Are you ashamed of the biased presidential coverage?

[toolsofignorance]

Paper, Obama himself has been repeating over and over to his supporters to not get complacent. I don't think he's taking anything for granted.

I'm going to throw my own two cents in here and repeat something a friend said the other day: the facts have a liberal bias. Look at both campaigns and tell me with a straight face that it is possible to give "equal" negative and positive coverage to each. The McCain/Palin ticket is simply a sinking ship right now, and much of it is their own doing. To ignore what's going on in their camp or force more positive stories would be more worthy of shame, in my opinion.

 

[steveu]

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.

To a lesser extent, some of the MSM was in the tank for Bill Clinton in 1992. I think they did their jobs once everything started breaking about him.

 

[Boom_70]

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.

To a lesser extent, some of the MSM was in the tank for Bill Clinton in 1992. I think they did their jobs once everything started breaking about him.

The New York Times broke Whitewater

 

[shotglass]

I am very ashamed of the media's bias.

And it should be especially frightening that the fact could be pointed out to the guilty, and they still wouldn't be able to do anything about it. It's just too ingrained.

They think "being on the side of right" is more important than being fair-handed. And they refuse to recognize that the "side of right" is not an absolute.

That's scary.

 

[mudduck]

I do have a dog in this fight, a very little toy chihuahua type dog, but a dog nonetheless.

I wrote a couple stories related to a campaign stop recently. On our newspaper's online comments, my paper and myself were both accused of being liberal and being right-wing nut cases.

From the same story.

So much of this is perception it's not even funny.

 

[DanOregon]

Lets be real. The media (with a few exceptions) doesn't just make stuff up, instead they amplify things, good and bad.
McCain is the one who chose Palin. Palin is the one who was unprepared for her interviews, McCain is the one who was perceived as doing poorly by the people watching the debates. To not report this or to overplay negative Obama stories to "play fair" I think is dishonest. There has been a lot of criticism of Obama's policies, I just don't think it's registered with the public because Palin is the fresher story.
I think the worst thing you can do is try and balance out a negative story with a negative story about the other candidate. Likewise with positive stories.
The study was based on the six weeks since the GOP convention, which is roughly the time Palin was introduced to America. Obama and Biden have been in the public eye a lot longer than that. Take all the negative stuff that has been written about Obama and Biden over the years (Wright, Rezco, plagerizing) and compare it to the Palin stories in the last six weeks. I think it just seems McCain's received unfair treatment because the Palin stories have come in such a condensed period.

 

[Boom_70]

I am very ashamed of the media's bias.

And it should be especially frightening that the fact could be pointed out to the guilty, and they still wouldn't be able to do anything about it. It's just too ingrained.

They think "being on the side of right" is more important than being fair-handed. And they refuse to recognize that the "side of right" is not an absolute.

That's scary.

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

 

[old_tony]

It continues to amaze me that conservative journalists -- and there are a lot more of you than you think -- talk about how some copy editors at their shop or sports writers on a message board talk about how great Obama/awful McCain is, and that's proof of liberal media bias.

One more time:

I don't give a damn if every person on this board, every person you work with, every media member in the world carries an ACLU card. The only measure of media bias is in the news that is put out for public consumption.

And, by any sane measure, if you're going to make a case that the media were against the war in Iraq or have been out to get John McCain -- who, only half-jokingly, has called the media his "base" -- well, good luck with that.

The evidence is incredibly flimsy, as the column that this thread is based on shows.

Just keep yelling "Lalalalalalalalala" with your fingers in your ears, Joe.

 

[old_tony]

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.

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.

What makes you think the next two years will be different from the last two years?

 

[I Digress]

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.

How do you explain no one doing their jobs when Bush lied us into a war?

 

[Boom_70]

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.

How do you explain no one doing their jobs when Bush lied us into a war?

As said earlier The NY Times was complicit in helping Bush make the case for war. See Miller, Judith.

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

To me, the biggest disappointment is the expectation of partisanship. I can't remember who it was, but when Palin was selected as McCain's running-mate, someone posted an off-air YouTube clip of a female conservative commentator ripping the choice. However, when this "expert" was on the air, she defended the decision.

That's what kills me.

Networks/newspapers/radio stations/whatever hire these panellists, and all they do is defend "their side," in most cases. There is no honesty. Very few of them will ever say, "This is bad," or, "We're making a mistake." Those doing the hiring are complicit in that, because they want confrontation.