KOPEL: Rocky, Post go all out for inaugural

By Dave Kopel, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 24, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Has there ever been such a frenzy of Denver newspaper attention to a presidential inauguration?

To find out, I surveyed the archives of the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post. I counted staff-written articles (not articles from wire services or other newspapers) on the day before the inauguration of President Barack Obama (Jan. 19) and in the rest of the preceding week (Jan. 13-18). I didn't include stories that only briefly referenced the impending event.

In 2001, the Rocky had Mike Littwin and M.E. Sprengelmeyer in Washington, D.C., at inauguration time. There were seven staff-written articles from Jan. 13-18, and none on Jan. 19, 2001.

That year, the Post relied on Bill McAllister and Mike Soraghan of its Washington bureau. There were three staff-written stories on inauguration eve, and five during the week before.

In 1993, for Bill Clinton's inaugural, the Rocky sent no one to Washington, and used John Brinkley of its Washington bureau. There were six staff-written stories Jan. 13-18, and three on the 19th. The Post had six in the pre- inaugural week, and four on the 19th.

So Denver coverage for Bush 2001 and Clinton 1993 were roughly comparable. That's evidence against the theory that Democratic inaugurations get more coverage because of left-wing bias by the media.

In 2009, the Rocky had 20 staff-written stories about the inaugural from Jan. 13-18, and 10 more on inauguration eve. The Rocky sent Mike Littwin, Bill Johnson, Lisa Ryckman and Kevin Vaughn, plus M.E. Sprengelmeyer, who is based in D.C.

The Post dispatched Karen Crummy, Michael Riley, John Ingold, Carlos Illescas and Sally Ho. There were six staff-written stories on inauguration eve, and 13 in the previous six days.

In short, the papers threw an Obamapalooza, ratcheting the coverage up closer to the level of a British paper covering a coronation than to the ordinary level of an American paper covering a new president.

The papers repeatedly told us that the inauguration of Obama (apparently unlike Bill Clinton or George W. Bush) was "historic." On the issues, there's little difference between what Obama proposes and what Hillary Clinton had promised during her campaign. Policywise, it's hard to claim that Obama's ascendance is greatly more important than was Bill Clinton's.

Consider this Rocky inauguration headline that the new president "Launches era of hope: Old solutions won't help new-directions president solve nation's paramount problems." It could have appeared on Wednesday, but it's from Jan. 21, 1993. Plus ca hope and change, plus c'est la meme chose.

If you want a presidential inauguration that was clearly ushering in momentous change, with a tidal wave of popular support, then Reagan in 1981 stands far above anyone else in the previous 100 years. Reagan had campaigned on one of the most ideologically hard-edged platforms of any winning presidential candidate ever. (Unlike FDR, who implemented radical change after campaigning on a moderate platform.)

Reagan ousted an incumbent, winning a landslide 489 electoral votes and 44 states (compared to 365 votes and 28 states for Obama). And Reagan unexpectedly led his party to capture the U.S. Senate for the first time in a generation. So if the voting public's expressed desire for major change is the standard, Reagan should have received even more pre-inaugural coverage than Obama.

Yet during the week before Reagan's inauguration, the Post had only five staff-written articles and none on the day before. The Rocky had two on inauguration eve, and one during the preceding week.

Like Obama, John F. Kennedy was young, exciting and a powerful orator. He too offered vigorous new leadership after eight years of a Republican executive that seemed to have run out of steam by the end.

Like Kennedy, Obama is a notable first: the first openly mixed-race president. (As detailed by The New York Times on April 6, 2008, Warren Harding was part-black, but his supporters were mostly successful in suppressing public knowledge of his ancestry.) Kennedy, the first Catholic president, was in a sense even more of a pioneer than Obama, since in 1960 anti- Catholic sentiment was considered respectable in many circles, and many leading Protestant ministers warned against voting for a Catholic. But in the 2008 election cycle, overt appeals to racism were absent from respectable discourse.

For Kennedy, the Post had eight articles the week before, and two the day before. The Rocky published one article on the 19th, and four in the preceding week - preferring to concentrate its attention on praising Dwight Eisenhower.

Arguably, race is so important that the first (noncloseted) biracial president deserves coverage that dwarfs that of previous presidents. Time will tell whether Obama will win the hearts and minds of the American public and the world. But he is surely the greatest favorite of the mainstream media within living memory.

Dave Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute, an attorney and author of 11 books. He can be reached at kopeld@RockyMountainNews.com.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

January 24, 2009

2:25 a.m.

mikeyg writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
January 24, 2009

5:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

fatdog writes:

Mr. SideshowBob might be interested to learn that Mr. Kopel is a Democrat who happens to try to ferret out facts upon which to base his thinking. He is also one of the bigger Grateful Dead fans around. jkd
January 24, 2009

6:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

The bias in media is so obvious, that it's beyond shameful.

