What sells

Posted: Monday, July 14, 2008 5:26 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro, Caroline Gransee and Alexander Wall
With the flap over The New Yorker cartoon cover, First Read took a look back at the year in magazine covers to show, quantitatively, how many more times Obama has been the focus than McCain. We looked at major national magazines, including independent newsweeklies -- Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, The Economist, New York Times magazine, and National Journal; liberal: The Nation; left-leaning: The New Republic and, yes, The New Yorker (Obama has been three -- two with Clinton); on the right: The National Review and The Weekly Standard; the wider-audience, less politics-focused: Rolling Stone and Esquire; and business magazines Fortune and Fast Company. (We looked at Business Week also, but it had zero covers devoted to either candidate.)

We found Obama has been either the subject or part of the focus of 49 of these covers since January. McCain has graced 24. Since June 1, Obama has been on 15 covers; McCain eight.

Michelle Obama has been the subject of Newsweek -- and an unflattering National Review; Cindy McCain had a similar, more recent Newsweek profile.

Barack Obama has been on Newsweek’s cover six times since the beginning of the year (twice since June 1); McCain has been there four times since January 1 -- both times since June 1. Obama has appeared on Time’s cover four times; McCain has been there just once since the New Year -- a profile back in February. Obama has been on US News’ cover four times; McCain three times. The same numbers for US News hold for The Economist.

Some might use this as an example of “liberal media bias,” but a couple of points to contradict that: (1) Some of this is more of a product of the uncharacteristically competitive and lengthy Democratic primary season. Several covers included Hillary Clinton and Obama -- some even with either split or morphed faces, and (2) Obama outnumbered McCain even in the right-leaning publications. Obama was on five Weekly Standard covers; McCain was on three. The National Review put Obama on the cover four times; McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee hasn’t appeared on it once -- though a recent issue explores who could be his vice presidents. On the left, McCain has been on The Nation’s cover more often: five times to Obama’s four; and (3) The bottom line/newsstand sales are far more important to magazines and what they put on their covers than any ideology.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: During the primaries, Obama appeared on the cover of The New Yorker two other times, both with Clinton. (Thanks, Jenna)]

The full list of covers since January:
Obama Covers in 2008
January
The New Republic
Newsweek
The Economist
The Weekly Standard
The Nation

February
Time
US News & World Report
The Economist
Newsweek—Michelle Obama
National Journal
The Nation
National Review

March
Rolling Stone
Time
Newsweek
The New Republic
The Weekly Standard
US News & World Report
National Review

April
Fast Company
The New Republic
US News & World Report
National Journal
The Nation
National Review—M. Obama
Time
National Review

May
Newsweek (2)
Time
The Economist
The New Republic
The Weekly Standard (2)

June
Esquire
New York
US News & World Report
Newsweek
The Economist
The New Republic
The Weekly Standard
National Journal
The Nation
National Review

July
Rolling Stone
The New Republic
Fortune
The New Yorker
Newsweek

McCain Covers in 2008
January
The Economist
The Weekly Standard
The Nation

February
Time
Newsweek (2)
The Economist
The New Republic
The Weekly Standard
US News & World Report
National Journal

March
The Weekly Standard

April
National Journal
New York
US News & World Report

May
New York Times magazine

June
U.S. News & World Report
New York
Newsweek—Cindy McCain
The Economist
The New Republic
The Nation

July
Fortune
The New Republic
The Nation

EMAIL THIS

Comments

2-1 for Obama. Not surprised. Actually, a little surprised that it's even that close. The MSM of the country have fallen in love with Obama. Anything resembling fair and balanced coverage would have resulted in McCain being the far and away leader for the White House. Only now are some media outlets taking a closer look at Obama and seeing him for the inexperienced leftist he is. As that news gets out more and more, Obama too will fade more and more.

Jesse V., Minn. (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 5:40 PM)

There were several cover photes with the head shot of Obama surrounded with the "halo". That was too much for me to bear. There's bias, and then there's the Obama campaign taking the pictures and printing the magazines. It's looking to be the latter.

Tracy Turner, Wilcox, Texas (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 5:44 PM)

Let's see – I think there's a term for that – oh, yeah… NEWS JUDGMENT! Is anyone stupid enough to claim a medium is obliged to feature an individual who may have done nothing newsworthy that week?

Joe Don, Topeka, KS (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 5:45 PM)

I love the hand waving that is done to explain the obvious bias in the main-stream-media. It makes for a cool breeze during the hot summer months.

