Why the media loves Obama: He's good for business

CBS has released ratings figures showing that their near-hourlong sit- down with President-Elect Barack Obama and wife Michelle on Sunday was not just a blockbuster 60 Minutes episode, with 25-million people tuning in to deliver its highest ratings in nine years.

It was also the season's most-watched episode of television to date, outranking even the World Series games and making struggling newer programs such as Pushing Daisies and Heroes look like lightweights.

This is the discussion that gets missed when critics wring their hands about Obama's popularity with the press. I've always thought that much of his good press could be explained by three simple things: a) he had the best campaigns in both the primaries and the general election, so success begat success; b) he's a great story; c) he's good for business -- meaning, viewers, readers and listeners show up when he's featured in a story.

Click below to see CBS's release, along with a YouTube clip in case you missed it:

60 MINUTES drew 25.1 million viewers last Sunday, the largest audience among all the programs on television so far this season.  The audience was 60 MINUTES’ largest in nearly a decade and the program posted its best delivery in the key demographics in almost nine years.

             The television event of the season, featuring the first post-election interview with President-elect Obama and his wife, Michelle, was also a hit across all CBS digital platforms. The 60 MINUTES Web site on CBSNews.com (www.cbsnews.com/60minutes) drew the most video streams and page views since the Web site was created. In addition to the Web, CBS Mobile saw five times more people view highlights of the interview on their mobile phones than average.  The interview was available online shortly after the on-air broadcast concluded.

            Sunday’s television broadcast propelled 60 MINUTES into Nielsen's number-one spot for the second straight week. The last time 60 MINUTES ranked first in-season on consecutive weeks were the weeks ending Dec. 27, 1992 and Jan. 3, 1993.

            60 MINUTES delivered a 15.1/23 with 25.10m viewers, 8.1/18 in adults 25-54 and 6.3/16 in adults 18-49.  This is 60 MINUTES’ best households and viewers deliveries since January 17, 1999 and best adults 25-54 and adults 18-49 performances since January 9, 2000.

            The record broadcast continues a stellar season for 60 MINUTES, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary and remains one of the most successful programs in television history.  So far this season, the program has made Nielsen’s weekly top 10 list five out of eight weeks.

            Season to date, 60 MINUTES is averaging 15.7 million viewers, up 12 percent over last season.  It is also up 9 percent in households, with 10.0 rating and 16 share.   The broadcast ranks 9th on Nielsen's Top 10 list in both viewers and households.

*

Comments

[DoctorDoom]

Bandit,

Just to clarify - the Rich pardon is a small matter. The President has the authority adn he exercised it.

I woudl disagee that the actions of the Deputy AG in securing this pardon - essentially sheiding all interested parties from the process (as he was required to) is not a small matter. His current ends do not justify his prior means.

[beltwaybandit]

The thing about Holder and Rich, while interesting and appearing to be inappropriate action on Holder's part, is really way down in the weeds.

Looking broader, I think Holder has done excellent work over time and that is what we need to focus on because candidly, we just don't have time to worry about small things.

Naturally, Republicans and Conservatives may choose to disagree...that is expected and their right.

But we need to move away from all this bickering about small things and get on with the big things...like running the country and fixing the economy.

There is NO ONE with any experience in government who will be able to pass muster with opposition parties in this country.

Thus, we need to go with those that have proven high batting averages.

I'll take Holder over the Gonzales crowd all day long.

[DoctorDoom]

Bandit,

Go back an dlook at the issues AROUND the Mark Rich pardon. That is the concern with Holder. He did not keep amyone involced in the case apprised (as he was required to do).

...In the Clinton pardon scandal, Holder was deputy attorney general when his duties intersected with the efforts of Rich's lawyer, Jack Quinn, who had been White House counsel earlier in the Clinton administration.

The entire matter was handled in an unorthodox manner - on a straight line from Rich's lawyer to the White House, with a consulting role for Holder.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Later, Holder said he told White House counsel Beth Nolan the day before the pardon was issued that he was "neutral, leaning toward favorable" in regard to the pardon. He said he and Nolan "never had a prolonged conversation about the matter."

To make matters worse, Holder had asked Quinn for his help in becoming attorney general in the event then-Vice President Al Gore won the 2000 election.

Rich did not even qualify for a pardon under Justice Department guidelines, which say no pardons can be requested until five years after completion of a sentence in a criminal case.

Prosecutors on the Rich case testified that no one consulted with them before a recommendation went to the president on the Rich pardon.

Rep. Henry Waxman, then senior Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and now its chairman, called the Rich pardon an end run around the judicial process.

Whatever you think about Rich's pardon is really immaterial, it is the way he conducted the process that is worrisome. Does it automatically disqualify him? No, but it should give one pause.