But....that's what many Liberals want. Why???
January 24, 2009

7:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Joe_Lunchbucket writes:

Wow, Sideshow Bob, aren't you a good card-carrying liberal fascist with your authoritarian assertion that it's criminal for someone to think differently than you and get paid for it ... the horror!
January 24, 2009

7:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

youngman writes:

The MESSIAH is here.....all is good....hey where is the welfare line?
January 24, 2009

8:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Faux_Noise writes:

"Plus ca hope and change, plus c'est la mÃme chose."

I guess Kopel hates America since he writes in French.

I guess the Rocky editors are putzes, because they let him write in French without checking his spelling.

Kopel is a Democrat? I'm quite skeptical. Proof?
January 24, 2009

8:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Who_Me writes:

You mean the drivel Littwin spewed in his "news columnist" blog is evidence of the RMN going all out? Well, I have to agree with this assessment. That really couldn't have been a worse or bigger waste of money and hammers home the irrelevance of certain parts of this paper. The RMN went all out in demonstrating this point.
January 24, 2009

9 a.m.

Suggest removal

ghoax writes:

the sobs, the gushes, the coronation...oooooh look at him ooooh...quite a pathetic display from the so called news agencies, who should be challenging the half truths, the spin and the sugarcoated socialist agenda. Instead we get the secondary campaign spin. They trumpet the call of "change and hope" but never define it. They praise the green energy agenda, but never investigate what this will cost you and I. They tingle with glee, but while in their trance, can't see the complete dismantling of the basic foundations of our great country. They boo the outgoing president, yet make no mention of the 100,000 tons of garbage left by the pigs shouting insults at the inauguration.
January 24, 2009

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

SDaedalus writes:

Missing from Kopel's curiously obsessive 'analysis' are data that would allow readers to judge the value/wisdom of the amount of RMN and Post's coverage of the Obama inauguration.

Specifically, what was the effect of the coverage on both papers hardcopy sales figures/web-traffic compared to a normal week, relative to the prior inaugurations he cites, adjusted for the changes in circulation/Internet usage etc. of the periods?

Memo to RMN: remind your 'media columinsts' that the amount and type of coverage are business decisions. Not rocket-science here: content drives circulation, circulation drives ad sales, ad sales drive profits, profits reward investors.

Pretending to judge the wisdom of coverage decoupled from the effect on the bottom line is disingenous. If instead Kopel preferred to say he is personally not impressed with Obama, he could have saved ink and time with a single sentence rather than a long-winded 'analysis' of selective factoids, peppered with hints of Kopel's political orientation.
January 24, 2009

10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

davekopel writes:

The French word "meme" (with the little hat on top of the "e") appeared correctly in the print edition. For an unknown reason, it's not correct in the electronic edition. I'll see if I can get it corrected. BTW, I am a lifelong registered Democrat.
January 24, 2009

1 p.m.

Suggest removal

Faux_Noise writes:

The little hat is a.k.a. "accent circumflex."

So you're a life-long Dem? Dropping French phrases into your communication certainly burnishes your credentials as a "liberal elite." Unfortunately it also makes one sound pretentious, which is why I avoid phrases like "homage a... ", "quel surprise" "piece de resistence", "coup de grace", etc. unless I am sure my audience knows what I'm referring to. Certainly more of your readers would have understood "The more things..."

As a Dem, who works for the anti (big D) Democratic Independence Institute, writes this column in counterpoint to the liberal Jason Salzman, and consistently carries water for conservative memes, do you maintain that registration merely to have a say in the Boulder primaries which are the de facto (sorry) general elections?

What do you think of the constitutionality of your boss's "clean government" amendment?
January 24, 2009

1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Dave Kopel does all but claim some sort of media bias or favortism: "[Obama is] surely the greatest favorite of the mainstream media within living memory." "[The press coverage was like a] coronation". Let's Think, like a good media consumer invested in the idea of Pepsi v. Coke, Broncos v. Raiders, and liberal v. conservative, dutifully connects the dots.

I more or less avoided the extensive inaugural coverage. I agree it was excessive (to my taste). But a lot of other people and events are excessively covered as well. The reason for the coverage of the inauguration is obviously a result of Obama's great popularity and the optimism he's generated in people. The DNC and the filling of Bronco stadium is just one sign of this. The country is charged, even if there are some who don't like him. That's why he and his inauguration is newsworthy. Kopel would have us believe this optimism is driven by "the mainstream media" (undefined).

If the Broncos miraculously go to the Super Bowl in 2010, and the people of Denver go wild like never before, will Kopel likewise, compare the press coverage then to the coverage of the 1998 Super Bowl with an eye toward some sort of media favoritism? I'm not sure what he wants the press to do vis a vis Obama.
January 24, 2009

1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Faux Noise asks: "Kopel is a Democrat? I'm quite skeptical."

Kopel replies: "I am a lifelong registered Democrat."

Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that he votes Democrat or that he supports positions consistent with the Democratic party. His statement in this regard is not unlike his claim from a few months back that MLK Jr. was a Republican. Facts taken out of context can be made to stand for just about any proposition.
January 24, 2009

2:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Faux_Noise writes:

Thanks anderson,

My hypothesis is that he may have started life as a liberal, and has lived in Boulder for a long time (his whole life?) Though his politics have changed over the years, the only way to have influence in the overwhelmingly Democratic People's Republic is to vote in the Democratic primary, whose winner is inevitably elected.
January 24, 2009

2:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

Citing the number of articles written is interesting, but I would like to see also what the articles said about the inauguration speech. Obama's speech was filled with falsehoods and child-like foolishness. Tina Griego's column on the speech was equally childish.

Obama told us that government being too big is not the problem as long as government "works". Really? To think of all the debate that went into crafting our Constitution and Obama just tossed it aside in one sentence.

Or, he said that our "security emanates from the justness of our cause". What absurd, childish, wishful thinking, nonsense. That sentence along proves that Obama is a dangerous fool.

I have not seen any serious analysis of Obama's speech from the RMN. At what point do we stop praising his oratory and start critiquing his words?
January 24, 2009

3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

freejoe76 writes:

I wholeheartedly appreciate the effort Koppel put into gauging the effort and intensity the two big dailies in town devoted to the Obama inauguration. Since Koppel was delving into old newsprint, here are a few other pieces of information he could have pulled to give more context on past years' inauguration coverage:

* How many wire articles ran?
* How many photos ran?
* How many total inches of copy ran?

I can't imagine those numbers giving anything but a clearer, more complete picture of the decisions of the editors involved in the inauguration coverage.
January 24, 2009

3:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Faux Noise, as you suggest, people sometimes do change their political views and affiliations. Ronald Reagan was a registered Democrat at one point and reportedly supported the New Deal (However, I'm not about to buy billboards all over town proclaiming that Reagan was a Democrat).

The other thing here, of course, is that Kopel heads the Independence Institute, and he can hardly take a public stance inconsistent with their positions, which are generally more in line with the Republican party.
January 24, 2009

3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

davekopel writes:

Freejoe76, you're right that it would be interesting to count wire articles and photos. I concentrated on staff-written articles, since they're the best indication of how a newspaper uses its finite resources. It would also be interesting to compare the variations in Rocky/Post coverage with variations in other newspapers. With an 800 word limit on my column, though, I've got to keep the data presention within a fairly limited size. Counting column inches would be possible, although the brain damage would be immense. From the 1990s onward, I use on-line databases, which make a word count easy, but don't show you the original layout. For older articles, I used microfilm. Measuring the microfilm display, and then extrapolating it to figure out the actual inches on the printed page would be doable, but not worth the time for how much additional information would be conveyed. (And even that result is approximate, since the size of the printed page has changed over the years.) Based on my rough review of the archives, the amount of wire service stories, photos, and total column inches, was about the same for all the inaugurals studied, except that Obama's had much more. One other exception: Kennedy's was much lower in photos, since the Denver newspapers in 1961 had many fewer photos in general.
January 24, 2009

5:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

darkman writes:

In my opinion, I'd have to agree that the mainstream media is getting more and more biased. When you look at the Obama/Biden coverage .vs. the McCain/Palin coverage over the past year and just count negative/neutral/positive articles the results are overwhelming in favor of the Obama side.

That said, in all fairness since Obama is the first black president it does seem there would be somewhat more coverage.

As for an overall media bias, it's sure not hard to find. A friend had mentioned to me yesterday about the comment Mr. Obama had made to the Republican congress, telling them to "stop listening to Rush". I was curious so I did a quick Google search. Sure enough, I found a story in the UK Telegraph, Foxnews, New York Post, Huffington news...

I then went to cnn.com and typed in the same search. The first link it came up with was Foxnews. I haven't seen a peep about this on the Denver Post or RMN sites or the large media like CNN, NY Times, etc. This definitely bothers me. I'm not one of those that wants conservative-biased news either. There's plenty of room for that on opinion pages. I don't want to see Foxnews.com deciding that a negative story about a republican is not news just like I don't want to see cnn.com deciding that a negative story about a democrat is not news. I totally understand that neither side should be printing every rumor, anonymous tip or inuendo, but come on, this Obama quote is well documented. What gives?
January 24, 2009

10:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

DonaldJohnson writes:

Let's see. Both papers are in financial trouble.

So they send Denver-based reporters and columnists to D.C.?

Does that compute?

Obviously the editors and reporters have more fun playing national correspondents than focusing on local news, which is so boring to cover and edit.

What would we have learned if those reporters had written about the metro area counties?

Think of the possibilities. One story per reporter per day. That would be close to 50 local enterprise stories.

But who wants to cover Adams and Jefferson counties? Nothing happens there.
January 26, 2009

10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

darkman, what is the "maintream media" in your view? Does it include the UK Telegraph, Foxnews, New York Post, and Huffington news?

Btw, you misquoted Obama. What he actually said (to the GOP congress), was: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done"

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

KOPEL: Rocky, Post go all out for inaugural

By Dave Kopel, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 24, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs