Are you ashamed of the biased presidential coverage?

If someone hangs an Obama doll from a tree in the middle of the forest, and no one is around to see it, then racism does not exist.

 

Seriously - putting aside which side of the political landscape you fall, I figure most of you who have gone through J school have to feel that the coverage of this election has been less than honest and inconsistent with the ideals many of you left school with.

I would love to have an intellectually honest discussion on this topic.

 

Unfortunately, that's almost impossible to do. I remember feeling in 2000 that Bush was getting more favorable coverage than Gore.

I saw that HBO special about the election where the reporters were essentially saying as much. They liked Bush and they didn't like Gore. Was it reflected in their coverage? I would say probably.

Do you give the benefit of the doubt to someone you like over someone you don't? It's not ideal, but it's human nature.


I thought things were pretty even four years ago. Kerry wasn't as likable as Obama and made his share of gaffes that made people not like him. Bush wasn't sitting pretty, but it's not easy to beat an incumbent president, especially when we're at war.

Do I think coverage of this election is biased? Hell yes... Is that because of a liberal bias? Not necessarily. Journalists are drawn to the better story. Is Obama a better story than McCain? Yes, and it's not even close.

Does that result in biased coverage? I don't see how it couldn't.

 

Ok, why do you think the coverage of the election has been biased? Can you point to stories, actual hard news stories, not columns or analysis, that contained editorializing by the writer?

In what stories written about all four candidates were factual errors about what the candidates did and said on a given day made, and where were they misquoted? Where were there factual errors in stories written about their backgrounds, past indiscretions and current investigations?

McCain's campaign has not gone well. Is it biased of the media to point it out? Obama's campaign has gone well. Is it biased of the media to point it out?

Obama leads in most national polls, and appears to be headed for victory. McCain seems headed for defeat. It it biased of the media to point it out?

 

OK. If we're actually going to talk about this, let's talk about it.

First, let's define 'bias.'

Is it active, or passive? Both? Neither? Can it be measured? How? By whom?

Something from the Malone piece I'll address here:

Ineptitude is not 'bias', nor is plagiarism. Even concocting a news story out of whole cloth is not 'bias.' Malone's shame seems to have several sources apart from 'bias.'

So. What is 'bias?'

 

As always, the definition of media bias really means "The media aren't reporting things that match my predetermined viewpoint."

 

Implying that anyone who disagrees with your conclusion is being intellectually dishonest tells us that we shouldn't waste our time on you.

 

Not necessarily. I think there are a lot of us who can look at something we agree with and be able to determine if something isn't balanced.

 

He's not doing that on any level.

 

How would you know? Really, some of us have already said we don't consider the coverage biased. The ground's already been covered, he just chooses to dismiss it.

 

Sigh.

 

Did not even come close to suggesting that Frank. Trying to stay on the side of being intellectually honest myself and also accepting the fact that I have very little knowledge of how journalist really work I leave a lot of room to be proven wrong.

Mizzou makes a great point, perhaps it's more that journalist are drawn to Obama because it's a better story.

Again this really has the makings of one of the better SJ discussions if we can stay away from the insults and past feuds.