Rush L., Florida (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 5:45 PM)

{yawn}

I'm sorry, and this proves *what* exactly? That you all read a lot of magazines? We already know that you are good researchers...

MI Chick (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 5:47 PM)

I think that the reaction to the Obama's is a result of his freshness in the political theater, his charisma, his rock-star status, his age and youthfulness. Being the first African- American to be the candidate of a major party doen't hurt.

To the contraty, I love the feistiness of Michelle. She looks like and acts like the typical American wife and mother.

The obstacles the Obama's have overcome is THE American story and I think the people and the press love it!

Ira, Freehold, NJ (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 5:47 PM)

John McCain is looking for attention, too.

That's why every sentence he utters includes a noun, a verb and Barack Obama (ht Biden). Even the RNC knows that promoting McCain is a waste of money, which is why they are so focused on tearing down their opponent.

Ed G (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 5:47 PM)

What sells? Not the tripe the liberal media is putting out. Readership is cratering for the liberal print media - and for good reason - no one agrees with the people that write that crap.

Matt Strong, Collinsville, Ohio (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 5:48 PM)

The media has become so scared of being "labeled" as liberal biased, that they're afraid to report on McCain objectively out of fear of being 'Rathered' or getting they're nose enlarged by Fox 'News'.

The sooner 'balanced' news is thrown out the door for 'actual' news, then we'll be in a better state. When you're forced to give the republican view of things to explain why torturing someone makes sense, you know you've let the bottom line take over the editorial board.

http://infogiant.wordpress.com/?s=media

infogiant, austin, tx (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 5:48 PM)

A "liberal bias" in the media? You're kidding, right? The reason Obama gets more cover stories is because Obama covers SELL MORE MAGAZINES! The corporate media isn't so stupid that they can't see that. So of course, they put the Obamas on their covers and enjoy the increased revenues from increased sales. Then they follow up with negative garbage, so as not to be accused of a "pro-Obama" bias. They are rotten hypocrites, one and all.

P.S. Could someone in the "special friends" section of Air McCain point out the separate countries of Czech Republic and Slovakia- that would be super, thanks. Seriously, the dissolution of Czechoslovakia was in 1993- is that decade a little too fuzzy for him?

Suburban mom paying attention, IL (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 5:55 PM)

There were two other New Yorker covers with Obama on them:

The Hillary and Obama as Eustace Tilley one:

http://www.newyorker.com/images/covers/2008/2008_02_11_p323.gif

And the "3 AM" one:

http://www.newyorker.com/images/2008/03/17/p154/080317_080317_p154.jpg

Jenna Beacom, Columbus, OH (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 5:56 PM)

Missing from the article are the tenors of the accompying pieces in the magazines.

Stu Hyvonen, Saginaw, MI (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 5:57 PM)

But how many of these were positive and how many were negative?

P, CA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 5:57 PM)

LOL

First Read and First Readers;

After all the written political "caricatures" of the Clinton's promoted by you and the Primary Obamicons are we now feeling some pain in the right foot where the left shoe used to be???

Really?

Satire works on many levels and as a Democrat who talks to people every day here in GA who DO believe SINCERELY that Obama is a madrasas educated Muslim and his wife is an elite but bitter Black American... all I can do is laugh... at them AND the media!

Why? Because I know that I will be explaining the NYer cover to my redneck bretheren in much the same way as I had to explain the Hillary bashing!

I just say, "It's a joke"!

And like the Obamicons say, "Just get over it"!

REALLY!

will, roswell, ga (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 5:58 PM)

You could take the satire as a good sign that the Obama's are being treated like any other politician would be. Fox news points out that Bush had unflattering cartoons out there all the time. The clientele of The New Yorker is sophisticated. The cartoon cover has gone beyond the usual market share reader and is now on every channel. However it is being discussed. The cable channels have a good selection now of intelligent and diverse talking heads. Ultimately the discussion will bring out the false nature of the portrait and highlight the misconceptions that are out there. I think Obama has teflon!

Hermine Clouser (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:01 PM)

Just dont say anything bad or your a racist or biget or monger of some kind. Only high praise of the golden boy can be accepted. Dont show him with a cigarette in his mouth. He is pathetic. He thinks this is another idle show talks like a stand up and tries to woo the women with his jive dance steps. How arrogant someone tell him to get a day job. Oh he has one in Senate he can go try to find restrooms.Said when ask if he was useing it to run he didnt even know where they were yet.Must be he found them sorry.

Mox (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:02 PM)

Or, what doesn't sell. The news media is trying to shove Obama down our collective throats. All these magazines have seen their readership significantly drop off in the last year. When you cater to the left wing extremists, many of whom don't have much money, then you get what you print for.

