Quantcast
 
 
 
Top Story
Sit Back, Relax, Get Ready to Rumble
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
Families will make case for vaccine link to autism
 
 
expand
MEDIA

The Myth of Objectivity

Is the mainstream press unbiased? No, but we aren't ideological. What we really thrive on is conflict.

By Evan Thomas | NEWSWEEK
Mar 10, 2008 Issue

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: funkdome @ 05/04/2008 3:25:19 PM

    Comment: Is this the same Evan Thomas who said during the 2004 election:

    "Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. . . . They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them . . . that's going to be worth maybe 15 points."

    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/08/24/some_of_kerrys_biggest_fans_are_in_the_press/

    You got it right the first time, Evan

  • Posted By: funkdome @ 05/04/2008 3:20:41 PM

    Comment: "The mainstream media (the "MSM" the bloggers love to rail against) are prejudiced, but not ideologically."

    Thomas is in denial. The overwhelming liberal bias in the MSM is obvious. The problem is that hyper-liberals like Thomas think that they are moderates.

  • Posted By: Thevail @ 03/29/2008 1:52:42 AM

    Comment: I don't know that "the media" even exists. I think that you have a different channel to watch whatever your leanings. Fox news, MSNBC, CNN, your local news, The Washington post. The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Slate, etc.

    I'd say that the media does have a bias though..not for a specific candidate or for a certain political party..they have a bias towards the sensational and controversial and literally away from common sense or common ground. If it doesn't make a bunch of people get mad enough to call their friends and insist that they watch it on the next cycle they won't touch it.

    How much have we heard about Geraldine Ferraro, Rev. Wright, etc. and how much have we heard about the actual issues? But a sensible economic plan, plainly and clearly explained, isn't liable to piss anybody off enough to cause an uproar and a bunch of repeat viewers. So it's our fault too. But now there isn't really a choice to do that any more since no one bothers to air it at all.

  • Posted By: Ohg Rea Tone @ 03/20/2008 10:18:47 AM

    Comment: So much News, so little time... The media faces real challenges in presenting unbiased information. IN the case of the Obama sppech on Race the sound bites shown reflected the bias of the particular media outlets.. Perhaps the responsibility is on the public to investigate after being exposed to a snippet of information......
    http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/03/20/obamas-speech-on-race-video-and-text/

  • Posted By: gizmo7878 @ 03/18/2008 6:59:38 PM

    Comment: Wow. No left-leaning bias in the mainstream media? Convenient no actual media hard studies were quoted. I suspect the editors knew what they would find.

    The single fact that convinces me? The meteoric (ratings) rise of Fox News Channel. Either there was an incredible yearning for a right-leaning alternative outlet, or a yearning for hot blondes delivering news.

    OK, maybe it was both. But I've never seen an academic study identifying conservative media bias. Over the (20) years I've seen studies demonstrating a left-leaning bias every couple years.

    Now one can make an argument thats a good thing. And it is not nearly as prominent as it was before talk radio and Fox, but to deny it exists in a pure opinion piece is in my opinion dishonest journalism.

  • Posted By: wdmll @ 03/15/2008 12:28:56 PM

    Comment: The true meaning of the Antithesis of Being Politically Correct
    Written by wdmll on Mar-14-08 7:28am


    To be Non-Politically Correct is to say what is what. If you speak out in the workplace, or any other public forum or on the political trail, about Illegal Immigration, Islam or any other topic that is offensive to the Progressive Left or what is Status Quo, will earn you the label of Hate-Monger. But the Progressive Left, believes it has the right to say anything about the Oppressive Right.

    wdmll http://www.zimbio.com/Non-Politically+Correct+View+of+America's+Crisis/articles/137/true+meaning+Antithesis+Being+Politically

  • Posted By: KellyLogan @ 03/12/2008 11:04:34 AM

    Comment: {cont}
    And as ever when the corrupt are accused of corruption, the argument of self-policing comes in. We're taking care of it ourselves, no need to worry. "But on the whole, the mainstream press does try, with imperfect results, to be fair. The big news organizations are not at all relaxed about getting it wrong. Big mistakes???fraud, plagiarism, outright deceit???can kill careers." Apparently we're supposed to ignore the facts again in light of Thomas' opinion. Judy Miller and Bob Novak's careers seem to be doing just fine despite outright deceit and conspiracy to commit fraud. Mike Barnicle, caught both lying and stealing at the Boston Globe, was fired there and then picked up by NY Daily News and MSNBC. Ruth Shalit and Stephen Glass plagiarised and fabricated for years at the New Republic without their careers being 'killed.' Again, this theory by Thomas covers over the real issue that mainstream media seems to be getting less and less able or willing to discover and deal with journalistic issues themselves, and that the journalistic organizations and watchdogs are providing excellent information that could help.

    Perhaps the worst offense here is that Thomas' sidelines the increasingly dramatic roles of publishers and business-school editors in the newsroom with backhanded comments about profit. When newspapers went to color, it wasn't because editors thought it would be more informative, it's because they thought it would increase profits. When they started cutting budgets for foreign desks, investigations, and multi-part series, it wasn't because they weren't serving the public interest, it's because they were expensive. When they started increasing budgets for graphics, entertainment and publishing free canned advertiser and government articles, it was to increase profits.

    Newsweek would have served their audience better by explaining what journalistic ethics are, and showing how objective measures can be used to determine fairness and accuracy in reporting (if you'll exuse the plug for my favorite watchdog ;^). They could have discussed the various factors that affect different organizations and types of reporting to inform their readers, instead of characterizing all reporters as giddy schoolgirls. I hope in the future pieces like this will be relegated to the opinion section, and articles will instead strive towards ethical, fact-based reporting.

  • Posted By: KellyLogan @ 03/12/2008 11:04:03 AM

    Comment: This was an interesting piece that gives an 'insider' opinion on the debates over the mainstream media's fairness and accuracy. It also demonstrates exactly what MSM is often accused of by journalism experts and watchdogs: Presenting opinions as fact, supporting their opinions with information that is either biased or simply wrong, and leaving the audience less informed than they were before reading.

    In this case, Thomas uses emotional appeals like "...reporters are susceptible to flash and charm; like most cynics, they are romantics in disguise" instead of facts. The only attempt to support this reporter's opinion logically, "...such pressures almost never affect news decisions. (If they did, there would be less political or foreign coverage, which is plentiful..." falls down on the simple fact that foreign coverage has been notably and measurably reduced in the last several decades, to the point that many outlets have no foreign offices at all any more, and are forced to rely on third-parties for their coverage.

    Thomas' claim that the media has little to no effect on voters is as damaging as it is spurious. It denies entirely the media's role in framing and shaping the information the voters receive. Campaigners like Kucinich and Paul were shut out of debates, cut off of media websites, and had their positive poll results removed - many liberal voters who would have fully supported Kucinich's platform had never even heard of him. Thomas' plastering over this entire issue with some vague notion that politicians can meaningfully compensate for the media's pre-judging of candidate's viability (read: money) is not only wrong, it damages the public interest by also plastering over the issue of private vs. public campaign funding.
    {cont}

  • Posted By: KellyLogan @ 03/12/2008 11:03:17 AM

    Comment: This was an interesting piece that gives an 'insider' opinion on the debates over the mainstream media's fairness and accuracy. It also demonstrates exactly what MSM is often accused of by journalism experts and watchdogs: Presenting opinions as fact, supporting their opinions with information that is either biased or simply wrong, and leaving the audience less informed than they were before reading.

