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

Good thing he looks like Muammar Kadhafi and not the Prophet Mohammed. The New Yorker apparently learned something from those Danish cartoonists.

Doesn't Obama insult Islam when the campaign gets so outraged by insinuation that he is a Muslim? After all, there is nothing wrong with being Muslim.

Richard, Washington State (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 7:27 PM)

I recall seeing several very demeaning covers and cartoons about HRC during the primary. Where were you Obamatots then? Why weren't you crying out how unfair they were? Again, you're a bunch of hypocrites. I'm glad FR put their list together to show that Obama is over 2-1 on covers over McCain. PLEASE all you Obamatots think of that before you cry media bias again!

NObama (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 7:33 PM)

Nuanced:

The left has just pointed out its opinion of the truth.

And thanks again for offering yours.

Richard, Washington State (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 7:38 PM)

Maybe it's because Obama was involved in a nomination fight that was in the news 24/7 while McCain was just hanging around, kinda waiting for him, and taking weekends off!

Jamil - Dearborn, MI (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 7:40 PM)

No big deal. It's only natural that a messiah would get more covers and coverage. Just ask Elvis.

Richard, Washington State (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 7:45 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

++++++++++

Well, no doubt you are correct that the people in the press love him. And that's where the press bias talk comes from. We are not electing a "rock-star". I don't think this nation believes a Britney Spears or a Justine Timeberlake quite measure up to the job, and neither does Obama. No doubt the man [Obama] gives a good speech, but have you ever read through one of his speeches? All fluff and no substance. Cotton candy for the masses. The man is actually fairly vacant of any real ideas.

Obama is fraud that borders on someones idea of a bad joke.

Crystal Levens, St. Cloud. MN (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 8:08 PM)

To Dirk (Brunswick, GA):

When is the last time Sen McCcain showed up in the Senate to cast a vote? He is still a sitting Senator from Arizona - isn't he? Is it because he is afraid the American people will hold him accountable for his votes?

At least Sen Obama shows up and casts a vote - for the record.

You post sounds as stupid as your candidate --

Obama '08

Liz, NY (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 8:11 PM)

Pauline Zee, NY said: " Remember how the media treated Bush with the drunk driving charges? Let's see if they get anywhere near Obama with is past drug history". 1. Are you saying that Obama has drug charges against him? 2.What "drug history"? Don't you have him confused with the other candidate's wife?

margaret, baltimore, md. (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 8:11 PM)

FR, you missed the magazine cover with McCain, its
called...Out to Pasture. Does McCain look good in front of any color other than stainless steel??

Heather, WA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 8:20 PM)

I am told that some guy named Shakespeare once wrote a play entitled "Much Ado About Nothing" a few years back. Well, it appears to me that the title is still timely today.

Everybody, please calm down. It is just a satirical magazine cover. It was not intended to maim or destroy. It was not intended to ruin your life.

Those people who intend to vote for Obama are still going to vote for Obama and those people who read NY magazine are still going to read the magazine.

Take a deep breath and relax.

James Lee Chatsworth, GA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 8:34 PM)

What is really funny is a video that I saw on you -tube where Chris Matthew did not know that the camera was running and he said something in a very angry tone while talking to his colleagues : "...You know this is all bull and we are just a bunch of actors here!" It makes you wonder just how much MSNBC is bought for the Obama camp!

schmeck, Orlando (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 8:38 PM)

What is really funny is a video that I saw on you -tube where Chris Matthews did not know that the camera was running and he said something in a very angry tone while talking to his colleagues : "...You know this is all bull and we are just a bunch of actors here!" It makes you wonder just how much MSNBC is paid for the Obama camp!

schmeck, Orlando (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 8:41 PM)

