People closely following the coverage of the election probably wonder why it seems Obama is getting more favorable coverage than McCain. The recent study released by the Pew Research firm only added fuel to this perception. However, that isn't the whole story and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. The role of the media is to call things as they see them. The race for the Presidency is a contest. There are clear winners and losers. In a sporting event, a journalist is free to declare that a team is playing sub-par and that God-forbid, there is actually a loser. No one expects the journalist to ignore the reality and only point out the positive developments by each team in order to be "balanced" - that would be ignoring reality. The same is true for the coverage of the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign. Obama's campaign has been one of the most successful and impressive in modern political history. On the other hand, McCain's campaign has been erratic, impulsive and is now in the middle of a meltdown with the starting of the blame game. The media are calling it as they see it. Placing "balanced" coverage on a pedestal ruins the truth of the matter.
Here is John Harris and Jim Vandehei from Politico expanding on why the media coverage of Obama and McCain isn't "balanced."
Teaser:
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. (Italics mine)
No comments:
Post a Comment