    In this case, Thomas uses emotional appeals like "...reporters are susceptible to flash and charm; like most cynics, they are romantics in disguise" instead of facts. The only attempt to support this reporter's opinion logically, "...such pressures almost never affect news decisions. (If they did, there would be less political or foreign coverage, which is plentiful..." falls down on the simple fact that foreign coverage has been notably and measurably reduced in the last several decades, to the point that many outlets have no foreign offices at all any more, and are forced to rely on third-parties for their coverage.

    Thomas' claim that the media has little to no effect on voters is as damaging as it is spurious. It denies entirely the media's role in framing and shaping the information the voters receive. Campaigners like Kucinich and Paul were shut out of debates, cut off of media websites, and had their positive poll results removed - many liberal voters who would have fully supported Kucinich's platform had never even heard of him. Thomas' plastering over this entire issue with some vague notion that politicians can meaningfully compensate for the media's pre-judging of candidate's viability (read: money) is not only wrong, it damages the public interest by also plastering over the issue of private vs. public campaign funding.
    {cont}

  • Posted By: jtvt1211 @ 03/10/2008 11:37:47 AM

    Comment: If the press were biased against Hillary then we would be hearing about all the 35 years of Clinton corruption. The Clintons are the ones getting the free pass. Hillary is a whining, lying, cheating, unethical disgrace of a woman.

  • Posted By: Gren @ 03/10/2008 11:05:02 AM

    Comment: The media is in love with Obama but the regular people are with Hillary. She is our only chance to get out of this mess. Barak is a total phony. If Hill drops out of race, I am voting for Mccain.

  • Posted By: Medge @ 03/08/2008 1:06:20 PM

    Comment: The implication of the title "The Myth of Objectivity", is that subjetivity is what is happening in Mass Media coverage of the present election process. It appears that the "giant scandal machine that took over Washington," during the Watergate era, was much more objective in their subjective reporting than today's reporting style by the Media. Somehow, I miss the so called scandal machine of the 70s & 80s. The Bob Woodwards and Carl Bernsteins of the period are an extinct species. It seems the reporting is not much interested in "exposing wrong doing and keeping politicians honest." The "big-time journalists" appear to have fell victims--not so much of AlQaeda attacks--but of the scare mongering of present day politicians.
    Last weekend's reporting by the Networks, capitalized more on Hillary's fearmongering 3AM television ad,
    than on analysing its intention. The reporting was as subjective as the ad was. It was run so many times in the "free" reporting of it, as news, that Senator Clinton must've saved millions of dollars in unpaid advertisements .What is a real myth, is the unfair treatment of Hillary by the press, as aome of her followers claim.
    The Press has not made an issue of her stubborn stand on her vote for the Iraq war, nor has it mentioned the legal procedings taking place in California in a lawsuit against both Clintons by Hollywood mogul Peter Paul. Only Fred Lucas of CNS News, mentioned it on Oct 17, 2007, but it was not picked-up by the Network.
    Newsweek published "The Hillary Paper Chase..." on line last week exposing that ..."the vast majority of the Ciinton's health-care-task-force papers are stil under lock and key in Little Rock--and might stay there for a sometime," but the Networks have ignored it.. They have not even asked what is she hiding from the American people? So the idea that the Press has been biased against her is a myth.
    Following this trend of thought, Hegel's philosophical idea that reason--if one thinks of it as objectivity-- could reach truth on its own, is a myth. It appears that subjectivity, in the form of outrageous lies, is here to stay.

  • Posted By: yissahugo @ 03/08/2008 6:40:39 AM

    Comment: The mainstream press is white male. When you see a woman, she is anorexic and could win a beauty contest. The new women are sooooooo skinny, I do not believe that we should allow girls or boys to see them. They are quoting SLATE.com constantly and having Slate commentators on TV. Alter's entire comment uses Slate's positions. Today page one on Slate.com?

    did you see this?
    Women's History ... With Porn Stars

    I rest my case.

  • Posted By: BeijingJack @ 03/08/2008 4:00:26 AM

    Comment: Yes the media DOES thrive on conflict, proven so by the recent Texas/Ohio primaries where after just a few days it was more or less clear that OBAMA was indeed going to win Texas and the media continues to talk up Hillary's wins in both races. It's my belief that the media unfairly INFLUENCES America's elections as was noted in the last election where CNN damned near tilted the entire race by fraudulently announcing a win for Bush in Florida ahead of the polls ending.

  • Posted By: Chicken neck @ 03/07/2008 5:57:47 PM

    Comment: This week the weather-vane MSM are definitely pro-Clinton. The story in yesterday's Globe and Mail that it was Clinton's campaign that contacted the Canadian embassy, not Obama's, re NAFTA has barely gotten a mention in the NYT news (as opposed to bloggers comments). In CNN 's Strategy Session this afternoon, they mentioned the NAFTA story as an Obama problem and said diddly-squat about Clinton attacking him for days even though she knew it was not true. I turned Hardball on for a few minutes and listened to Chris Matthews burble. I turned the show off when it loook as though he was going to ignore this too. Sorry, I know it's a small sample, but you would think this should be a huge story. On the other hand, maybe the media are just as stubborn about admitting mistakes as Clinton is.

  • Posted By: DoogoeBo @ 03/07/2008 5:35:16 PM

    Comment: You didn't mention that we are REALLY TIRED of the media constantly stirring up controversy, asking STUPID questions (like "what are you war plans - will you pull out of Iraq, what is the timetable... honest, the enemy isn't listening!" etc. GIVE ME A BREAK!), shamelessly hurting anyone for the sake of the "scoop". We're FED UP with paparazzi harassing every celebrity to the point they practically have to run over you to get away. I'd love to see new legislation would be to make it perfectly OK to punch a reporter, photographer when they get in your face! Consider this: If we had today's media covering the Bulge, Normandy, Iwo Jima, we would have grown up under Hitler!

  • Posted By: justtruth @ 03/07/2008 4:55:37 PM

    Comment: I have been watching the news and honnestly you can see where the press is very biased. I have gone from watching NBC to CBS, and ABC and all three portray HRC in a far more favorable light and Obama is treated as an after thought. I know that the corporate elite support her and I understand that these journalist work for major corporations that have a vested interest in seeing our government continue to support legislation that only benefits "big business". I guess it just makes me sick to my stomach that these news people want to be taken seriously and treated like they are unbiased journalist.

  • Posted By: phpeters87 @ 03/07/2008 4:01:43 PM

    Comment: The media gives 69% of their campaign donations to the DNC:

    http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=B02

  • Posted By: ports @ 03/07/2008 1:16:14 AM

    Comment: In regard to media prejudice, yes, there was prejudice shown against Hillary Clinton. When you have a debate and then put on 7 hosts and commentators all of whom are saying positive things about Obama and negative things about Hillary, you have prejudice. This was consistent with many news and magazine articles and commentators. I do not look for prejudice but when I see it, I cannot close my eyes and I have to comment. Lately, the commentators seem to be trying to put up people who represent both sides and not just one so I think that there was a problem with prejudice and the networks and mags recognized it. Those of us who watch these shows and read these magazines want to see BOTH sides and not just one side of an issue and that goes for all candidates.

