A few numbers worth pondering:
FOX News Poll, July 24, 2008:
Nearly 7 in 10 Americans (67 percent) say they believe most in the
media want Obama to win the November election--while a scant 11 percent
think the media are pulling for John McCain. Moreover, only about 1 in
10 (11 percent) volunteers the belief that the media is neutral on the
race to become the 44th President of the United States. When asked to rate the objectivity of media coverage of the campaigns,
Americans feel Obama gets more of a positive spin by a better than
7-to-1 margin (46 percent more positive toward Obama; 6 percent more
positive toward McCain). Just under 4 Americans in 10 (36 percent) says
both campaigns are being covered objectively.
Study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, July 28, 2008:
Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack
Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive). That’s
worse than John McCain’s coverage,
which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time
period. This is a major turnaround since McCain and Obama emerged as
front-runners in the early primaries.
From the New Hampshire
primary on January 8 until Hillary Clinton dropped out on June 7, Obama’s
coverage was 62% positive (v. 38% negative) on the broadcast networks; by
contrast, McCain’s coverage during this period was only 34% positive (v. 66%
negative).
Bias, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder.
I get a lot of email accusing me of being a "liberal idiot." I also get a lot of email accusing me of being a "conservative butt boy."
On Monday, for example, I was instructed to "try to not get that
liberal nose of your's [sic] to [sic] close to Obama's ass" because "if
McCain wins and Obama stops up short your whole head may go up to your
very weak shoulders." On Tuesday another reader declared that
"spineless Mr. Romano is clearly a graduate of the Fox News school of
journalism."
For the record, I think there's a lot of bias in the mainstream
media. It's a huge problem, in fact. But the issue isn't ideology. No
reporter I've ever met sits around scheming about how to get his or her
favored candidate elected. Do they have private political beliefs? I'm
sure. Do these preferences occasionally skew their work? No doubt (mine
included). But as a rule, reporters spend too much time with
politicians to feel anything but skepticism. The really damaging bias
is narrative in nature--bias for tension, bias for conflict, bias for
drama. That's handy when there's actual drama--also known as news--to
document. But often there isn't. Which is why the Washington Post
gushes over Obama's international trip one day and pounds him for
presumption the next. Or why positive coverage of Obama has declined
from 62 percent in the primaries to 28 percent in the general. Ideology
has nothing to do with it. No one is in control, and no one, sadly, can
stop it. Despite tons of excellent individual work, this is just the
way the mass media works--by constantly, collectively hyping the next
plot twist, whether or not it's worth hyping.
The Internet doesn't exactly help. When it comes to campaign coverage (as I've written before) choosing scandal over substance is nothing new. But this is the first
presidential election to move at the speed of the Web. Print set
the pace in days; cable news, hours. Now, after years of dismissing
independent political bloggers as peanut galleryists in pajamas, every
major newspaper, magazine and news channel is requiring reporters to
provide a play-by-play on the day’s developments at its in-house blog.
Meaning we’re now stuck with a 1,440-minute news cycle. In theory,
that’s dandy (no hiding); in practice, it totally skews the
signal-to-noise ratio. While the demand (if not the audience) for
campaign news has exploded, the supply has stayed the same (did more
really “happen” in 2007 than 2003, or 1983, or 1923?). To fill the
growing void, we make ever-bigger
mountains out of ever-smaller molehills, 1,440 minutes a day. And the gap
grows between the insight you expect and the “news” you get.
The great thing about the Internet, however, is that you can easily
ignore the noise. Here at Stumper, I strive to analyze the presidential
campaign without relying on ideology. I call it equal-opportunity
skepticism. My approach isn't "just the facts, ma'am." We have the AP
for that. Instead, I try to provide perspective--often with humor or
opinion. Meaning that when I make fun of some
silly thing that Obama has said, it’s because I think it was a silly thing
to say--and not because I "hate" Obama. I do the same for McCain. There's
no editor--liberal or conservative--telling me what to write. There's
no "NEWSWEEK" demanding that I hew to some (nonexistent) party line.
Nowadays, a lot of people gravitate toward media
outlets that echo and reinforce their own points of view. I've always
found such insularity sort of boring. I hope at least some of you--that
is, the ones who aren't too busy calling me a partisan hack--agree.
Anyway, we now return to your regularly scheduled programming.