Bias on bias
One-two punch for an election-eve finish. A veteran journalist has decided it’s time for him to weigh in on media bias. It seemed the 2008 election had become enough of a concern that it was time for him to descend to the level of ordinary mortals with opinions. His mystery opponent was the candidate who has benefited from "the obviously one-sided reporting." His scapegoat? Newspaper editors who are bitter about their career trajectories. According to Michael Malone, these editors think a President Barack Obama might change things around for them. So they convince themselves to order up more pro-Obama coverage from their reporters.
A Hot Pie on the Windowsill
By Christopher Lyle
This article had potential, but crashed and burned when the author revealed his own painfully obvious bias. First of all, the media’s bias is no secret. But second of all, it is NOT one sided. Two words: FOX NEWS. wait here’s two more: DRUDGE REPORT. Hmm… two of the largest news outlets in their respective markets, and completely and painfully head over heals for McCain and the Republican Party.
There are huge biases on both sides, and the reporting has been ravenous! The fault lies strictly and solely with this election. Its historical implications have brought out, it seems, an almost primitive, instinctual nature in everyone. Conservative extremists see the beginnings of the end of their very way of life. An American fundamental that has been dominant for decades: The Christian Nation. Liberals see the potential beginnings of a new era in mankind almost a finger touch away, even closer than when it was yearned for so badly in the 2000 election. Moderates on both sides place great importance on more centrist issues, such as the economy– their opinions greatly dependent on their class/creed.
This election comes as what could be the final showdown of the culture wars. Though not many have come out and said it, that is the reality. If Obama wins and does a good job, the religious conservatives’ ability to convince voters to go against their own interest based on moral commonground (i.e: "if Kerry wins, gays will get married"), will fail. And without that edge, the Republican party will fail. They know it. The chips are on the table, and the stakes are so much higher than most people realize. That is why even the media, who as we’ve just seen pride themselves on their ability to evaluate based on facts and not personal bias, are racing to either side.
"And then the opportunity presents itself — an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career… you tell yourself, it’s all for the good of the country… "
What does the above quote really suggest other than: "I’m voting for John McCain"? Seriously! Has the author lost his mind? For those of you who don’t fully understand the implications of the author, he’s suggesting that there is a conspiracy afoot by the mainstream media to elect Barrack Obama, because doing so will somehow save their careers. Well, he gives a rather short, paranoid explanation for his feelings on the matter (completely ridiculous and intellectually insulting), but that’s not the point. For anyone reporting on this election, taking a side is not only inevitable because of ideology or cultural orientation, it’s a hot pie cooling on the windowsill of ratings and recognition– and Michael S. Malone just couldn’t resist. No one can truly relate to someone with no opinion, that’s one reason its hard as an ambitious journalist to remain indifferent. But hard as it may be, it’s still your duty, sir. As it is the duty of all reporting media. You’ve sold your soul, Malone. Congratulations on becoming just another notch on the belt of bullshit.
But sorry, Michael, history will not remember the "scrutiny of the media," be it liberal or conservative. It will remember the movement. The refusal of the country to sit back and watch as we become even fatter, more superstitious, and more intolerant. And if you ask me, its a damned good thing, because on the current and tired trajectory of The United States of America, we drive ourselves closer and closer to oblivion.
When countries embrace debunked philosophies and corroded values, the rest of the world moves forward without them. The only way to then maintain support and unconditional acceptance of its sovereignty, is through fear, and the promise of exclusive rewards to club members.
Sound familiar?
A Rallying Cry
By Tatiana Prophet
Wow, what a missed opportunity. The writer of a column about media bias in this year’s presidential election manages to betray a bias himself, not by weighing in on the "bias" issue, but by getting inside the head of an imaginary washed-up newspaper editor and analyzing his thought process, discovering a scenario in which the editor sees a way to salvage his own career by assigning more favorable coverage to Barack Obama.
As one reader pointed out, look how popular this article is. Exactly. Anything with a link on the Drudge Report fills the e-mails and social networking sites of Republicans and "jacked" libertarians across the country, as they find columns, even "articles," that bolster their carefully constructed world view. On the Democratic side, the same is true for The Huffington Post, Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo, to name a few liberal blogs. And whenever one of these blog sites links to a story, the news outlet is flooded with comments — usually from, you guessed it, whichever party feels that it bolsters their case. (By the way, when did "blog" become synonymous with "opinion"? I thought bloggers broke stories too.)
I don’t think I bleed ink like Mr. Malone, but I did work as a reporter and editor for several newspapers over many years. And I can say that bias is certainly a problem. It is definitely frowned upon, but it still happens. The tricky part is when editors or reporters are unconscious of having a bias, by claiming for example that they’re killing a story for a different reason other than because it offends them. Mr. Malone is right that a good reporter fights his own bias at all times, striving for fair coverage to the opinion he does not happen to hold. We reporters truly seem to be more loyal to our craft than to political ideology. When the chips are down, a misbehaving politician is still a great story, no matter who’s side that leader is on. But there are so many areas in between, which cause us to decide whether to pursue a story at all, or just let that phone tip die on a curled Post-It. Sometimes it’s just sheer exhaustion or a packed schedule, that causes other stories to get neglected. Of course that extra energy seems to course through our arteries when the topic hits close to a pet issue.
Instead of feeding the intricate discussion of journalistic balance, Mr. Malone issued a rallying cry to everyone who still, somehow, drives an F150 to the office. Instead of discussing education and standards for separating fact from opinion, he invoked the Constitution to express the extreme degree to which election coverage has gone astray. It sounds like Mr. Malone has been around a long time, so I’m guessing he remembers several decades of journalism. I’m sure he knows that bias has always been a problem, and it is only becoming worse on all sides.
An impartial (ha ha) study has just come out regarding coverage of the candidates by the major networks, including FOX News and MSNBC.
Read a report on the study here
"In cable, the evidence firmly suggests there now really is an ideological divide between two of the three channels, at least in their coverage of the campaign," wrote the authors of the study, done by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.
"Things look much better for Barack Obama—and much worse for John McCain—on MSNBC than in most other news outlets. On the Fox News Channel, the coverage of the presidential candidates is something of a mirror image of that seen on MSNBC."
An L.A. Times article on the study noted that negative coverage usually had more to do with how the candidate was doing in the polls or the primaries rather than showing a bias. Even Obama enjoyed a deflation in positive coverage after the Republican National Convention.
The story says:
"Although the authors acknowledged some observers would use the findings to argue that the major media have a pro-Obama bias, they said their data did not provide conclusive answers. They noted that coverage of Republicans and Democrats in this and other recent presidential elections seemed to have more to do with their success than with their party affiliation.
"The group’s research in 2000, for example, found that Democrat Al Gore got a level of negative coverage almost identical to the level Republican McCain is now receiving. Coverage of then-Gov. George W. Bush that year was more positive than Gore’s, but more negative than Obama’s has been this time.
"The findings present ‘a strong suggestion that winning in politics begat winning coverage,’ the Washington-based group found. ‘Obama’s coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain.’ "
Why don’t you actually talk about bias, Mr. Malone, instead of just being biased yourself? At least you could have killed two birds with one stone.