  • Posted By: ShaolinPrince @ 03/07/2008 12:45:47 AM

    Comment: Hillary has tried everything from injecting race to trying to sight plagiarism into this race. She signed an agreement that Florida and Michigan would not count for violating the rules. Now Hillary wants to change the rules because she won them both. She will do anything to win. Hillary was the only candidate that kept her name on the Michigan ballot. Hillary had this planned from the beginning to steal the vote their. It is alright to bring out what you have to offer and what your opponent(s) lack but race, religion and falsehoods should not be apart of any political race. You should want to win but not sell your soul to do it. This just shows what Hillary???s true colors are by showing support for John McCain over Obama. Is Hillary really a Democrat or a Republican in disguise? Hillary shows a signs of a true Republican. Is Hillary the kind of person (not revealing her taxes) that should be in the Whitehouse I have even seen FOX news try to associate Senator Obama with terrorists (and they say Hillary had more bad press). You cannot go anymore negative than to portray someone as a terrorist like FOX news (and the Clinton campaign) tried to do with Senator Obama. Hillary never had to go through anything nearly as horrible as that. I have seen them play the video of Hillary on SNL at least 50 times yet no one has played this positive video http://youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY about Senator Obama. It seems like she is receiving much more positive press than Senator Obama is receiving. With over 30 Million views on YouTube, Google Video and others it is easily the most viewed video in a 30 day period. I guarantee if this video is shown on the air (nationally) as much as the Hillary???s SNL appearance was it will mean many more votes for Obama.

    Now we know that the NAFTA promise came from the Clinton campaign, her campaign actually called the Canadian government and not Obama???s people. Hillary Clinton???s people called the Canadian government and assured them that her talk about NAFTA should be ???taken with a gain of salt???, that nothing will change with NAFTA. Knowing all this Hillary had the nerve to try to put Obama???s in that very position, can she be anymore deceitful than that. Hillary Clinton is trying to switch the blame to someone else for what she and her people did. For the ones who believe in the Bible, The ninth commandment states ???Thou shall not bear false witness??? or for those who do not believe do not ???perpetrate a fraud??? (lie) on someone else. Hillary Clinton has now lied in the worse possible way by blaming others for what she did. If Hillary Clinton were in a court of law, she would have committed perjury. Does Hillary Clinton even know how to be truthful? Let???s see how much press this receives it most likely will not receive half the press as Senator Obama did. STOP THE LIES HILLARY!!!

  • Posted By: PITTYPAT @ 03/07/2008 12:24:24 AM

    Comment: WAKE UP FOLKS. THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS BIG BUISNESS AND THAT MEANS THEY ARE REPUBLICANS AND WHAT DO REPUBLICANS DO BEST? THEY SPIN. IF YOU READ BETWEEN THE LINES YOU WILL SEE THAT BIG BUISNESS DOES NOT WANT CLINTON AS THE CANDIDATE AGAINST THIERS THEREFORE THEY ARE SPINNING THAT BARACK HAS A BETTER CHANCE IN NOV, WHEN THEY KNOW THAT CLINTON IS THE ONE WHO CAN BEAT THEM. THERFORE THAT IS WHY THEY ARE GOING SO LIGHT ON OBAMA. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE ISSUES AS IT SHOULD BE. IT IS ABOUT POWER AND MONEY. TYHEN THROW IN THE GOOD OLD BOYS TED KENNEDY AND JOHN KERRY PUTTING BARACK WHERE HE IS TODAY AND YOU WILL SEE THAt barack is after all about politics as usual.

  • Posted By: PITTYPAT @ 03/07/2008 12:07:40 AM

    Comment: WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLR PROCESS NOW AND STOP ASKING FOR CLINTON TO QUIT. SHE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO FIGHT THIS TO THE END. TWO YEARS AGO THE PARTY WAS UNITED IN THIER EFFORT TO MAKE HILARY THIER CANDIDATE THEN TED KENNEDY AND JOHN KERRY FOR WHATEVER REASONS PUT BARACK IN THE EQUASION. IF THE PARTY IS IN A MESS NOW IT IS IN A BIG PART BECAUSE OF THEM AND ALL I CAN SAY IS SHAME ON TED KENNEDY AND JOHN KERRY . I FOR ONE AND I AM SUTRE MANY MORE AM ASKING FOR BARACK TO DROP OUT. IF HE CARES SO NUCH FOR UNITY THEN WHY IS HE HELPING THE GOOD OLD BOYS IN THE PARTY DESTROY IT AND THIS MESS JUST MIGHT DO THAT VERY THING.

  • Posted By: Jebber @ 03/06/2008 10:02:21 PM

    Comment: There is no doubt that journalism schools are extremely liberal and an overwhelming majority of people working in the mainstream media are registered Democrats. Those facts cannot be disputed. I was pleasantly surprised to see the SNL skip. It was classic satire, funny but true. The press has, until the last week, given Obama a pass. In my opinion, this is due to his left wing politics (which agree with those of the media), and a hesitance to play "hardball" with a minority for fear of charges of racism. That is a challenge that Hillary and her husband have faced, and certain John McCain will face in November.

  • Posted By: Driver of wagons @ 03/06/2008 7:53:58 PM

    Comment: It has Been reported on NPR today on the All Things Considered that Barack Obama will win the Texas primary when all of tallying is completed. It is time for Hillary to do the right thing and step aside and stop splitting the party apart, stop playing the Rove handbook for political maneuvering. You can not win in November according to all of the experts. Even the elite in your party are telling you right now to get out with grace before you have to leave with disgrace.

  • Posted By: playitfair @ 03/06/2008 2:32:07 PM

    Comment: Baloney about the unbiasedness of "mainstream" press --Newsweek in particular has been "exhilarated" by and fawning over Obama for months and has sounded more and more like a campaign brochure for him. Your relentless negative take on the Clinton campaign has been simply astonishing to those of us who thought you might play it fair. If Sen. Clinton actually wins the nomination, about 98% of your "predictions" will be wrong.

  • Posted By: playitfair @ 03/06/2008 2:21:02 PM

    Comment: Baloney about the unbiasedness of "mainstream" press --Newsweek in particular has been "exhilarated" by and fawning over Obama for months and has sounded more and more like a campaign brochure for him. Your relentless negative take on the Clinton campaign has been simply astonishing to those of us who thought you might play it fair. If Sen. Clinton actually wins the nomination, about 98% of your "predictions" will be wrong.

  • Posted By: sick of clintons @ 03/06/2008 1:26:32 PM

    Comment: We the people of IL know the clean track record of Senator Obama. If you want the facts out come to IL and see for yourself how much work he has done for the poor whites, blacks, latinos etc. This man has integrity and great deal of substance. He not only talks but delivers and is honest and truly loves his country. We are very proud of him. If he elected he stands a much better chance to beat McCaain and so does the poll indicates.

  • Posted By: sick of clintons @ 03/06/2008 1:22:00 PM

    Comment: Clinton Shame on you! you are EXPOSED. All these dirty mud slingings will not work. And Shame on media for being so biased against Obama. If we need to change the path of country we need to end the Clinton/Bush legacy. Is the democracy or monarchy. All the Clinton's people will be big time disappointed if she is elected. She will be another dictator and monarch just like Bush. So vote wisely vote for Obama.

