Are you ashamed of the biased presidential coverage?

Ouch. They better do that AFTER work, on their own time, and not in the newsroom. No cheering in the press box, and no celebrating on Election Day.

That's pretty awful. Be a fucking professional.

 

Apropos of nothing, whenever I see Pilot post, I wanna say "ho, ho, ho, it's magic" [/onehitwonderobssession]

 

Yeah, sorry I didn't clarify. They are/(hopefully were) going to bring it to work.

 

I'm not ashamed. Disgusted perhaps.

Oh well...

 

I thought this was a tradition after every Presidential election? Ask them if they popped a cork after the last two?

 

Let me preface by saying: I wouldn't take part in that. It is, indeed, unprofessional.

But will these sentiments be reflected in the news that is put out for public consumption?

No?

Then it's not bias, no matter how much the right-wing victims insist it is.

 

If your beat writer celebrated when the local team won a title, would you think he could be capable of giving you unbiased coverage?

 

Game. Set. Match.

 

If he's an ardent fan of the team, I wouldn't have him as my beat writer.

Are these reporters and copy editors covering the Obama campaign? Are they writing any stories concerning the election?

By all means, it sounds like you need to be writing a letter to the news organizations whose people -- Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw among them -- who sang Happy Birthday to McCain, and the reporters who took in the BBQ and beer at his Sedona ranch. They have a slight more impact on campaign coverage.

 

The only person that really makes me uncomfortable is Larry King. He's openly biased but he still tries to play it off as a neutral.

He's practically salivating at the thought of an Obama win. Now, I don't blame him, but I see him in a different light now.

 

It's the same concept with that dust-up Scarborough started a few months back, when he said that the MSNBC newsroom booed Bush during the 2003 State of the Union, when he was talking about the need to invade Iraq.

OK, even stipulating that unlikely story is true, if one thinks that's proof of a media bias against Bush and the Iraq invasion, that person didn't see ... oh, let's think ... yeah, that's right, none of the actual "reporting" done on MSNBC or just about any news organization not named Knight-Ridder in 2003.

 

I think I'm at the point now where I can't turn on television and not see a news reporter where it's not 100 percent obvious that they're biased in either direction.

I actually think the ones who are the most fair are the ones like Stephanopolous where we know their backgrounds, but they go out of their way to try to be as unbiased as possible.