Are you ashamed of the biased presidential coverage?

After 22 years in the business, having been a journalist now for 6 presidential election cycles, I am very much ashamed.

More than that, as a result of this bias, you have to ask yourself one extremely important question, a question that you simply cannot dismiss: (and sorry if this has been covered already, but I didn't completely read through all five pages so far):

Who's going to be the watchdog in an Obama administration?

Say what you want about the media, but down through the years it's been the media that has been the gatekeeper between politicians and the public. It was the media that uncovered Watergate and virtually every other scandal in U.S. political history. For the most part, it keeps politicians honest.

But with this love-fest going on for Obama, what journalist, what news organization, is going to step up with its own system of checks and balances to keep an Obama administration honest?

Fox? That's about it. Most media organizations, mainstream anyway, will be spending a great deal of time patting themselves on the back for helping to get Obama elected, instead of serving as the independent, unbiased liaisons they should be.

You think George W. Bush keeps journalists at bay with his lack of press conferences and such? Just wait until an Obama administration takes over, buoyed by a fawning mainstream media. It has to be a concern if you're a serious journalist.

 

Oh puh-leeze.

Reporters will do their jobs no matter who is in the White House. They will do their jobs no worse if Obama wins than if McCain wins.

 

With the tendency that the left has in this country to, well, eat their own ... I think you'll see the press being even MORE of a watchdog for an Obama administration than they were for Bush's.

I also think it's safe to say the so-called "liberal media" didn't do much watch-dogging against the current administration before we invaded Iraq.

Not sure what your "concerns" are based on, then.

 

The "media" (again, it's so ridiculous that some people throw that term out there like it's a giant left leaning army of cyborgs) will smell blood in the water the first time Obama stumbles, and then they will converge like hungry sharks. And unlike the previous administration, Obama will actually hold press conferences, which the lazy White House press corps loves, so they can act tough without doing any of the work.

All this "bias! bias! bias!" horseshit still can't produce actual examples of this, and conveniently forgets that the press hounded Bill Clinton about Bosnia, gays in the military, getting stupid hair cut on Air Force One and forcing everyone to wait for him, intern fucking (it was douchy Michael Isikoff who was about to break the Monica story before his editors killed it, letting Drudge lead the way, if you remember).

Show your work. An anecdote about the clerks in sports celebrating Obama's victory in the primaries or calling Cindy McCain and See You Next Tuesday isn't an example of bias.

 

You are saying that reporters and editors are going to sacrifice personal gains, such as Pulitzer Prizes and promotions and raises in an increasingly competitive and shrinking job market, by pretending they didn't see that blockbuster story, all in order to further a politician's career? How utterly selfless these reporters must be! You actually know people like that? Because I sure don't.

 

I agree with Joe. People in the media have biases of all kind. Comes with being human. I have favorite teams and political candidates I prefer based on my life experiences, but I would be offended if someone assumes that I can't be an impartial journalist because of it. That's what the job is about and I believe most journalists (not analysts and commentators) are pretty good at putting their personal feelings aside. Good luck finding a reporter with no leanings toward politics, teams, sports or hobbies.

 

Politico's take, which is largely based on a Pew Research Center study.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081028/pl_politico/14982

It is what it is. I'm sure Obama backers can find a reason why this extreme slant is in fact simply a reflection of fact and real news, while I'm sure McCain backers can find a reason why this extreme slant reflects some sort of actual bias.

 

Why don't you post more of that column? You know, like this?

Or ...

 

After skimming the first few pages of this thread, I'm amazed that the majority of people on this board are smart enough to write for a living.

 

Coverage was clearly biased and the industry has a lot of egg on their face but I still don't buy your idea that their will be no watchdog for the Obama administration.

Heck the NY Times should be considered a co conspirator in helping Bush build a case for the Iraq war.

 

Inky Wretch, I thought about posting the whole column but thought that would be inappropriate. I don't know how many cents that's worth to Yahoo, Politico, whoever, but it seemed like the right thing to do.

I didn't find the commentary itself very insightful, but I thought the study was at least food for thought. Hence, that was the excerpt I chose.

 

It's sort of like porn, DD.

I don't want to be grouped with the people who think the liberal media hide big stories to get their candidates elected. That's all a crock.

I'm just saying the TV coverage is especially bad about hiding who they want to win and newspapers aren't giving me the stories I want to read. Fuck Ayers. Fuck Wright. Someone please link some good readers on Obama's campaign, his challenges and his problems. (Pierce's story on this board was a good example). I'm a little uneasy about reading and watching all these stories about how Obama is floating to victory. Maybe Obama would be a little more nervous if we'd stop writing about how he's going to win easily.

I won't be surprised at all if he loses, and the cheerleaders are going to have egg on their face.