  • Posted By: sick of clintons @ 03/06/2008 1:16:03 PM

    Comment: I hope the superdelegates will make a smart choice and select Obama to run the Pres. race. Because Billairy does not stand her chance against Republicans. She has too many skeletons and close alliances with the corrupt millionaires, they will tear her apart. She has done enough damage to the Party. I would ask Senator Obama to demand her to release her tax doc. her watergate scandal and many others

  • Posted By: sick of clintons @ 03/06/2008 1:12:49 PM

    Comment: We are sick and tired of these Corrupt politics and politicians. Look in the past few days how media has been playing the hands and favor of Clinton's. How much false allegations, propogandas will these Clinton's do. She knows she cannot win the Presidential election against MCCaain because basically they are birds of the same feather. What has she achieved in the past 8 yrs? She is the most deceiving and secretive politicain

  • Posted By: maresident @ 03/06/2008 1:04:00 PM

    Comment: Look how depressed the press is now that Hillary has won two major states. They don't even know what to talk about any more -- all they can express is how incredulous it is, rationalize over how impossible it is for Hillary, ... The pols and people have invested a lot of power in the press? That's the source of the arrogance of the press. If Hillary rebuffs them, they are angry and went after her with full force. When Obama sweet talks them, they fell in love. Arrogant, naive and self-serving -- that's how I'd characterize the press. Nope, the Internet is growing. The 'power' of the press is eroding. I'm voting against Obama because he's a creation of the press and the media. There's not a bone of authenticity in this image of Obama that we see in the media.

  • Posted By: odelljones @ 03/06/2008 11:59:47 AM

    Comment: right now, msnbc is the Obama channel. CNN is the DNC channel and Fox is the RNC channel. Any other opinions are not valid

  • Posted By: JohnGaltlaketahoe @ 03/05/2008 5:47:01 PM

    Comment: Private Cable Networks have been at the forefront in sponsoring the very two political party's and their candidates who have failed to serve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    Bipartisan Congressional allegiance to obstruction of justice in the Executive Branch and in the Office of the Attorney General of the United States have placed the US military in Iraq as the occupying force in support of an incredible Iraqi Parliament. Neither of the two politcal parties and their candidates are going to reverse course in failed Middle East Foreign Policy.

    SOS to American miltia............converge on the Democrat and Republican National Conventions ready to retake America in the American election process.

    Indict and Impeach George W.

  • Posted By: Childrex @ 03/05/2008 3:35:57 PM

    Comment: Dana 77, get your facts straight. Clinton made passing NAFTA a priority and it was not signed until the end of 1993 (Clinton had been in office since Jan.) because the Senate did not vote on it until Nov. 20,1993! Both the House and the Senate were controlled by the Democrats then.

  • Posted By: shanman87 @ 03/05/2008 3:00:46 PM

    Comment: Let's be honest, The Daily Show/Colbert Report are among the few media outlets above this "objectivity debate." If you are sick of this whole media bias turmoil, like I am, I'd watch these shows as your prime-time "news source."

  • Posted By: DavidSummerly @ 03/05/2008 2:40:59 PM

    Comment: The media isn't just unbiased, it's outright corrupt. If you're running for Presiedent and not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations or another David Rockefeller group you will get awful coverage or none at all.

  • Posted By: Iloveusa @ 03/05/2008 12:38:49 PM

    Comment: I think the media openly admitting that they are not in the business of actually reporting the facts of a story, but attempting to make the story itself in order to make more money, is a sad commentary on journalism.

    • Posted By: votenic @ 03/05/2008 15:06:23

      Comment: Who do YOU Support?
      Give us an idea for different polls!
      Support your candidate!
      2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
      <a href="http://www.votenic.com">http://www.votenic.com</a>
      New Poll Is Instant!
      New Poll Posted Every Tuesday Evening
      Thanks for Voting!

  • Posted By: Iloveusa @ 03/05/2008 12:32:22 PM

    Comment: What a load of self-justifying tripe. Shameful.

  • Posted By: ToadTreeHugger @ 03/05/2008 12:30:44 PM

    Comment: Clinton has a much better environmental record than Obama. That's why Robert Kennedy Jr. endorses her. Read his take on Clinton, Obama and the election at:

    http://news.smh.com.au/kennedy-jr-gets-behind-hillary-clinton/20080220-1tdl.html

    Obama's LCV environmental score is a mediocre 67. He voted for Cheney's energy bill. His top campaign contributors are three executives from Exelon, the largest nuclear power company in the country.

    If you believe in the environment, then stand behind Clinton who is a FIGHTER for the environment. She won't cave in to the nuclear power industry.

    Footnotes

    NYT's article on Obama's connection with Exelon
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html

    On the Cheney Vote, Conference Report H. R. 6 Vote Summary 2005
    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213

    2007 League of Conservation Voting Scores
    http://lcv.org/

    Crimes Against Nature by Robert Kennedy Jr.
    http://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Against-Nature-Corporate-Plundering/dp/0060746882/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203982347&sr=8-1


  • Posted By: Dana 77 @ 03/05/2008 12:13:38 PM

    Comment: Yes, the media is biased...big time. Newspapers, radio and television are owned by 70% wealthy extreme conservitives. Just like the last election in 2004, many radio and television stations had orders to repeat negative reports and stories about certain candidates 4 days out of 5....and the 5th day only something positive. Many employees often complained about the practice, some got fired if they didn't, some quit because of it. Othersdidn't want to loose their jobs, so followed orders from on high. Then told about it later.
    I am really astonished how so many well respected commentaries have used their positions (negative words and tone of voice) to impune Hillary. Tim Russert and Harry Smith (CBS) especially who I held in high esteem. No longer. I sincerely hope and pray Hillary wins the White House and all the manipulators and nasty pundits end up with egg on their faces. It does my heart good to hear them the next day after an election, with a dazed look on their faces, trying to find some excuse. Some saying the public just doesn't don't get it. I have news for you....the PUBLIC DOES GET IT. -----comment by Dana88

  • Posted By: aminahyaquin @ 03/05/2008 11:06:58 AM

    Comment:

    So why no media coverage of the racial conflict in the struggling mid-west, where white supremacy groups abound and are active--and may well ahve swayed the vote to Hillary as opposed to voting for a black candidate?
    What an ironyy that Hillary Clinton wins in states among poor white undereduated male voters that her husband's failed policies helped to impoverish, Ohio, West Virginia, Nebraska, Indiana, Maryland and Pennsylvania. These are all states where white supremacy and hate groups have been on the rise as local economy faltered and jobs that can sustain families in the working class disappeared to Clinton's NAFTA, to Clinton's plutocracy, to Clinton's corporate entitlement capitulations, to Clinton's corpoarte backers among all the mahjor monopolies: Banking, Big Pharm, insurance.
    It;s actually an American tragedy that voters preferred the conniving spin artist and phony to the authentic leader who can engage and untie epople for the common good, and reneivigorate our nation's democracy. Even the turn-ourt is from Obama's campaigning.
    I do not wonder that disenfranchised defeated blue collar male racists are taking an active role in the campaign, i only marvel at thequietude of thepress about it.do we really expect that exit polls are going to show racism?even the worst hjate groups., all active here in teh Ohio River Valley, teach silence and "lone wolvery" (hint do not display your bigotry to the press).
    the racial factor was also at play in Texas.
    so let's wake up America let's not go for the same old failed policies and persons of the 90s glut of greed and social darwinism that has about wrecked our nation. let;s not go for the phony promises and the economic bubble of hedge and junk funded fantasy that propped up the nation's sconomy long enough for Bush to come in a dn start a war to try to make money for the usual suspects, while ordinary cirtizens get increasingly desperate and the shredded safety net failed because of the elack of credibility and ood faith of teh Vlintons. their hevay ahdnednedss and dishonesty, their abuse of power and inlfeunce and their constant cover-ups of his addictions sexaholism and powermadness.
    i pray we as a nation take the opportunity to elect the most capable and good candiate we have had in four score years" BARACK OBAMA>.

    if we do not help our kids now to have a real significent role in bringing abour POSITIVE social change and decency and dignity maturity accountability, abulity and decncy in obama to take office , what worse will we teach them than that "no they can't"?

