The Myth of Objectivity

NEWSWEEK

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

There is a tendency among politicians to blame all their woes on the press. Certainly Hillary Clinton feels aggrieved, though part of the problem with Clinton's critique is that her life in politics is so much longer and more controversial than Obama's that there is simply more to examine: it is the rare presidential contender, for instance, who is married to a buckraking former president who lobs grenades at the first plausible African-American candidate. (Jay Carson, a Clinton spokesman, says: "Campaigns are supposed to be a test, and the press is to some extent the people who administer that test … There's certainly one candidate who's had their record scrubbed in the Democratic Party.") Al Gore was bitter that the traveling press corps fell for George W. Bush's fraternity-brother charm during the 2000 race, and has since lamented that the press lacks the capacity to understand and explain technical concepts, like health care or global warming. Yet Gore himself was able to go around and over the press, to use the airwaves and the Internet, to issue his timely jeremiads and win a Nobel Prize—and an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth."

It is true that reporters are susceptible to flash and charm; like most cynics, they are romantics in disguise. JFK and the early Bill Clinton were bound to get better press than insecure Richard Nixon or earnest Al Gore (who for some reason hides a raucous sense of humor). Right now, Obama and John McCain are popular with reporters. But if the usual laws of press physics apply, the media will turn on both men before Election Day. The blogs and the talk-show hosts will rant. The voters will take it all in (or not). And then make up their own minds.

With Suzanne Smalley

« Prev Page

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: funkdome @ 05/04/2008 3:25:19 PM

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
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: funkdome @ 05/04/2008 3:20:41 PM

"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.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Thevail @ 03/29/2008 1:52:42 AM

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.