Comparative study of inaugural coverage

V.C.:

My media column in today's Rocky Mountain News compared how much coverage the News and the Denver Post provided in the pre-inaugural week for the most recent inauguration, versus Clinton in 1993 and Bush in 2001 (which like 2009, featured a change of party). Since the Obama inauguration was said to be "historic," I also examined coverage of two other inaugurations which had some similarities (in terms of obvious historic character) with 2009: JFK in 1961, and Reagan in 1981. The results don't provide evidence of a pro-Democratic bias, since Bush 2001 and Clinton 1993 were about equal in quantity of coverage, as measured by the number of staff-written stories. Indeed, the 1961, 1981, 1993, and 2001 inaugurals were about equal in terms of coverage. These were dwarfed by the amount of coverage for Obama 2009.

One commentator:

Sure, it's just press infatuation... I mean, there's nothing else historic going on here. It's not like he's BLACK or anything. Otherwise, it's just like Reagan getting elected...

How do you guys keep a straight face when you write nonsense like that?

And it's not like Bush had historic low approval ratings or anything.