  • Posted By: joetraderny @ 03/05/2008 10:42:19 AM

    Comment: if she is "elected" it will be by subverting our last remaining bits of democracy we have left in our crumbling empire...she will be a dictator like bush or a monarch, not a president...like the latinos say who do not even know any other candidate's names, she will be "the cleentons.....go cleenton".....who else is running??

    NAFTA is not good for hispanics, white, black, anybody, the "cleentons" started NAFTA...WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!
    ooooo---something.......what an informed electorate to choose the future of this country.....makes one proud to be an american...I am sure there was no attempt to educate the electorate before voting in such a crucial campaign, either......

    • Posted By: Dana 77 @ 03/05/2008 12:40:59

      Comment: WOW.....Joe if that is your name, You need to go to a search engine, type in "Nafta history". This is what you will find: R. Reagan started Nafta with Canada for the interests of big corporations in the 1980'S.
      At that time it was called the Canadian-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and Reagan signed it into law. When Geo. Bush Sn. followed in the presidency, it expanded into including Mexico. Here is where it gets interesting. It was then called the North American Free Trade Agreement. (NAFTA). Watch the dates on this: 1988 Clinton won the election in Nov. The then president Geo. Bush, sn. signed the agreement in Dec. 1988. It still had to be ratified by Congress. Clinton was inaugurated in Jan. 1989. Right after that he recieved a call from Gearld Ford suggesting Clinton to proceed quickly to get it ratified . Also he should have all the living presidents witness the final presidential signing of NAFTA. When Clinton signed it, also present was Ford, Carter, Geo. Bush,sn and of course Clinton. This was sometime within the first couple of months of Clintons taking office. There was a picture taken on the south side of of the white House. It made all the news papers and tv news. NAFTA IS NOT A CLINTON PRODUCT. It is a Republican document and ratified by a predominate Republican Congress. Only thing Clinton did was sign it. Please get your facts straight.---Dana88

  • Posted By: joetraderny @ 03/05/2008 10:38:50 AM

    Comment: Of course not, there are only a few media conglomerates left, controlled by conservatives like Rupert....

    You can't even find out why there are mysterious explosions in shopping centers in GA, IL, etc, last week...and the major media cannot even speculate??? it is very strange that before there is at least some explanation or theory!!! The American people under Bush are controlled, manipulated, monitored.....we are not a democracy in any sense of the word......and we will not be under McCain.....if people choose this path, do not be surprised at where it is headed nor the loss of your remaining freedoms, such as being able to write in a blog like this....do not take your freedoms for granted, the founding fathers didn't.....which was why there was checks and balances, and limits to executive power, and things such as private militias under bush would be illegal.......no-bid contracts by halliburton under cheney also illegal...spying on americans illegal.....torture obviously illegal....since we have geneva convention......disappearing people without trial or jury illegal...holding prisoners without cause of reason...illegal......etc...etc...etc......

    Be the change you wish to see in the world----ghandi

    If one candidate offers fear and the other hope, always choose the one with hope---bill clinton, 2004

    Therefore, obviously the GOP had to weaken Hill first, now they want to help her along just enough to keep Dems fighting.....it is working, isn't it????

  • Posted By: JohnPolitico @ 03/05/2008 10:25:14 AM

    Comment: Ohhh ??? so this article is supposed to explain away the Spin Doctor mentality by the mainstream media huh? Otay??? But I must admit ... good article.

  • Posted By: pezled @ 03/05/2008 10:06:40 AM

    Comment: P.S. Jeffro - That presidents-with-the-same-last-name thing has happened before. Hope it doesn't confuse you too much if it happens again this time. .

  • Posted By: pezled @ 03/05/2008 9:58:55 AM

    Comment: and Jeffro - then they should call her husband Bill. Or, use her full name, Hillary Clinton, as they did with the 'Bill Clinton keeps quiet' headline directly below the one using Hillary Clinton's first name only. If she is elected, she will be President Clinton, not President Hillary.

  • Posted By: JeffroDH @ 03/05/2008 9:47:09 AM

    Comment: and pezled, they call her by her first name to avoid ambiguity. Her husband's last name is the same, you know.

  • Posted By: JeffroDH @ 03/05/2008 9:46:02 AM

    Comment: I can't believe anyone still beleives that, JRmapu. Bin laden was from Afghanistan, his organization was based in Afghanistan, and he's dead or he escaped through pakistan into Bush's arms (their families have been good friends for many years now, long before 9/11, did you know that?) and he's living in Tahiti or somewhere on the taxpayers' dime. And the terrorists didn't bomb us, they flew planes into a building. The only business we had in Iraq was the business that George Bush Sr. didn't allow us to complete in desert storm and therefore his son duped millions of Americans, using their anger as fuel, to point the finger at Hussein. Maybe stop watching Fox news and learn how to read. jeez.

  • Posted By: pezled @ 03/05/2008 7:59:22 AM

    Comment: You can look bias dead in the face from Newsweek's own political headlines today. McCain and Obama are always called by their surnames. Clinton is often just 'Hillary' (i.e. see Jonathan Alter's 'HILLARY'S Math Problem' column). Can you explain that difference in reporting????

  • Posted By: pezled @ 03/05/2008 7:20:24 AM

    Comment: Just because you may not hear anyone at the Newsweek staff meeting say anything about what stories and slants will produce the most money for Newsweek, it doesn't mean that's not on the table. Nobody has to say that because it is unnecessary to even speak it. Making money is the only reason you are there in the staff meeting. If newsweek and her parent companies didn't make money, would you be working for them?? I think not. We don't talk about money in those terms at staff meeting in my company either. But the first person who loses sight of the FACT that it's our company's reason for existing.....well, that person better be looking for another job.

    So, it is simplistic and more than a little deceitful to say that making money has no bearing on the stories you cover. Fortunately, most of mainstream America is savvy to the bias we see so very clearly from our vantage point. Step back and take a look at yourselves journalists. You might not like what you see. I know I don't.

  • Posted By: nobodysnobody @ 03/05/2008 3:03:17 AM

    Comment: Tire of Media Spin has a good point. In fact, Evan Thomas actually brought it up. He used the word "Objectivity"... which is awfully close to the word "Objectify" WHICH is what men do to women.
    You think women don't notice not-so-subtle gender putdowns? But we put up with it, against the torrent of uncontrolled bias against women and testosterone, in the hopes of being able to sneak away with what we not only need but deserve. Yeah, we saw the smirks. And when you smirk against Hillary you smirk against your wife and your mom and your daughters. Do you think you can get over yourselves long enough for us to get a GOOD president?

  • Posted By: bereal @ 03/05/2008 2:51:40 AM

    Comment: Newsweek, especially Jonathon Alter, and their bias against Hillary Clinton are sickening.
    Tim Russert's bias in the debates was shameful.
    These men are AFRAID of strong women.

  • Posted By: victor1950 @ 03/05/2008 1:50:43 AM

    Comment: This a beautiful day! Hillary won! Oh, yes! She did it!!
    Mathews and others are so sad!!!!!!!! The media have given a free ride to Obama.

  • Posted By: Tired of Media Spin @ 03/04/2008 10:41:41 PM

    Comment: There needs to be a petition of names, and we should have a class action suit against the media. Who holds them accountable, we do and they need to know we are not going to take it anymore. There will millions that sign up for that class action law suit - 1.7 million in Florida and 4 million in Michigan. That is just the short count. The media has ignored their right to vote and have twisted it to make it right.

