did, blogs did, forums did, tabloids did but media did not give it coverage until the campaign brought the family into the game.