OK, those of you who took me to task for my election comments. Don't take my word for it, here's the Ombudsman from the Washington Post about the Washington Post (If you click on the link and get the free sign in request you can avoid all that by going to google, search for Washington Post, go to the site and do a site search on "Ombudsman. "Here's some info from journalism.org with similar findings:
I found the Ombudsman's comments on the idea that issue stories were lacking, that any comparable probing of Obama/Biden were lacking in comparison to their opponents interesting very interesting.
What she fails to even talk about is the complete lack of coverage of the third party candidates and the bias that also represents. It is troubling, as the Ombudsman points out, that the horse race became the issue and not the issues themselves.
Again, I was not a supporter of either candidate, but I do believe in a fair and aggressive media. I just didn't see that in the last election.
Unless I see anything else that makes my original statements look correct, I'll shut up on this issue now. How's that for bias?
7 comments:
Funny, I don't recall all this wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth about "media bias" when W and the Supreme Court stole the 2000 election and then W swiftboated his way back into the White House in '04. If the media has the ability to hoodwink people into voting for Dems, how did it strike out in two consecutive elections, including '04, when the war was going very badly.
Barack Obama won counties across this country that haven't gone Democratic in 60 years. Presumably those voters aren't reading "liberal" papers and watching Keith Olbermann -- they're just tired of the status quo. That must torture the Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys of the world, who found out that the American people weren't going to be suckered in by Rove-ian smear tactics anymore.
Not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes an apple is just an apple.
Also, Ralph Nader might have some credibility with media if he didn't just come out of his '60s rabbit hole every four years to be a demagogue.
Inky:
I honestly think that the election turned on the economy (it always does). When the economy is in the tank (think 1992) we know what the outcome is.
When the economy is good, it doesn't have the same effect.
My ONLY point is that the media tanked for Obama (ask Hillary) because most of the media writers like him. Actually, I like him, but that doesn't mean I don't think the media should do its job.
For two years we heard about how his economic plan would help our country.
On Friday, at his post election press conference, he said he will now formulate an economic plan by the time he is inaugurated.
So did he have a plan, or not? The media did a poor job (on both candidates) of investigating their issues in depth.
Too much horse race, not enough mucking the stalls.
In case you missed it, I hated the attacks on Obama, I think Obama ran a pretty high minded campaign, but that still doesn't excuse the media from doing a job on both sides.
As one other poster remarked in an earlier comment, I'm an old, retired journalist from the old school of newspapers. So maybe my time is past.
Voters, as they always do, voted with the wallets. What we don't yet know is what they voted for. They voted for change, but not one reputable news outlet ever got down and dirty to identify what the "change" was.
My only point.
Inky,
As to W and the Supreme Court stealing the vote, I remember a lot of hand wringing going on.
As your post proves, the hand wringing has continued for 8 years.
You will have to admit if the decision had gone the other way, there would have been plenty of crying for 8 years the other way.
Either way the 2000 election would have been "stolen."
This fiasco makes me think that newspapers should try--at the very least--to be unbiased by doing the unthinkable: don't endorse candidates. Can we really expect a newspaper to be fair and unbiased in its coverage if it endorses someone? I think not.
As for the "media bias" when Bush won in 2000, give me a break. Hasn't even the liberal Miami Herald grudgingly admitted that no matter how the ballots are counted, Bush still won Florida?
I did not say there was "media bias" in 2000. What I said was that no one was complaining about a biased media when the GOP candidate won AND, furthermore, that if the media alone had the ability to swing elections, why didn't it work in 2000 and 2004?
Interesting concept, re: newspapers not endorsing candidates. Unfortunately for many papers, though, it's the only speck of community leadership being exercised. Maybe that'll make a nice dissertation for somebody someday.
I find the Post's "analysis" extremely lacking. Most of it is simply counting up stories, with no hint at the methodology used to determine what was pro-Obama or anti-McCain. Second, when McCain is running numerous attack adds with blatant lies, there are bound to be more "negative" stories about him. Finally, Palin was part of the campaign. How can you evaluate campaign coverage without including the dozens of Palin stories, most of which were positive, especially shortly after her announcement.
Basically, I just think this is a frivolous evaluation. There's just not enough rigor. The ombudsman is guilty of the same thing she's accusing the political reporter of.
Nice post-election commentary, Mr. Jim. As a long-time toiler in the fields of the mainstream media, I was disturbed and disgusted by how openly the MSM was pulling for Obama.
As I recall, an MSM bigwig (perhaps the editor of Time magazine) confessed in 2004 that the power of the news media added 15% to the poll ratings of a liberal/progressive/Democratic candidate for office.
The fact that reporters spent more time sifting into the background of "Joe the Plumber" than Barack Obama should be terrifying to the public. The media's power to destroy a person -- a public or private personality -- remains unchecked, and it is very, very dangerous.
I don't know why Obama talked about 57 states or why Biden brought up FDR's TV appearance during the 1929 stock market crash. All I do know is I would never have made such blunders no matter who drunk, high or sleep-deprived I was. Both were statements of fools.
Speaking of fools, I must protest the media's double standard vis-a-vis the coverage of Dan Quayle's potatoe/potato gaffe. Almost completely ignored in the mocking of Quayle (whom I've never particularly supported) is the fact that the spelling bee card used by Quayle -- presumably prepared by a teacher -- listed the spelling of potato as "potatoe."
As a professional nitpicker (copy editor) I would have caught the blunder, but Quayle was a politician; if something is spooned out for him, by God, that's what he was going to say, just as if his Teleprompter told him to say, "Bush is dog poo." Any scorn for the "potatoe" fiasco ultimately rests on the anonymous person/teacher who wrote "potatoe" on his answer card.
More to come later.
Gamaliel
Post a Comment