2001:
WAXMAN: It appears from what we have, for whatever reason and it's not a happy situation, that the president really didn't get all the information that he should have had in evaluating this request by Mr. Rich for a pardon. And if that's the case, and I don't think either of you disagree with that conclusion; is that safe to say?
HOLDER: I wouldn't disagree.
WAXMAN: If that's the case, I think we can say there was a disconnect of failure in the process, the president was not well- served [by the Deputy Attorney General]. [addition mine]

[David]

HaroldG,

I won't dispute the fact that the MSM would have handled things differently if McCain had won and the markets dropped. But Jesus could have won the election, and the market still would have tanked. There are FAR too many issues roiling the markets currently -- lots of fear and speculation to go around, along with some very legitimately bad news.

Politics and economics are intertwined, but neither an Obama nor a McCain victory would have been enough to boost the markets. The bad news far outweighs the good right now, as much as I wish it didn't.

[Gordie]

If Obama is filling his cabinet and front office with Clinton leftovers, then how does that constitute "change."

What happened to that promise to NOT put together an administration of Washington "insiders"? Clinton, Emanuel and Holder are about as inside the Beltway as it gets. Hopeless change?

[Harold G]

Yeah, since Obama is the one who was elected, "the market reaction had virtually nothing to do with the outcome of the election."

I guarantee you that if McCain had been elected, and the markets had reacted that way (dropping nearly 500 points the day after the election), lots of media folks would be finding connections between the election results and the market's drop.

You can't quite that easily dismiss the connection. Why? Because economic events are entangled with political events.

The reality is, if Obama's election had suggested a bright economic future ahead, then the markets would not have dipped the day after he was elected.

Of COURSE, he personally had no control, and still has no control.

But if investors believed that his election meant positive things for the economy right around the corner, then the market would have at least remained stable.

[David]

True, the market reaction had virtually nothing to do with the outcome of the election. There is more bad news in the air than ever before, with a lot of uncertainty both here and abroad.

[beltwaybandit]

* The stock market fluctuations have very little to do with Obama being elected. It has far more to do with the recognition that the efforts thus far have flat out failed to prevent the consumer from being impacted by the economy and the resulting corporate down turns. As I write this the Dow is down 420 points, based mainly on a massive sell off of Citi Group, fears that Congress may not help the auto industry, the fear that the results of such inaction could cause massive unemployment of roughly 4 million people and a possible global depression. That has little to do with Obama and more to do with uncompetitive labor contracts and previous management failures to plan for fuel efficiency cars that would sell in times like these.

* People need to get past the Clintons. Bill may be a jerk and Hillary may polarize, but there are some facts to consider as well:

- Eric Holder was by all accounts a good deputy attorney general. He also has a strong legal background. The Marc Rich pardon is the only issue, and it is minor as Clinton made the final call.

- Rahm Emauel was NOT well liked by Hillary, and he was specifically vocal about the way Bill treated staff during the Monica episode...leading everyone on and sending staff out there to perpetuate what the President knew to be a lie). Emanuel is tough, smart and can work across party lines as evidenced by his long friendship with Lindsay Graham among others.

- John Poedsta is handling the transition. He is experienced. He is very competent. Personally, I've had enough inexperienced and incompetent personnel in the government (Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers and "Brownie" anyone?). I'm glad Podesta is running the transition.

I can't believe I am here defending Democrats and former Clintonites...but here I am. Mainly because it is warranted and because the Republicans were a colossal cluster #$%^!

Everyone needs to chill and focus on important things rather than getting wrapped up arguing about media coverage of Obama and Bush.

Trust me...the pending financial news is far bigger than anything related to media coverage of President-elect Obama and President Bush.

[Lin Young]

President-elect Barack Obama made it clear during the interview that he wasn't going to go into depth with things, or answer certain questions, and that is proper. Otherwise he runs the risk of being accused of trying to run a shadow government. There really are limits on what he can say before he is sworn in on Jan. 20, because he has no power right now, he's not even a senator anymore. To put it into perspective, if Pres. George W. Bush died right now, VP Dick Cheney would take over as president until Jan. 20. So Obama is being proper in not saying much because he isn't doing anything official. His staff picks are his business and his cabinet picks have to be approved by Congress, but they won't be doing anything until after noon on Jan. 20 at the earliest either.

[george]

Well, yes, the U.S. and global markets are reacting negatively to the idea of a coming Obama administration.

Downplay that if you want, but many economists had predicted that the markets would respond POSITIVELY to the prospects of a new president, no matter who was elected. So it's quite a disappointment.

In this respect, so far, Obama HAS been bad for business. And the MSM has (again) given Obama a pass on this.

If Obama actually follows through on his stated plans to raise taxes on companies and the wealthy during a recession, then, yes, we do have an idea whether his policies will be good for business - they won't. Raising taxes during a down time has NEVER been good for business.

