Media admits bias now that election is over

by Infidelesto on November 8, 2008 · Comments

IT’s popping up everywhere.  How convenient for them.  There’s nothing anyone can do about it now, so why admission is the first thing on their plate.

Chris Mathews: “I wanna do everything I can tomake this Presidency work”

Also this from Washington Post

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts…

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors – like most of the national news media – found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

…One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.

And this from JWF

Yes, when you’re shamelessly rooting for one candidate over the other, you’ll find him more newsworthy. Of course. The problem is, certain things about that historic candidate were deemed un-newsworthy.

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama’s acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

They found plenty of space to go over McCain’s health in agonizing detail but ignored Obama’s drug use, shady connections and mysterious undergrad years.

I’m sure they’ll make up for their grossly imbalanced coverage now that their guy is safely in office. And I have an oceanfront spread in Wyoming up for sale.

Also from Victor Davis Hanson at The Corner, “Welcome to the world of post-journalism

We have seen it all the last two years: Weeping journalists on election night; a journalist openly promising to help make Obama successful  (“Yeah, it is my job.”); film takes of journalists cheering an Obama speech; the savaging of Sarah Palin and the hands-off treatment of Biden; soft-ball interviews and long puff-pieces on Obama as the young cool crusader;comparisons to JFK’s Camelot, and on and on.

In the 3rd book of his history, Thucydides has some insightful thoughts about destroying institutions in times of zealotry—and then regretting their absence when there is a need for refuge for them. The mainstream press should have learned that lesson, once they blew up their credibility in the past election by morphing into the Team Obama  press agency.

There will come a time in the year ahead when either Obama’s unexamined past will come back to haunt him, or his inexperience and tentativeness in foreign affairs will be embarrassingly apparent, or his European-socialist agenda for domestic programs simply won’t work. And as public opinion falls, what will MSNBC, the New York Times, the editors of Newsweek, a Chris Matthews or the  anchors at the major networks say?

Not much—since they will have one of two non-choices: (1) either they will begin scrambling to offer supposed disinterested criticism, which will be met with the public’s, “Why should we begin believing you now?” or “Why didn’t you tell this before?”, or  (2), They can continue as state-sanctioned megaphones of the Obama administration in the manner that they did during the campaign. They will lose either way and remain without credibility.

In short, we live now in the Age of Post-Journalism. All that was before is now over, as  this generation of journalists voluntarily destroyed the hallowed notion of objectivity and they will have no idea quite  how to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.

Want automatic updates?
4 choices: Twitter, Facebook, RSS feed or get daily email updates
  • Tonto
    The worst part of it all is that the media can put out a lie to a vast audience.  After they get caught in the lie, they quietly do whatever they gotta do to mollify the lied upon, but the lie is still out there.  Consider the "Weapons of mass destruction"  fiasco with Bush.  Multiple lies were told by the media with that one.  The intelligence agencies of the entire western world "knew" Saddam had WMDs.  We've got vids of prominent politicians saying so.......but when we didn't find them, and Bush manfully admitted we didn't find any, suddenly the lies about "Bush lied, men died" popped out all over the place and the same politicians that said  "Yep, we gotto go in there and destroy them-there WMDs", somehow had a brain-fart and denied that they had ever supported the invasion.  It all goes back to the old saying, proved empirically many times, "money talks and bullshit walks".  It also says that the Dem libturds are the worst lying, self seeking, most devoid of honesty pieces of forlorn humanity the world has ever seen.  The only more worthless pukes I can think of than a party of libturd dems, is a coven of islamic mullahs, and even that is a close match.
  • The Drive-by Media didn't have to confess that they are biased.  Everybody who can read knew all along that they were not only biased, but also evil.  Their confessing further shows that they think the good Americans, the conservatives, are stupid.
  • golfdad
    I see the mainstream media becoming increasingly irrelevant.  Don't about half of us Americans get our news from the blogs now, anyway?  Other than the occasional Fox Report, I think I haven't watched an MSM news broadcast for three or four years. 

    However, apparently SOMEbody's watching Matthews, Jennings, Wolf, et al.  I have difficulty understanding Obama's popularity otherwise.
  • I don't mind the bias.  Jus't dont CLAIM you are impartial or in fact a "journalist" when you clearly aren't.  At Least Sean Hannity admits his bias, and doesn't call himself a journalist.  Chris Mathews calls himself a journalist and pretends to be unbiased.  The NY Times pretends to be impartial yet clearly aren't and haven't been for years.  Same goes with CNN, MSBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, Boston Globe, Washington Post, LA Times, Time Magazine and Newsweek.  Don't pretend you are impartial, just come out and be honest and tell your readers "We are a liberal leaning news organization".  What pisses me off the most is this notion that they are "true journalists and fully impartial".  That completely influences people as "the norm" when in fact it's the leftist liberal agenda being put forth.

    And Senior I don't agree with restricting the free press.  It's Constitutionally protected.  I am strongly opposed to the Fairness Doctrine that the liberals are going to try and revive.  It will be devastating to our country when the government restricts Freedom of the Press
  • The only way to prevent media bias during election campaigns is to pass a law which states that all media must be totally impartial during elections, and give equal amounts of positive and negative coverage to every candidate. In the US, there are only two parties with a chance of winning, because only two of the many parties there can attract enough money to buy an election. People outside the US think there are only two parties.
  • Tonto
    I'm really surprised they even bother.  Nothing like having a firm grasp of the obvious.  The MSM has done us the favor of admitting that they are not trustworthy deliverers of the truth.  They have publicly admitted they are liars....something some of us already knew.  Yippie shit!
  • cassandrina
    The media is already making excuses for Obama's lack of performance under "very difficult conditions" exactly as they did for Tony Blair in UK when he got elected with a huge mandate in similar circumstances in 1997.
    He did nothing of great note for his country for 10 years and Obama could do the same, except that the US system is more rigorous in weeding out non-performance and is far more democratic than the UK.
blog comments powered by Disqus