Posts with the tag 'Media Bias'
The one thing that this presidential race has shown is that the pundits are about as useful a magic eight ball in predicting the outcome of this race. Whether it was last years numerous predictions about exactly when Senator McCain would drop out of the race, and who he would support when he did; or the Clinton ‘inevitablity’ statements, at almost every turn the media has guessed wrong. However, in a race that is historic and fascinating pundits are still endlessly featured on every cable news network.
Here’s a suggestion for the media, put away your crystal ball and do some reporting. There are plenty of issues that all three candidates address frequently that the media never bothers to discuss. Last week there was a back and forth between the Obama and McCain campaign about diplomacy, who a president talks to and under what circumstances. This was covered in the media as campaign bickering when in reality this is a serious issue that deserved more that superficial grade school level reporting.
If the press is looking for a new aspect of the race to cover report, how about the effect the internet is having on the race. This is a completely new and unknown element of politics. Does it help? Could it hurt? Will there be a backlash from Obama supporters over the top Clinton criticisms, or will this just get lost in cyberspace? Who reads political blogs? Who comments on political blogs? This is something completely new and the main steam media covers this like it does many topics; very lightly. It will be interesting to see as the internet continues to develop if the main stream media’s lack of depth will limit its future.
Tags: cnn, fox news, internet politics, Media Bias, media criticism, media critique, msnbc, presidential politics, punditry, pundits, web politics
May 25th, 2008
I’m sure by now everyone has read the Washington Post piece by Jamie Rubin in which he suggests John McCain wanted to meet Hamas without preconditions.
As the day continued, it became clear that Rubin was being somewhat less that forthright.
It turns out that he was flat out lying. The McCain Campaign released a video with the full answer to the question today, including this bit Rubin couldn’t be bothered to include in his piece.
Rubin: “So should the United States be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?”
Sen. McCain: “I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them, and if there aren’t any, there may be a hiatus. But I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.”
The video can be found here.
I like to see an apology from both Jamie Rubin and The Washington Post. Sadly, I don’t expect one.
Tags: Jamie Rubin, John McCain, Media Bias, smear, Washington Post
May 16th, 2008
I’ve always been weary about claiming media bias because there is often a conspiratorial element to these claims, and I think conspiracy theories tend to be weak. However, this election cycle has been accompanied by such blatantly slanted journalism whether it is the New York Times’ irresponsible journalism or cable news’ infatuation with Senator Obama, objective reporting has all but disappeared. So what do you think about bias in the media…
1. It’s institutional, the networks are biased and they employ biased journalists.
2. Journalists simply tend to be more liberal than the average American.
3. It’s incompetence. A good journalist doesn’t convey personal views in their reporting, and good journalists are in short supply.
4. It’s a systemic problem. Wealthy liberals control much of the media and influence its content.
5. Other _________________________
I lean towards a combination of 1 and 3. What’s your opinion?
Tags: 2008 race, cnn, conspiracy theory, fox, fox news, liberal media, Media Bias, msnbc, New York Times, nyt, soros, survey
April 2nd, 2008
In other news, the sun rises in the east.
Pew Research Center released a report yesterday on media coverage and the Iraq war. As Hot Air notes, the drop in media coverage seems to have begun in earnest right after David Petraeus’ report to Congress.
Nowhere was the drop-off in coverage more acute than with the policy debate thread. In January 2007, with the media anticipating a fierce battle over Iraq purse strings between Congress and the White House, the Iraq policy debate alone generated 17% of the coverage. In the first three weeks of March 2008, with no prospect of any significant changes in U.S. policy until at least the November election, that thread is down to 2%.
Pew suggests that along with the 2008 election coverage, the media just flat out couldn’t be bothered to report good news coming from Iraq.
But there is another key reason why the war has virtually disappeared from the headlines and talk shows these days — and that’s the situation inside Iraq itself. The reduction in violence on the ground that began late last year has coincided with a significant decrease in coverage from the war zone as well.
Through the first half of 2007, about half the stories from Iraq examined in a PEJ study were about the continuing drumbeat of daily violence. From July through October, that number fell to a little more than one-third. In November, stories filed from Iraq began to take greater notice of the surge’s success in reducing violence, even as the volume of coverage tapered off, evidence perhaps of the old adage that no news is good news. (So far in 2008, events on the ground in Iraq are accounting for only 2% of the newshole, although any sustained uptick in violence there could once again lead to an increase in coverage.)
The excuse offered in the report is that journalists find it too dangerous to move around and report on the economic and political situation in Iraq. But as Ed Morrissey at Hot Air points out, that problem could be solved if the journalists would embed with the troops.
Of course, they did that at the beginning of the war and the media outlets decided the coverage wasn’t negative enough.
It would be funny if it wasn’t true.
Tags: iraq, John McCain, media, Media Bias
March 27th, 2008
It has long been clear to anyone who cared to pay any real attention that Sen. Obama had been skating through the campaign, and the only way that is possible is with the compliance and cooperation of the national press corps, who have fawned and swooned at the senator’s feet since his keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in 2004. Incorrigible in their support and adulation, they have largely refused to pass a critical eye towards him and take a look beneath the uplifting veneer the campaign has constructed around itself and its candidate.
This dereliction does a double disservice to the American public. One, it provides a view and understanding of Sen. Obama that is of his own construction. As he has defined himself, he is a trans-partisan agent of change who will revolutionize American politics, provide universal health care to every American, bring our men and women home from Iraq without consequence, and resurrect America’s standing among the international community—among other lofty promises—all by the sheer force of his optimism, enlightenment, and charm.
This has been taken at face value by the fourth estate, without any intervening examination as to whether this self-crafted mystique is reconcilable with his actual real-life record. A basic cursory examination of such would reveal that his talk of trans-partisanship and unity is betrayed by an inveterate, party-line liberalism. National Journal ranked him as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, and he has assiduously avoided offending any of the Democratic Party’s constituent special interests in his three plus years in the Senate.
Second, not having had to deal with any semblance of media scrutiny he has gone untested and unchallenged, not providing the electorate with any opportunity to see how a man who would be our nation’s commander-in-chief responds to adversity. After all, if he is the one to raise his right hand on January 20th of next year his presidency will not be all rainbows, lollipops, and unicorns, regardless of what the implication of his messianic campaign has been. We live in a time of war and in a dangerous world, and there will be difficulties and crises that confront the next president, unexpected and unprepared for, and we simply cannot afford to wait until after Sen. Obama is President to witness how he responds to and manages these.
That the national press has failed to act in any manner whatsoever to prevent this from occurring is gross malfeasance. Their purpose is to be our agent, examining and scrutinizing what our leaders in government present to us to divine its accuracy and legitimacy. They have not, and it would be to the American voter’s unyielding benefit if they began to, lest we elect a myth to our highest office.
Tags: Barack Obama, Media Bias
March 6th, 2008