Ollie Madison (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:04 PM)

To the contraty, I love the feistiness of Michelle. She looks like and acts like the typical American wife and mother.

Ira, Freehold, NJ

-------------

Arrogant and condescending?

Luther Wellbourne, Eden Prairie, MN (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:07 PM)

Looking forward to the first magazine cover with Obama smoking a Pell Mell, or with a depiction of someone with a needle in their arm. Remember how the media treated Bush with the drunk driving charge? Lets see if they get anywhere near Obama with his past drug history.

Pauline Zee, NY (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:10 PM)

Suburban mom paying attention, IL
--> A "liberal bias" in the media? You're kidding, right? The reason Obama gets more cover stories is because Obama covers SELL MORE MAGAZINES!

This would explain the extreme drop off of in magazine sales.

Chicago Guy That Does Not Worship BHO (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:12 PM)

>> The clientele of The New Yorker is sophisticated. The cartoon cover has gone beyond the usual market share reader and is now on every channel <<

I've framed my copy and am hoping to get Obama to autograph it.

Douggie Houser (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:15 PM)

Dirk, Brunswick, Georgia (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:16 PM)

I think it's a reflection that the media is obsessed with making the election all about Obama instead of the horse race it's supposed to be. Everyone seems to believe this election either IS or SHOULD BE a referendum on Obama; I think it should be a referendum on both candidates.

My observation is not a complaint about FR at all; it's an observation that ALL the media is doing this and I think the coverage should be evened out.

I also think the other question is whether the coverage (or scrutiny) has been primarily positive or negative for Obama. Just because he's gotten more coverage doesn't mean it was helpful coverage.

Marihelen TX (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:16 PM)

To Mox: IT'S SPELLED "BIGOT," YOU BIGOT!!

Racist weirdo (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:19 PM)

Conclusion: Obama is not anyting new and exciting. He's just another liberal, only with different wrapping paper.

Clarboo Sunshines (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:19 PM)

If the cartoon was inside a Karl Rove thought bubble (or Fox News, or McCain), it would make some sort of sense. But the New Yorker, while they have the gaul to poke a stick into this issue, doesn't have the nerve to actually point the finger at the dumbies or opportunists that think such things.

Allen, chicago (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:22 PM)

This post seems to be missing something. The New Yorker cover will be talked about all week and linger ominously. Phil Gramm has not been mentioned today. It lasted no more than 2 days.

The media has a favorite & its not Obama.

A Charles, LA, CA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:22 PM)

In order to be fair and balanced I expect The New Yorker to run a "satire" of Bush and McCain highlighting all of the false calumny the left has heaped upon them. Problem is, the left hasn't done so. We have just pointed out the truth which is pretty damning in itself. Though not as outrageous because of the grain of truth involved, I suggest they run a cover of Bush machine-gunning Muslim women and children while God whispers in his ear "heck of job Bushie."

nuanced (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:23 PM)

For all of you about to scream media bias..and I know you...remember that half of those Obama covers were over negative stories.

DV, CA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:24 PM)

Sales may be the objective, but one would expect the coverage to match the design of the magazine’s reputation. It seems that the New Yorker deliberately is a participation of anti-Obama bias. A sophisticated magazine should know that type of slander perpetuates and appeals to poor illiterate Obama haters.

These best they can do to ameliorate this bias is a retraction.

Reputations sell!

Beverly in Chicago (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:25 PM)

Luther Wellbourne, Eden Prairie, MN

Dont like women, do you. Sorry she is docile and submissive while she runs off to make you a sandwich...dork

DV, CA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:27 PM)

This would explain the extreme drop off of in magazine sales.

Chicago Guy That Does Not Worship BHO
***********

If you are going to be witty, try not to use a lie. Circulation actually increases...part from his supporters, part from people like you looking for something to complain about, believe it or not.

DV, CA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:28 PM)

Jesse V., Minn.

I agree. In fact, Obama has far less experienced than his thin resume suggests. He voted "present" more than any other state legislator, and he's never held a Senate subcommittee hearing in his brief time in Washington.

Obama is too radical and too inexperienced to be awarded the Presidency.

McCain 08/12!!
Dirk, Brunswick, Georgia
************

Another example of a spoon fed stooge. Go look up wht voting present actually means. I know, it will pull you away from those reruns of matlock, but try.