  • Posted By: Tired of Media Spin @ 03/04/2008 9:40:36 PM

    Comment: The media bias against women is unreal, they put bimbos, or the overly bubbly air brain on that read from scripts or bring a ideological biggot. The men are just hateful and slide their biggtrey in the form of an opinon. I am tired of it!

  • Posted By: Ochaye @ 03/04/2008 8:33:35 PM

    Comment: Lining up for the limited bathroom space at intermission is often frustrating for women and can bring into play the secret lingo known to the all-female group. The privately coded language to allude to their struggle with the unfairness that, they think, applies to every and all situations. And who are the targets? Yup. It???s you guys, and it???s usually unanimous. Of course, it???s not fair, but woe to the brave female who would voice her support for ???the other side.???At best she???d get the curled lip response.
    Does the same happen in the men???s room?
    I???ve walked into a men???s washroom and quickly exited. Oops! I didn???t belong, so I can???t vouch for the gender discourse in those places. But I do watch the nightly news or more aptly the nightly onslaughts from the shows that evoke sports or war images...the Countdowns, the Situation Rooms, the Hardballs.
    We may be in a post-racial society...maybe, but we sure aren???t in a post-gender society. Not when I can tell, with the sound OFF, who just delivered the last Hillary Gotcha by the expression on his face under his silver thatch, and by the downcast glances of the other guys barely hiding their smirks.
    In their defense, I think it is mostly unconscious. Doubly sad.
    Sorry, Hillary, you must feel like crying. If it???s any help, I have a square to spare.

  • Posted By: Ochaye @ 03/04/2008 8:32:54 PM

    Comment: Lining up for the limited bathroom space at intermission is often frustrating for women and can bring into play the secret lingo known to the all-female group. The privately coded language to allude to their struggle with the unfairness that, they think, applies to every and all situations. And who are the targets? Yup. It???s you guys, and it???s usually unanimous. Of course, it???s not fair, but woe to the brave female who would voice her support for ???the other side.???At best she???d get the curled lip response.
    Does the same happen in the men???s room?
    I???ve walked into a men???s washroom and quickly exited. Oops! I didn???t belong, so I can???t vouch for the gender discourse in those places. But I do watch the nightly news or more aptly the nightly onslaughts from the shows that evoke sports or war images...the Countdowns, the Situation Rooms, the Hardballs.
    We may be in a post-racial society...maybe, but we sure aren???t in a post-gender society. Not when I can tell, with the sound OFF, who just delivered the last Hillary Gotcha by the expression on his face under his silver thatch, and by the downcast glances of the other guys barely hiding their smirks.
    In their defense, I think it is mostly unconscious. Doubly sad.
    Sorry, Hillary, you must feel like crying. If it???s any help, I have a square to spare.

  • Posted By: adam wannabe @ 03/04/2008 8:08:39 PM

    Comment: I think Mr. Thomas is too kind to the media, in that he minimizes their impact. They shape public opinion and influence outcomes, as is commonly acknowledged regarding the 2000 election. In such a close election how can anyone argue that the media's ridicule of Gore (such as Maureen Dowd's relentless attacks) made at least as much difference as Ralph Nader? The press has a herd mentality that resembles someone with a personality disorder: I love you, I hate you. I love you, repeat, etc. This constant threat of abusive rejection or idealizing acceptance, good press or bad, is how the media trains the candidate to take the media seriously, something the journalists involved desperately want. And , ultimately, nothing is more important to the "journalist" than the ratings that come with readership/viewership and that please the sponsors. Ultimately corporate interests are incredibly involved in the selective attention and slant of their employees: journalists..

  • Posted By: tuvocal @ 03/04/2008 7:49:33 PM

    Comment: I'd rather have someone who is experienced and can deliver than only flashes charm, charisma, the impression that he can deliver... like reality TV. Hmm...shall we elect a senior that will stump in Bush's footsteps of war, again or still, or shall we hire an African-American unknown male that looks good but has no real experience but spins it, or, gulp, actually think about hiring a politically experienced political woman?

  • Posted By: Belker @ 03/04/2008 7:12:41 PM

    Comment:

    I had to put on my hip boots to keep the BS off me. Of course, the media has given Obama a free pass while beating up on Hillary. The attitude seems to be it is OK to beat up on a woman, but you're afraid of being called racists if you ask Obama the same hard questions or do the same tough reporting! The statistics back this up. Whatever excuses you want to make are for your own benefit to ease your own conscience.

    Anyone who saw the first debate saw Williams and Russerrt act as attack dogs on Hillary while soft balling Obama. Even the Washington Post's own ombudsperson pointed out the media was suffering from Obamania. WaPo's David Ignatous has ommitted he failed to carefully examine Obama's snake oil.

    Just a few weeks ago Brian Williams tried to soft pedal a story .linking Obama to Rezko. Other media outlets did the same. Remember the Chinese guy who contributed to Hillary's campaign in violation of the law. The media went on and on with the story.

    Use whatever bull pucky you want in order to justify media failures, the results are that Obama got a free pass. The media failed. Simple. Honest. Truthful. Shame on you!

    • Posted By: Ochaye @ 03/04/2008 20:24:53

      Comment: Lining up for the limited bathroom space at intermission is often frustrating for women and can bring into play the secret lingo known to the all-female group. The privately coded language to allude to their struggle with the unfairness that, they think, applies to every and all situations. And who are the targets? Yup. It???s you guys, and it???s usually unanimous. Of course, it???s not fair, but woe to the brave female who would voice her support for ???the other side.???At best she???d get the curled lip response.
      Does the same happen in the men???s room?
      I???ve walked into a men???s washroom and quickly exited. Oops! I didn???t belong, so I can???t vouch for the gender discourse in those places. But I do watch the nightly news or more aptly the nightly onslaughts from the shows that evoke sports or war images...the Countdowns, the Situation Rooms, the Hardballs.
      We may be in a post-racial society...maybe, but we sure aren???t in a post-gender society. Not when I can tell, with the sound OFF, who just delivered the last Hillary Gotcha by the expression on his face under his silver thatch, and by the downcast glances of the other guys barely hiding their smirks.
      In their defense, I think it is mostly unconscious. Doubly sad.
      Sorry, Hillary, you must feel like crying. If it???s any help, I have a square to spare.

  • Posted By: whala @ 03/04/2008 6:37:58 PM

    Comment: The media is so politically charged it's rediculous. For all you who are hooked on the "George Bush lied to us" kool aid, here's something to think about. As long as we're accusing people of lieing to us, let's look at the Global warming issue. There's absolutely ne evidence that humans contribute to climate change, yet the inventor of the internet and the media flat out lie, and tell us that all scientists support this theory. Americans in true lemming fashion, line up to waste trillions of our hard earned dollars on programs that will make no difference, and make the cost of the war look like penny anti. It's just another step to lead us into socialism disguised by fabrication based on wierd and unsubstantiated science. If you want to accuse someone of lieing to you, look left, and look at the media.

  • Posted By: terravista @ 03/04/2008 3:52:51 PM

    Comment: No, the media is not unbiased. They clearly back larger conglomerates and companies that own them such as GE (owner of NBC) who trades with saudi Arabia who then trades with Iran. So it is no wander that they want the least effective and most pliable candidate on the world front. OPnce they pick up how a cnadidate is swaying on promises and shadey realitstate dealings then they push and support that candidate. If you red Newsweek, mSNBC or The New York Times then it is apparent that they want Obama in office which isn't the course America needs at this moment abroad. Go to MSNBC's First Read and count the listing of pro-Obama messages as opposed to the Pro-CLinton messages and you'll witness quit a difference in the number they allow (very few) for Hillary to get exposure so it definatley sways public opinion in voting because readers tend to think that is what America is standing for.

