Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Politics Conservatives Already Flogging Media For Biased Coverage. GOP Epitaph?
Posted by Brantley Hargrove on Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:00 AM
Regarding the Obama phenomenon and the media fascination with him, a senior staffer for a rival Democrat primary opponent offered up this theory to me for part of the bias. This person reasoned that the pressure within the news business to diversify and be politically correct means more minorities, women and young people are being hired. And young and ethnically diverse reporters and editors go easier on candidates who look more like them, are closer to their age or represent their ideal of a presidential candidate.Sounds like a first cousin to the "blacks vote for Obama because he's black" theory. So journalism is a more diverse profession than it was in the staid WASP-y days or yore? I'd echo a quote from Politico, in which editors Vandehei and Harris ruminate on the origin of a left-leaning media and offer up a summation--much to the chagrin of MacKinnon: "So what?" Don't we want a media that mirrors the make-up of this country? As journalists, are we not allowed to call bullshit when we see it? Or should we be forced to parrot talking points and regard the inexplicable and irresponsible choice of Palin as a running mate with a straight face? I thought skepticism was kind of part of the mandate, otherwise I would never have joined this profession. It all sounds like sour grapes to me, but I put it to the PITW readers. What do you make of the MSM's performance during the campaign, and is the press upbraiding the GOP ticket?
Comments (15)
Showing 1-15 of 15
Any resemblence between real journalism and anything you and the rest of the Scene hacks do is stricly coincidental.
like
dislike
"As journalists, are we not allowed to call bullshit when we see it?"
And we as occasional readers are allowed to call bullshit on you even as you continue to shovel it. Substitute "flack" for journalist and you'll be closer to the truth.
Tell me Hargrove, did you call bullshit on Obama for the major flip-flop of breaking his pledge to adhere to public financing of his campaign?
"And yet here you are, participating in our little discourse."
Perhaps someone could help you look up the definition of "occasional". And, how does that preclude us from calling bullshit on you when you so richly deserve it?
The absurdity of MacKinnon's theory is so obvious that I can't believe he isn't aware of what an ass he looks like. If his supposition is true, that "reporters and editors go easier on candidates who look more like them, are closer to their age or represent their ideal of a presidential candidate," than the white Anglo reporters of yore have been going easy on the candidates who mirrored them for decades.
And the fact that the concept that the media has been easier on him is so flawed to begin with. If Barack Obama had done or said half the things John McCain has done and said, they would have been just as hard on him. Imagine if Obama had confused Shiites and Sunnis, suspended his campaign, said the "fundamentals of the economy are strong" etc. He would have been taken to task as inexperienced, naive and uncertain.
And Brantley, if Emmett and Gilbert ever agree with you, it's time to start worrying.
Ok, so something substantive--other than a personal slight--has been offered up on the topic of campaign financing as a flip flop on Obama's part. The loss in political currency was minimal and short-lived, but I think it's worth talking about. So I put a PITW post about it.
Yes, newsrooms are hiring younger and younger people. Does this have to do with trying to "diversify?" No. It's strictly about money. Young people are cheaper than older employees.
If there's any truth behind the so-called media "fascination" with Obama, it has nothing to do with politics or affirmative action. It has everything to do with a candidate who energizes the demographics newsrooms are chasing: young people. A young candidate + a young political base = more young people watching the news. More Obama coverage means more young people watching. More young people watching means more money from advertisers.
It's really not that hard. It's just shocking that political experts and people who have spent their entire careers in the field can't figure it out.
Oh, and just because we read and comment doesn't mean we approve, Hargrove. Show me one (1) Scene political writer who can pass for anything more than a blogger. (Yes, I use that term negatively.) Snarkiness does not equal hard hitting.
"Ok, so something substantive--other than a personal slight--has been offered up on the topic of campaign financing as a flip flop on Obama's part. The loss in political currency was minimal and short-lived, but I think it's worth talking about. So I put a PITW post about it."
"minimal loss in political currency"?
Thanks for confirming your own bias.
The man flat out lied about what he was going to do - he changed his position for his own political expediency and undercut the longstanding Democrat position for public financing of campaigns.
And you put up a post that dismisses all that and is more about taking another slap at McCain than it is about Obama.
You have a point there, Joe, but I think you overestimate the amount of influence the business side has on editorial. When it comes down to it, Obama has a compelling story.
At PITW, we like to foment little dust-ups. We are not, however, after your seal of approval, nor do we assume it. Just trying to get people talking, that's all.
Not really talking about editorial here, Hargrove. I'm talking about day to day coverage. If you've ever worked in a daily cycle newsroom, you know that story choice is heavily influenced by commercial appeal. At least that's my experience.
But I do think there is also influence coming from the young people writing and deciding on the news. I was one of them, and in a shop with many young producers. I know our personal feelings and choices were reflected in story choice.
When I say editorial, I'm talking about the editorial department, not opinion writing. I have worked at a daily paper, but my story choices were never dictated by commercial appeal. Like you said, we followed our own curiosities to stories we'd want to read.
But I'm just talking about papers. It could be an entirely different ballgame in broadcast.
Joe says, "Show me one (1) Scene political writer who can pass for anything more than a blogger. (Yes, I use that term negatively.) Snarkiness does not equal hard hitting."
Brantley, clearly Joe is a bit jealous that you're smart and talented enough to actually get paid for sharing your thoughts here.