Jesse V., Minn., obviously you didn't read the article at all, which plainly stated that Obama was on the covers of RIGHT-leaning ideology magazines as well. He's just the one who SELLS more copies, whether you like it or not. They know it, and you should too. McCaint is a snooze. ditto, dirk, brunswick, georgia, you obviously don't know what the "present" vote really means. It's not a roll call. It's the essence of a line item veto, not a "yes," passing a measure, and not a "no," rejecting ALL points of a measure. Obama's votes actually show that he doesn't take as hard fast positions on so many issues as so many other politicians, that he recognizes the nuances in certain truths. It's okay. I know you didn't have enough info to know that. Also, do you knwo how many votes McCan't wasn't even 'present' for - wasn't there to vote, including this recent FISA bill? I didn't think so.
will, roswell, ga., none of the other candidates/presidents/vice presidents featured in the past had been negatively DEFINED by the content of what was featured about them on any of the other covers. THIS cover of the Obamas - the fact that it propogates the very fear/hate smear that the Obamas are trying to overcome, and have already been WRONGLY identified by, and the existence of so many low information voters such as those you talk to in GA. who feed on the lies, REFUSE to believe the truth right in front of you, in preference to hanging onto your raced-based fear, and that so many of those same low info voters will base their votes on what reaction they get from what they SEE on the cover and not from anything substantive and TRUE (i.e. that they would NEVER open the magazine to READ the article inside which flatly CONTRADICTS the cover) are exactly the reasons why this cover went over the top (it was irresponsible and tasteless), and why BOTH the Obama AND McCain camps denounced it. Satire is only legitimately so when no one TRULY believes what they see/read, but get the relationship to the subject, and thus, "get" the joke. It's NOT a joke to so many who TRULY BELIEVE the content of the cover, so it shouldn't be for those of us who know it to be false, and have to work that much harder now to try to remove the image from these voters' minds. Right, Allen, chicago, I agree.
mox, I got nothing whatsoever from your garbled diatribe. I suggest YOU go find a "day job." Harvard educated, Constitution Scholar Obama already has one.
Marihelen, TX, Camp McCain won't allow that even coverage you speak of. Journalists have to say something positive about him (even when he's flipped or flopped, said something negative or one of his surrogates has, or when he's made no news at all), or else they get nothing to report - they haven't "earned" their way onto the "Straight Talk Express." Yes, A Charles, LA, CA, and DV, CA, that's right.

sheribaby, St. Louis, MO. (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 9:11 PM)

The difference between a Colbert report or a John Stewart comment and the new yorker cover is that Colbert and Stewart are both television shows while the New Yorker is a national magazine with an image, with no explanation or caption on the cover (mind you). An image that people remember.. as the ad says a picture lasts forever. Satire is suppose to be ironic and funny, bigotry and stereotypes such as the one published by the new yorker is NOT Funny or Cute!. There is such thing as responsible journalism -- we're not talking about censorship- but one must practice responsible judgement when it comes to publishing images especially during a presidential campaign. It is sad but alot of people in this country do not vote according to issues but by mental images (and sterotypes).

Sunny (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 9:50 PM)

Gee the cover of that magazine sure did not resemble Jackie Kennedy or president Kennedy.Could it be the Obamas are really not the next Camelot? PS------is it true the Obamas are not getting as many donations as they want?I am still getting Obama letters to donate and had a call from Obama headquarters in Boston---all they asked for was $20 and said nasty things about Mccain.After they took my Senator Clinton vote away and gave it to Obama that is the last thing they will ever get from me.

MI voter (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 10:53 PM)

Not surprised a bit. Obama was relatively unknown to many and may still be to low info voters. The msm is also really out of touch with the reality of average americans - they're pushing their own agenda, not that of the middle class.

NotFooledByDistractions (Sent Tuesday, July 15, 2008 1:21 AM)

I think it's all big business, editors are looking at what sells and then whatever political statement can be made... http://www.enewsreference.com

eNews Reference (Sent Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:24 AM)

What sells is what is what's hot. In America unfortunately it is still keeping black people in there places by the old, uneducated, culturally brainwashed, rich and poor establishments. So the New Yorker takes a flight under the radar in the name of Art, that was real white of them.
I think it would only be appropriate if they gave their same attlention to McCain and his wife. The cover could be as cold as the one about the Obama family.

Would white America really appreciate seeing McCain's wife giving him some uppers to keep him going on the campaign trail? I'd like to see the New Yorker Esplain (as our Hispanis brothers and sisters say) that as Art......generating a few million T-shirts.
It's very obvious that white America is doing everything it can to help McCain and ruin this country (based on his platform), white is right and they will take us all down before they act in a civil manner.
In closing, I hope (they have better sense than that)the New Yorker will not do that to Mr. and Mrs. McCain, I think the republican party has done enough damage to them, Obama and McCain would be great running mates in that order. It would give McCain a change to really be himself and make history.

Dutchboy52 (Sent Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:41 AM)

Mox (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 6:02 PM), did you really use the JIVE in your comments? Just how old are you. The word JIVE has not been used since the early 80s. Does JJ Walker live across the street from you or something?

Gotta Love the 80s (Sent Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:05 AM)

So, We are going to report about a cartoon for weeks in the media and ignore the issues as usual, this is just another example of the medias love affair with itself. I have talked to many people who are tired of the media and how it talks about itself over and over again.
I and many others have grown tired of the self love of the media and have turned our TVs off in favor of less garbage. Ahhhhh, the sweet sound of nothing is better than the self promotion that is considered news. If all we get now are stories about the media we are left wondering if the media is not the real problem.

John Alexander,PA (Sent Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:42 AM)

<< Previous

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