DV, CA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:30 PM)

Geez what elists snobs!! They think they have the right to be crass & cruel, and then insinuate we are stupid, or unsophisticated, if we don't "Get it". Frankly, many of us who really are intelligent want no part of their gutter journalism. It's hurtful, rather than humorous.

TLA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:30 PM)

Remember how the media treated Bush with the drunk driving charge? ---Pauline Zee, NY

Actually no I don't remember the media making a big deal about it. I remember them giving him a pass on that one, also on the cocaine use. Was there a documentary about his years of alcoholism that I missed? Could you provide a reference?

I'd love to see an MRI of his brain; I bet that would be revealing.

nuanced (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:30 PM)

The media presents car wrecks and we Americans can't help but watch. I suggest we look the other way...and perhaps hold the media accountable. At the moment we're embroiled in a dysfunctional relationship which could very well take the Country down. Perhaps we do need a Dr. Phil....;)

CD, San Jose, CA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:32 PM)

Tidal Basin (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:32 PM)

THIS STORY IS NOT NEWS, FOLKS!

Carole, Ft. Lauderdale (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:35 PM)

[[I suggest they run a cover of Bush machine-gunning Muslim women and children while God whispers in his ear "heck of job Bushie." ]]

My, the Left is certainly getting rattled. Those new poll results got you people a little down?

Marla Furyek, Orlando FL (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:36 PM)

Oh, Jesse, you sound like a ol' bitter Hillary supporter with retreads. By the way, cut your hair and shave if you expect even a chance to win the Senate seat.

Obama 08 (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:37 PM)

Missing from the article are the tenors of the accompying pieces in the magazines.
Stu Hyvonen, Saginaw, MI (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 5:57
*************

What?

That makes about as much sense as this, a response to my 'New Yorker' comment:

donna is nothing more then a Obama apologist. Barack could do Bernie Macs stand up routine behind at a Presidental podium, and she'd find some way, at least in her mind, to justify it. donna has zero credibility.
Pete Staark, CA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 10:43 AM)

WOW!

If that’s not a confirmation that I’m getting to , (and hopefully through ) to some folks, I don’t know what is!

You’re right, I support my candidate. I would never vex him with carping, and suspicious criticisms because I disagree with him on an issue, or two. I have posted positive comments on both Senator, and Mrs. McCain, even though I vastly disagree with him.

My comments have garnered agreement from posters here, from time to time, as well as objection. You have yet to distinguish yourself with posts that anyone finds remarkable one way or another.

Since sir, you find my opinions an annoyance, please know, I am happy to distress you.

*****************************************************

and this:

I'm about to give up on this site. It's no longer about campaign updates; rather, it's an opportunity for clueless liberals like Donna, Ira and Clara to tell each other how wonderful they are.
Jeff, Tyler TX (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 2:00 PM)
******************************************************

Jealous Jeff,

You neocons are so busy hating, and full of bitterness, that you have no love in you, even for each other.

*****************************************

and this:

In terms of this article in the New Yorker - I think the New Yorker is RIGHT ON TARGET. THANK YOU NEW YORKER FOR TELLING THE FACTS AND PRINTING THE FACTS AS THEY ARE.

On the other hand, it the article would have been about John McCain or even Bill Clinton - the general public would have laughed, probably even John McCain and Bill Clinton.

But, the article must have struck a chord of truth, which is why Obama is so upset -- they say the trugh always hurts ald always strikes to the nerve.

Well, Obama, I for one LOVED this article.

PhD
Versailles, Philadelphia, PA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 2:32 PM)
******************************************************

What do you have a PhD in, lying? The article inside the ‘New Yorker’ was positive for Obama. It is the cover that is offensive. You didn’t read the article. Also, you must have gotten your PhD in your dreams, because your writing skills belie that of the highly educated.

donna (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:38 PM)

Missing from the article are the tenors of the accompying pieces in the magazines. <<<<

The altos were missing too.

Heffey, CA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:38 PM)

To the contraty, I love the feistiness of Michelle. She looks like and acts like the typical American wife and mother.

Ira, Freehold, NJ

-------------

Arrogant and condescending?

Luther Wellbourne, Eden Prairie, MN (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:07 PM)

.............................................
I defy you to tell me how she is condescending. She does not talk down to anyone. She is not artifical when she appears in public. She speaks her mind as she has a right to. Sometimes to the detriment of her husbands campaign.

Condescending is talking about how tight money is and then spending $750,000 on two credit cards in one month.

Michelle is considered arrogant because she is proud that America, a country she has always loved, had the courage to nominate a black man for the highest office of the land.

She is arrogant because she speaks of equality for woman and the poor.