  • Posted By: terravista @ 03/04/2008 3:52:12 PM

    Comment: No, the media is not unbiased. They clearly back larger conglomerates and companies that own them such as GE (owner of NBC) who trades with saudi Arabia who then trades with Iran. So it is no wander that they want the least effective and most pliable candidate on the world front. OPnce they pick up how a cnadidate is swaying on promises and shadey realitstate dealings then they push and support that candidate. If you red Newsweek, mSNBC or The New York Times then it is apparent that they want Obama in office which isn't the course America needs at this moment abroad. Go to MSNBC's First Read and count the listing of pro-Obama messages as opposed to the Pro-CLinton messages and you'll witness quit a difference in the number they allow (very few) for Hillary to get exposure so it definatley sways public opinion in voting because readers tend to think that is what America is standing for.

  • Posted By: educator1332 @ 03/04/2008 3:33:33 PM

    Comment: Well, what isn't generally known by the average American is who owns the news organizations and networks they watch - agenda plays a big part in that. Most people have no clue. Those that believe what they see on TV deserve what they get! So, when you all are ready to whine about Obama later, remember that you picked him...

  • Posted By: stananmaryann @ 03/04/2008 2:58:56 PM

    Comment: I don't buy it. Matt has been on his morning show for months and the question has always been, "What does Hillary have to do to win?" He's not reporting the news. He's trying to influence us.

    • Posted By: justtruth @ 03/07/2008 17:23:18

      Comment: BRAVO! Exactly. Andrea Mitchell, as well as Merideth Vierra, tone of voice goes into an upswing when they discuss HIllary, but mention Obama and their voices lower to a grumble. More time is spent talking about HRC campaign then Obama's - anything pretaining to him is quickly covered. Merideth Vierra has spoken on air about her son meeting Hillary Clinton, and how, Clinton, took the time to talk to her son about politics. She was so impressed by her. Yeah, real objective.

  • Posted By: jjaffie @ 03/04/2008 2:41:37 PM

    Comment: Clinton needs a double digit margin of victory in EVERY remaining state in order to salvage the nomination. Do you know how hard that would be? The fact that the media is still giving her a chance should close this discussion.

    From strategic campaign errors to mismanaged finances to changing her image every 5 minutes, Clinton is to blame for how far she has fallen. I am surprised the media has not been harder on her since they are usually the first ones to see and react to blood in the water.

  • Posted By: aerial @ 03/04/2008 1:27:05 PM

    Comment: Is this one , little puny article supposed to be the equivalent of the media's mea culpa? For instance, there doesn't seem to be any substantive reporting of Obama's campaign manager's trip to Canada; nor of the subsequent corrobation that Obama was reassuring Canada that his promise to OHIO to abolish NAFTA
    was merely empty campaign promises.
    However, if Sen. Clinton had the audacity to send her campaign manager to another country, it would have been broadcast simultaneously on every network and its affiliates, and would have received banner headlines in newspapers across the nation. We would have seen Scarborough and Mathews devoting endless segments inviting talking heads to lash out at the Clintons and ascribing doomsday consequences to their actions. Russert would have employed a whole panel of experts. But to be fair, half of them would speak about Obama -in the most glowing terms.
    Newsday reporters would have undoubtedly been among those talking heads. So, isn't this article self-serving and a divergent tactic from the real issue? They want to taste the power that FOX had with Bush and thus having chosen a democratic candidate that will provide them with the prose and spiffy soundbites, are doing all they can to destroy Sen Clinton's viability.


  • Posted By: wendy-franklin @ 03/04/2008 1:02:03 PM

    Comment: With greater experience, comes greater scrutiny. The Clintons loved this loophole, but only when it worked in their favor. Now that they perceive it as standing in their way of the White House, we have to listen to them sing the blues about it ad nauseum. I find it eerie to hear the Clintons repeatedly imply that it is not voters that are voting for Obama; it is not the voters that find his message most appealing; it is not the voters that are fatigued after 20 years of Bush/Clinton -- of course not, it's the media. Please.

    • Posted By: emmarcee @ 03/04/2008 14:27:10

      Comment: O sure that is what the MSM repeated: Experience is really a bad thing. BS

  • Posted By: nobodysnobody @ 03/04/2008 12:19:13 PM

    Comment: Within the past few days I've noticed quite a bit of this juvenile need from the news lobbyists for their egos to be stroked concerning their coverage of the political race. It reminds me of children who need to be told by their parents that their drawing is the best. Wouldn't it be nice if they would just grow up and be willing to hear a little bit of criticism?
    I heard Anderson Cooper, last night, try to justify himself. Was there an apology? No. Even after he threw out some 'facts' that might have lead one to the conclusion that they were, indeed, being unfair we still get fed the line that they, the news lobbyists, are infalable and, because they sit around and stroke one another's egos before they sally forth with their reports. And this is supposed to be some kind of justification for their behavior????
    If these people are supposed to be "professionals" then we're screwed. And worse, they're not even embarrassed that Obama has never been under the same scrutiny as Hillary has been FOR YEARS.
    Please. If you're in the NEWS business - borrow a brain for awhile. Give it a little bit of a workout. While you're out chasing Obama the Rock Star and Brittny the Personal Disaster grown-ups are trying to make
    intelligent decisions that will determine the fate of our nation. We NEED someone in the White House who is up to speed because it will take all of her four years to undo the damage Bush has done to our future as a world leader.


  • Posted By: doesitreallymatter @ 03/04/2008 10:04:12 AM

    Comment: No, the media is biased but not idealogically. They report everything positive that they possibly can about Hillary Clinton and everything negative they possibly can about Barack Obama because Hillary Clinton is strongarming them. Please view the following tape of the most recent broadcoast from CBC in Canada and tell me the fact that none of the media will air this doesn't mean what I am saying is true. Add to that egregious misrepresentation by the mainstream media the fact that all of this so called controversy which ended up not being true happened a month ago to begin with and none of you even said that. Bias, you bet.


    Link
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/03/clearing_up_obamas_canadian_pr.html


    • Posted By: lamm01 @ 03/04/2008 15:21:05

      Comment: What planet are you living on..... Positive about Hillary? Get real.... Your comment is so ridiculous I don't know why I'm even responding to it, but I feel someone has to.....Go watch CNN, MSNBC, ABC and NBC and then tell me that there's negativity about Obama.

  • Posted By: T dough @ 03/04/2008 9:00:08 AM

    Comment: What media? We have Entertainment Tonight, nothing more.

  • Posted By: drewmelton @ 03/04/2008 7:44:38 AM

    Comment: Frankl, It appers that the inside DC media is saying.... Look, we have the "right" to inject ourselves ina s we deem fit. The problem is the medai does not have that right. Personally, I do not give a damn what Keith Olberman thinks nor do I give a damn what Mike Barnacle thinks. Your job in the media fron Journalism 101 is to present the case as is- leaving spin and judgment up to the reader. You are to remain impartial and limit your opinions to Op-ED pieces. It diminishes your credibility. The media says she's had a longer career. That is a weak point. Why? Because each time Shuster says "The Clinton campaign is 'pimping' out Chelsea"---well it doesn't take a genius to realize that he is biased. An unbiased commentator would never say this. And Olberman's cheshire grin everytime he tries to spin Hillary is palpably disgusting. The bar is set unbelievably higher for her as not only a disdained Clinton but as a WOMAN! Recently, Obama has begun to receive more critical press Why? It has much more to do with public outcry over what every person sees as his favorable stand within the DC media machine. It has entirely nothing to do with media objectivity. Thepoint is keep your personal feelings to yourself. We have no need for your personal opinion in these matters. Do your job and report the facts. The number one rule of journalism is the reporter is to remain and this is the point---UNBIASED!!!!

  • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 03/04/2008 6:56:43 AM

    Comment: The vast majority of reporters and editors have been indoctrinated by very liberal colleges and universities. Their sense of journalistic values have been made subservient to their calling...To spread a "progressive" gospel through sound bites and innuendo. O'Reilly catches flack because he doesn't play that game. Say what you will, but he is "fair and balanced" Thanks Bill O'Reilly.

    NOBAMA!!!

  • Posted By: nawawimohamad @ 03/04/2008 4:37:27 AM

    Comment: The media has always been biased.

  • Posted By: Jimmmer @ 03/04/2008 2:07:33 AM

    Comment: This article is channeling Nixon. Did anyone laugh at this? My summary: The press are good, yes we're biased, but it is just ot give our readers a representation of the "character." This is different from fiction because we get together with our editorial group and discuss the story arc....I mean conflict....or whatever...I mean truth. So trust us, not just Newsweek but US>
    Does Evan expect us to drink his Kool-aid or did this punk just fall off the turnip truck? What a joke.

  • Posted By: Jimmmer @ 03/04/2008 1:53:56 AM

    Comment: So I guess, from this article, the press is simply developing, for the readers, a "character" of each candidate. This is unlike being biased because we would confuse that with fiction. Wait, I'm sorry, she acknowledged the press is biased but should be trusted because they strive for the truth. OK, I'm confused. Whatever, this is one of the worst articles I've ever read from a national news magazine. Are they hiring?

  • Posted By: sierrahighrouter54 @ 03/04/2008 12:11:39 AM

    Comment: The news media is both biased and fickle. In the last couple of months it has been impossible to tell where their lips end and Obama's butt begins. Not to worry though, because soon the tables will be turned when they find the next batch of Britney's dirty laundry. Who suffers most from all this unprofessional behavior? Hillary? Nope - you do - you the American people, when issues should be examined and discussed instead of what a candidate is wearing. When honest debate is encouraged instead of calls for candidates to drop out before the VOTERS decide. When emotion clouds judgement and rational thought. And when the media stops even their current pathetic attempts at reporting and simply become shills for the 'philosophy of the day'.

  • Posted By: Paul Seymour @ 03/03/2008 10:25:21 PM

    Comment: My concern is not so much the media's bias is what they report--it's more about what they don;t report that concerns me. The media apparently don't see any problem with Obama belonging to a clearly racist church.
    They apparently don't think there's anything wrong with a "non-negotiable commitment to AFRICA" (as opposed to the US) as part of the church's doctrine
    Apparently, they don't think there's anything weird about Obama's links with a first cousin (Mr. Odinga of Kenya) whose SUPPORTERS set fire to a church burning 100 women & children alive.
    So, if they don't have any problems with those things then I guess: Rezko, plagiarism, the $200,000 pay increase Mrs. Obama rcd. after her husband became Senator -for the same job (Chicago Sun Times) or bill-jacking ("Obama & Me" Todd Spivak, Houston Press)
    WILL PROBABLY NOT CONCERN THEM EITHER.
    But sooner or later, I think they will find, theirs is a minority view.
    THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL CARE--- and Obama will be done

  • Posted By: Silentmajority @ 03/03/2008 10:17:39 PM

    Comment: Glory be to God that we Japanese have 2ch.net http://www.2ch.net, where everyone is free to criticize newspaper articles and expose facts that newspapers choose not to tell us.

  • Posted By: Thevail @ 03/03/2008 10:10:04 PM

    Comment: I think the press, like everyone else, would like to do well at their job. And do not forget that their job is to sell newpapers and advertising whether electronic or paper. There is a natural tendency to go with the more exciting angle on a story, because it sells better.

    And in the press's defense they have not been all that sweet on Obama, look at the grilling he got over loony old Farakhan. And yet, really, the odds that Farakahn would not endorse a black presidential candidate is what..oh yeah, exactly nil, none and zero. And what about all this hype about his hype?? How much substance is there in endlessly reporting that some people think that he's not saying anything, but some people do think he's saying something important. I've even seen a few articles on what flipping font the guy is using on his signs. Um, now that's micro scrutiny.

    Also in the interest of fairness, the press has not bothered to rake up all the older scandals about the Clinton presidency. Whitewater, Rose Law firm, Bill being impeached, dead guy in his office, missing documents "found" on the coffee table two years later. (As if somehow the whitehouse just never gets cleaned?!)

    And I think the New York Times actually deliberately helped squeak McCain past something that could have easily sunk him. We have a guy running for president basically based on his military experience and his "integrity" . And this guy is the biggest lobbyist ass kisser in History. Keating 5 anyone. But the press comes out with a sexual innuendo angle on his affairs involving a lobbyist. He's guilty as heck of doing favors for money and influence, but people just blow up about this unproven accusation that he's cheating on his wife. This allows McCain to wave a hand, look offended and blow off the whole thing, despite the fact that serious accusations have been leveled at him in the public forum of which he is actually guilty. An exceptional piece of media misdirection. And if you believe that the Editor of the New York Times took two months to do this and then botched the delivery you're nuts, or else he's suddenly gotten Alzheimers.

  • Posted By: Awareness @ 03/03/2008 10:09:38 PM

    Comment: We just want the facts, not your opinion and not just the facts from your or your boss's invested interests.

  • Posted By: Awareness @ 03/03/2008 10:02:50 PM

    Comment: We just want the facts not your opinion and not only the facts from the side you or your boss favors.

  • Posted By: ericdrexil @ 03/03/2008 8:34:03 PM

    Comment: Expose hypocrisy, shine the light on those in power, bring the facts. All of these are expected services that we wish to receive from the press. To be told that our morality is outdatedl, that our faith is the stuff of legend, that our children would be better raised by people who pay an analyist to make sense out ouf life: this is unacceptable. Smug condecension wears thin in a hurry !

  • Posted By: SeattleReader @ 03/03/2008 8:19:23 PM

    Comment: I'm not sure I've ever read a more self-congratulatory piece of putative self-criticism. Well played indeed. Instead of addressing any reasonable argument against the behavior of the press in this election cycle, you instead dismiss out of hand any level of responsibility you have, and turn this piece instead into a condemnation of the public. This is truly one of the more disappointing pieces I've ever read in your magazine.

  • Posted By: EthanMatthews @ 03/03/2008 8:16:49 PM

    Comment: The media is biased? What is the next blockbuster headline? The Sun Is Hot? Ice Is Cold? Of course reporters and editors bring their personal biases to stories, and they come through very clearly in the final products. Thankfully, there are more choices for news sources today, which is one reason why newspaper readership has fallen so dramatically.

  • Posted By: EthanMatthews @ 03/03/2008 8:09:14 PM

    Comment: What is next groundbreaking headline? The Sun Is Hot? Ice Is Cold? Of course the media is biased. As individuals, they do have their own biases, and they do permeate into their stories.

  • Posted By: nobodysnobody @ 03/03/2008 8:00:12 PM

    Comment: Myth? Our national "