[Eric Deggans]

All that stock drop tells you is that people who buy and sell stocks think Obama will be bad for business.

Since he won't be president for two more months, we have no idea whether his actual policies or actions as president will be good for business or not.

As opposed to the current white house occupant, who has had many years to prove his effectiveness in dealing with fiscal issues...

[jonathan]

Good for business, yep, except for, uh, the fact that the stock market fell nearly 500 points the day after the election.

No, of course he couldn't have controlled what happened. Still, that's called the markets reacting NEGATIVELY to the prospect of an Obama presidency.

And the market hasn't exactly prospered since then.

A measure of the media's continued love with Obama is that few have dared to point this out. Conversely, if McCain had won, and the market had responded by tanking the next day, you would have seen lib columnists in full meltdown mode.

So, no, so far Obama hasn't been good for business.

And celebrities can always boost the ratings of a TV news show. That's a no-brainer.

[DoctorDoom]

Life's not fair, though. There have been ample evidence of the fawning over Obama since the election (re: Kurtz' piece) as well.

The Clinton question was just an example adn you are correct it may not have been well known at the time. (When I hear "change" Hillary, Rahm, Podesta, and Holder are not people that immeidately come to mind.)

Look, it really does not matter to me, I, like many of my generation, long ago stopped expecting anything of the mainstream media. Maybe the low expectations are part of the problem, but it did not seem to be an institution worth fighting for if those on the inside weren't trying to save the dignity.

[Eric Deggans]

I would just point out that, when Steve Kroft did his interview, it may not have been clear how many former clintonites Obama was going to tap for his administration.

That said, most of the experienced democrats in washington are going to have ties to the clintons. Criticizing an appointment just because the person once worked for the clinton administration seems a little facile to me.

I don't think Obama deserves a break from tough questions. But I also think the press has to be careful about making too many assumptions about what he's doing. And judging the entirety of journalists' coverage by one high-profile TV interview is hardly fair, either...

[DoctorDoom]

Bandit,

I would agree there should be no probing questions if the President elect were soem sort of political Punxatawny Phil and stayed in a hole until 1/20 when he stepped out with his cabinet adn staff. The puff pieces are fine for "US" and other trash magazines. When an institution such as CBS News has a sit down with the President-elect during a time of global crisis, while he is making decisions about cabinet appointments, etc, I expect better questions than about his M-I-L or the new dog or whatever.

If the President's elect's philosophy about the crisis and those he is appointing is not improtant so be it. Maybe ask why so many Clinton legacies in the cabinet and staff? Is it the need for experience? Or, something else?

As to your point about Bush, wasn't the media saying they did not investigate early enough or probe deep enough at the outset. Why wait now? The honeymoon will have to wait. In fact, with any President elect, there should be no honeymoon from the press.

[beltwaybandit]

I think some perspectiveis important here:

* Why does anyone believe that Barack Obama deserves "hardball" questions now? He is NOT the President just yet. Bush is.

* Speaking of Bush, I know it is somewhat in vogue to say that the news media was very hard on him as well as on McCain. It would seem that in Bush's case, the media had reason to be tough. Many things we were told by Bush turned out to be inaccurate. Policies Bush pursued turned out to be ineffective. Such performance deserves tough questioning.

I just don't get what the issue is over Obama. Come January 21, 2009, then I expect hardball questions from the media.

And while I voted for him, I do fully expect that the lustre will fade quickly from Obama once the real job begins and the talk stops. Anyone who believes that their troubles are over (as one woman in Miami was taped shotung) simply because "The One" is coming to office is a fool.

It will be the media's job to press Obama on all matters. A healthy, free Republic requires it.

[Eric Deggans]

I think Obama's popularity with the audience explains why news outlets pay attention to him. How they ay attention to him is a different question.

Regarding Kroft: I have long complained that his highest-profile interviews are not incisive enough, including this blog tiem I did months ago on a tlak Kroft gave in New York about interviewing Clarence thomas:

http://blogs.tampabay.com/media/2008/05/60-minutes-stev.html

[DoctorDoom]

Help my confusion.

Eric, are you saying it is OK for journalists to slobber all over someone, if it is good for ratings? Sacrifice integrity and impartiality for ratings?

[David]

Steve Soft....err, Croft....is apparently NOT the guy to ask tough questions. Instead of 60 Minutes, they should have just referred to this episode as "The Infomercial".

The MSM makes me laugh.

The fact that so many sheeple believe the MSM makes me cringe.

[RagsTTIger]

Obama is good for ratings, but that Steve Croft interview was the most lightweight puff piece I've ever seen. There wasn't a good question in the bunch. The great dog caper? The NFL games? His barber?
Nothing of substance at all.