Sadly, by your comment, I think you would have no problem with the New Yorker cover.

Ira, Freehold, NJ (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:42 PM)

Maybe I can start a rumor too!!! Um... uh... I heard that Obama practices a mix of voodoo and muslim called Vooslim. He already built a model of the California forests and lit it on fire! That was his fault!!

If you elect him, he's going to "Pied Piper" all of the white children to his underground cave, call them all "cracker bitterlings" and then teach them a new religion called "Contact Buddhism".

R. Dick Yuleous (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:50 PM)

First Read: I have not been able to sit through many of the talk shows since the Reverend Wright issue began. On air commentators I used to think very highly of - my perception of them has changed dramatically. Frankly, it is unimportant to me how the commentators on the air vote. That's not the issue. Responsibility is the issue. Getting it right is the issue.

It's so hard for me to believe it has to do with ratings. How sad if that is the reason.

The tv media is where our country gets most of their news. The numbers I just saw in Newsweek about the percentage of people who believe Barack is a Muslim, he's unpatriotic and the like - where did that come from?

I would like to know how many on air hours were spent on these subjects. Hour after hour after hour.

I saw very little of our educated journalists trying to dismiss these charges. I saw exploitation around the clock.

Go after Barack Obama all you like. He's fair game as far as his politics are concerned. It seems to me most commentators are taking their que from Fox News.

You can't tell me there's a difference between Obama not wearing a flag pin makes him unpatriotic and Germans being questioned when they didn't do their hiel you know what.

Since when did it become important that only Barack Obama has to wear a flag pin?

As far as middle America, I have a feeling they are way ahead of the commentators as far as Barack Obama is concerned.

Why is it that he blew out Hillary Clinton (the more well known of the two candidates) on Super Tuesday?

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:53 PM)

nuanced (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:23 PM)

In order to be fair and balanced I expect The New Yorker to run a "satire" of Bush and McCain highlighting all of the false calumny the left has heaped upon them. Problem is, the left hasn't done so. We have just pointed out the truth which is pretty damning in itself. Though not as outrageous because of the grain of truth involved, I suggest they run a cover of Bush machine-gunning Muslim women and children while God whispers in his ear "heck of job Bushie."
==============================================

I agree with you except the machine-gunning; however,there are a long list of signs of early Mccain Alzhemier's moments has; which are more than true and appopriate. That's not satire

Beverly in Chicago (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 7:01 PM)

To Chicago Guy That Does Not Worship BHO:

You are right that print magazine sales have steadily decreased over the years. Blaming it on Obama makes very little sense, however, as the corporate media only began to take him seriously after Iowa. As others have accurately noted, not all of the cover stories were positive. The media heads simply realize that mentioning Obama mobilizes people to respond- they don't care if the response is positive or negative. The same could be said for political websites and other media outlets.

Magazines wouldn't be putting Obama on the covers so often if they didn't sell...

Suburban Mom paying attention, IL (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 7:01 PM)

If they have to explain it, then something went wrong. That's just Satire 101. When the patrons walk by and browse the periodicals in every public library, most of them are not going to pick up the magazine and read it. Some of them are going to get it, whisper "R U Sirius?" and chuckle. However, some of them are going to whisper, "Totally" and take it at face value. Trust me, I'm a librarian. So, New Yorker--shoulda thought that one through a little more. I expected better of you. BTW--I'll fight tooth and nail for as many magazines as possible to be on the shelves. But I can choose what to read, and what not to. Poorly done.

librarian Las Vegas, NV (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 7:11 PM)

I suggest they run a cover of Bush machine-gunning Muslim women and children while God whispers in his ear "heck of job Bushie."
nuanced

===========

Shhhh! You're giving away Olbermanns show for tonight!

I (Heart) Keith - Even Though He's a Raving Lunatic (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 7:15 PM)

Reading these messages it is clear that maniacal right wing bloggers are trying to "dumb down" the quality of these posts. How is it possible that McCain is not being seen as a drooling incapacitated alzheimer patient. He mispeaks almost daily, tells outright lies about his voting record on vets, and has the audacity to label Obama an elitist while jetseting around the country in his private plane. This man is surrounded by lobbyists, his economic and energy plans are pandering to the lowest common denominator, and the MSM doesn't hit him on any of it. Just because he was shot out of the air 40 years ago does not make this hostile, violent womanizer a good prospect for POTUS.
Please MSNBC start having the guts to report McCains screw ups. Continue to report Obama's also, we need to know who's the best while there is still time.

Maurice BKFLD CA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 7:18 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1198902