A few highlights:
“Before answering the question, indulge us in noting that the subject of ideological bias in the news media is a drag. The people who care about it typically come at the issue with scalding biases of their own. Any statement journalists make on the subject can and will be used against them. So the incentive is to make bland and guarded statements. Even honest ones, meanwhile, will tend to strike partisans as evasive or self-delusional.”
And this:
“There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site — when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring — has made us cringe.
“As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.”
Annnnnnd this:
“Responsible editors would be foolish not to ask themselves the bias question, especially in the closing days of an election.
“But, having asked it, our sincere answer is that of the factors driving coverage of this election — and making it less enjoyable for McCain to read his daily clip file than for Obama — ideological favoritism ranks virtually nil.
“The main reason is that for most journalists, professional obligations trump personal preferences. Most political reporters (investigative journalists tend to have a different psychological makeup) are temperamentally inclined to see multiple sides of a story, and being detached from their own opinions comes relatively easy”
For what it’s worth, as a practitioner this rings true to me.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
Adolf Eichmann commented today on the charges that members of the NSDAP were biased against Jews.
“Nothing could be further from the truth” said the amiable goosestepper. “But when people are engaged in a world wide conspiracy against the aryan race, they’re naturally going to be feeling a little paranoid when things are going badly for them.”
Herman Goring, another high level party member was also quoted on the subject, “Everybody has some bias, it can’t be helped. It would be unrealistic to expect otherwise. We treat the jews the same as we do the gypies and homosexuals. We’re tough but fair, ja?”
Bias isn’t the problem. The news is 10% fact and 90% opinion anyway. Intellectual dishonesty, intentional deception, and malicious reporting are the real problems.
P.S. Screw Godwin.
I don’t buy this article at all. I find it to be low-level distortion.
How would Politico cover John McCain if he purchased a new house alongside a convicted felon? How long would Cindy McCain last if she smeared her country in a speech? If Sarah Palin was running around with a white supremacist preacher and served on a board with Timothy McVeigh, how would that get covered?
They would no longer be running for office.
I work at a daily newspaper. My colleagues are probably 90-percent liberal if you went down the line. Given that, I think 90-percent of bias stories are b.s. If I had a dime for all the “liberal hackery” I’ve been accused of doing I would be rich.
But the narratives this election have been clear. Everytime something or someone threatens Obama, the daggers come out. It’s been relentless.
If the press wants to operate that way, that’s fine. Those editors and producers have their own souls on the line. But you have to be delusional to believe the skepticism and vindictive shared for McCain and Palin is anywhere near Obama’s.
Jim Kowalski from Chicago.
White Republican
Serves on Board with 55 year old Timothy McVeigh for nearly 10 years.
Attends White Aryan Church for 20 years.
Does this guy even get close enough to sniff the White House? Not bloody likely.
Floyd/JohnFN,
I absolutely agree with your “if the shoe were on the other foot” hypothesis, but I think that has much more to do with skin color than party.