Herman Cain really has been getting more bad press & it could get worse

Project for Excellence in Journalism
Even before allegations of sexual misconduct, coverage of GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain had become increasingly negative, according to a new study.

It got worse last week following news that two women had settled with the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990s after reporting sexual misconduct by Cain, the trade group’s president at the time.

Coverage of Cain has been increasingly negative over the last six months, according to PEJ tracking.

Last week was “the third consecutive one in which negative assertions of Cain in the press outnumbered positive,” as journalists began vetting the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO.

The study looked at 11,500 media outlets, including the smaller subset that PEJ typically tracks for its weekly census. The analysis saw a difference in the coverage of the “elite” smaller subset and the broader group.

First, when the media narrative about a candidate shifts, the elite media tend to reflect the change more quickly. The broad spectrum of news outlets, in turn, tend to follow by about two weeks. And when the tone in the broader spectrum of news outlets shifts, the difference between positive and negative assertions about a candidate becomes even more pronounced there, a kind of amplifying echo effect across the media spectrum, in which matters become less nuanced.

Examples:

  • Coverage of Michele Bachmann in “elite” media became less positive in August, then became more negative in broader media coverage in September.
  • Stories about Rick Perry became more negative in the “elite” group in September, then the broader media coverage followed in October.

Not only does the broad media follow the elite, but it intensifies their effect.

If the pattern seen before between elite and broad media recurs now, the tone of coverage about Cain would become even more negative in the broader spectrum of media.

Related: Carl Cannon disagrees with Cain’s media critique. He writes, “Any reporter who doesn’t think sexual harassment is a legitimate area of inquiry ought to turn in his press pass to a younger, hungrier reporter and become a food critic or travel writer. Examining how Herman Cain treated the women at the restaurant association is exactly the role of the press. Most conservatives know this, but they have issues with the media.” (Real Clear Politics)

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GAAH7VRO37HO7C6EIMX4TVIKWY Jon

    Is it possible that any of what ann coulter says (below) is correct? If it is, than the mainstream media ought to be ashamed for not digging a little deeper. (Some of what she writes, I happen to know, is undeniably correct.)

    DAVID AXELROD’S PATTERN OF SEXUAL MISBEHAVIOR By Ann Coulter | Ann Coulter – 11 hrs agoHerman Cain has spent his life living and working all over the country — Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. — but never in Chicago.So it’s curious that all the sexual harassment allegations against Cain emanate from Chicago: home of the Daley machine and Obama consigliere David Axelrod.Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O’Grady, who is close with David Axelrod and went straight from being formerChicago mayor Richard M. Daley’s chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain’s personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).The Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely enough, Cain’s short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he’s alleged to have been a sexual predator.After O’Grady’s name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of Cain’s personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial of any involvement in producing them — by vigorously denying that she knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)And now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we’ve suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of … Chicago.Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod! And guess who lived in Axelrod’s very building? Right again: Cain’s latest accuser, Sharon Bialek.Bialek’s accusations were certainly specific. But they also demonstrated why anonymous accusations are worthless.Within 24 hours of Bialek’s press conference, friends and acquaintances of hers stepped forward to say that she’s a “gold-digger,” that she was constantly in financial trouble — having filed for personal bankruptcy twice — and, of course, that she had lived in Axelrod’s apartment building at 505 North Lake Shore Drive, where, she admits, she knew the man The New York Times calls Obama’s “hired muscle.”Throw in some federal tax evasion, and she’s Obama’s next Cabinet pick.The reason all this is relevant is that both Axelrod and Daley have a history of smearing political opponents by digging up claims of sexual misconduct against them.John Brooks, Chicago’s former fire commissioner, filed a lawsuit against Daley six months ago claiming Daley threatened to smear him with sexual harassment accusations if Brooks didn’t resign. He resigned — and the sexual harassment allegations were later found to be completely false.Meanwhile, as extensively detailed in my book “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America,” the only reason Obama became a U.S. senator — allowing him to run for president — is that David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama’s Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama’s Republican opponent.One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader.But then The Chicago Tribune — where Axelrod used to work — began publishing claims that Hull’s second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.From then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation that he was a “wife beater.” He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent. During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife kicked him and he had merely kicked her back.Hull’s substantial lead just a month before the primary collapsed with the nonstop media attention to his divorce records. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.Luckily for Axelrod, Obama’s opponent in the general election had also been divorced.The Republican nominee was Jack Ryan, a graduate of Dartmouth and Harvard law and business schools, who had left his lucrative partnership at Goldman Sachs to teach at an inner-city school on the South Side of Chicago.But in a child custody dispute some years earlier, Ryan’s ex-wife, Hollywood sex kitten Jeri Lynn Ryan, had alleged that, while the couple was married, Jack had taken her to swingers clubs in Paris and New York.Jack Ryan adamantly denied the allegations. In the interest of protecting their son, he also requested that the records be put permanently under seal.Axelrod’s courthouse moles obtained the “sealed” records and, in no time, they were in the hands of every political operative in Chicago. Knowing perfectly well what was in the records, Chicago Tribune attorneys flew to California and requested that the court officially “unseal” them — over the objections of both Jack and Jeri Ryan.Your honor, who knows what could be in these records!A California judge ordered them unsealed, which allowed newspapers to publish the salacious allegations, and four days later, Ryan dropped out of the race under pressure from idiot Republicans (who should be tracked down and shot).With a last-minute replacement of Alan Keyes as Obama’s Republican opponent, Obama was able to set an all-time record in an Illinois Senate election, winning with a 43 percent margin.And that’s how Obama became a senator four years after losing a congressional race to Bobby Rush. (In a disastrous turn of events, Rush was not divorced.)Axelrod destroyed the only two men who stood between Obama and the Senate with illicitly obtained, lurid allegations from their pasts.In 2007, long after Obama was safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, The New York Times reported: “The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece (on Hull’s sealed divorce records) later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had ‘worked aggressively behind the scenes’ to push the story.”Some had suggested, the Times article continued, that Axelrod had “an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story.”This time, Obama’s little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary, but are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.