Halperin / Politico / Media Bias
Mark Halperin states with certainty a media bias having influenced the outcome of the presidential election.
True? I don't think so.
I would argue the reporting accurately reflected the mood of the country. If the media, particularly in editorial commentary, reflects that mood then is it properly called bias or is it merely accurate reporting? Bias carries with it an implication of being at least somewhat false, contrary to facts or misleading. It is hard to make that case in this instance. Polling has indicated for quite some time that the country has been on the wrong track etc. In a comparative sense we also saw the media eventually having gotten to the point where they called out McCain and Palin on their outrageously over the top claims about Obama.
I just don't see where Halperin has this correct at all. At least not in the medias portrayal of the mood of voters.
Here is a link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/22/times-mark-halperin-extre_n_145755.html
Oh, I don't know, Mark, I would say that the lack of interest in the Bush administrations lies and crimes during the last election might have been pretty disgusting. Also, playing the Swiftboater's lies without any attempt to refute them. No one looking into Bush's National Guard stint, or his getting out of Vietnam because of one bogus piece of paper (probably circulated by Karl Rove in the first place!)
Sarah Palin, who would not hold a press conference, who was the most unavailable VEEP candidate in history, got her speeches aired on every channel; she got to say over and over again "I said thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere" without the press screaming that this was a lie. She finally gave it up, to replace it with questions about Obama's patriotism, his "terrorist" friends, his promise to raise taxes of low-income people -- in other words she got her lying message out without scrutiny about those things.
Halperin managed to come up with one semi-legitimate example; the articles about Cindy and Michelle. Cindy's article went into her previous drug problem (my memory of the article is that it did not go into the fact that she got away with a felony, however). Michelle's was laudatory. OK. One was negative and one was positive. Too bad Michelle didn't steal drugs from people in a charity she was involved with.
The positive press coverage that Obama got, was simply a reflection of what was happening in the country. Only ignorant people like Halperin say that for every positive piece you have to have a negative one too in order to be fair.
November 23, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Halperin's remarks represent a looming problem for the Obama Administration. In an effort to swing back to that mythical "balanced" coverage, the press will now go overboard in the opposite direction.
Nevermind whether Halperin is even correct (I tend to think he isn't--). What concerns me is the response in the media to these "criticisms".
November 23, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you read the entire article, but the others at this event disagreed with Halperin's take on it. I think you're right though; there is a tendency to go after the person who is getting admiration, and who is trying hardest, as opposed to the one who flauts the Constitution (for example) and effectively says, "Too bad if you don't like it."
The scrutiny is applied most harshly to those who claim to be doing the right thing. If Bush knowingly lies and says "The US doesn't torture" it really isn't any fun saying "But...but...but...you approved the CIA torturing" because Bush doesn't give a shit. He can lie without blinking (although he does that weird thing with his jaw bone) It is only fun if the accused actually cares, and accusing them of things they haven't done is even more fun, because it is so hard to disprove a negative (read impossible).
November 23, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to say that the scrutiny is applied to those who claim to be doing the right thing, but I tend to think it's applied to "Democrats". It gets applied to Republicans only after years of evidence have accumulated that indicate that maybe the Republicans deserve some scrutiny. Hence, 5 years of Bush adoration, more or less.
And I did read the entire article. Halperin is the one who concerns me, because he's most often on the Sunday morning gab fests, and he's part of that group of dunderheads who seem to set the "conventional wisdom". Which is often neither.
November 23, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely - in all the press has done a horrible job of reporting anything other than the talking points they're handed.
To say that they weren't firmly on McCain's tire swing is ridiculous - I think the fact that McCain held on in the polls for as long as he did (despite a poorly run campaign and terrible policies) is evidence that the media was desperate to give him a chance.
Ditto for why Obama had such a hard time with the nomination in the first place. The press declared Hilary the presumptive nominee 20 months prior and did everything humanly possible to push the "poor Hilary" until it was mathematically stupid to continue to do so.
November 23, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille Dem has it exactly right.
Wes Cain
November 23, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did Halerpin mention the meeting that each candidate had with the Associated Press? When John McCain entered the room, they applauded him and gave him his favorite doughnut w/sprinkles and when it was Obama's turn, the reception wasn't so warm. How about the weeks and weeks and weeks of Rev. Wright, questioning Obama's patriotism, questioning his wife's patriotism, and actually treating the question, "Is Obama A Socialist?" as if it was a legitimate question?
November 23, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I recall in regard to reverend Wright is that the media obsessed about him for about 2 weeks, in which Hillary Clinton experienced a small bounce because of this. I don't think the media dwelled on reverend Wright for a long time.
November 23, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two weeks? Two weeks in March, two weeks in April. And that's not even mentioning Fox News.
November 23, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
it was more than two weeks. it then died down, but Rev. Wright reared his head again and wasn't put to somewhat of a rest until Obama officially cut him off.
November 23, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Media bias does not necessarily imply making false comments.
November 23, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Not necessarily," but it generally does imply a lack of an honest effort at objectivity. What is your point? At minimum, bias implies choosing to report what you want to and ignoring the things that don't support what you think. Kinda like Bush when he pushed attacking Iraq (not including the totally made up stuff, of course -- not bias, just good old-fashioned lying).
What do YOU call bias, o truthseeker?
November 23, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't we just take things under consideration on a case by case basis? All that I'm seeing are vast generalizations.
How about the Washington Times vs. Rolling Stone, for example.
November 23, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the press in general went way for Obama, why then was there zilch or very little buzz over remarkable profiles on McCain published in the Phoenix New Times and Rolling Stone?
Moreover, one person's account of her family's experience of having been in-company with McCain on a quasi-communal week-long trip to Fiji circa 2000 was featured front and center on singer/songwriter Neil Young's website. This account went nowhere as well. The portrait of McCain during this trip to the tropics is unflattering to say the least.
Did any MSM outlet report the now infamous incident between McCain and his wife in the presence of a group of journos, where McCain went nuclear on Cindy after she remarked on the thining hair atop his head?
Did any MSM outlet report on the verifiable case of W flipping off a couple standing beside the highway as he stood beside the driver of his campaign bus travelling on a rural highway in PA during campaign 2004? Of course not.
November 23, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be interested to see some sort of objective measure for assessing bias in the MSM. I am a bit suspicious of this comment, and agree it sounds a bit like a coach admonishing the referee for being unfair in a sporting event.
I disagree with Halperin's conclusion that the coverage of the Presidential race was "the most disgusting failure (of the press) since the Iraq war", by which I assume he means the beginning of the war. I would reserve that distinction for the non-coverage of the "Military analyst scandal" in the MSM in April 2008. The NYT article of course describes a critical part of the betrayal of the national interest by the press in the lead up to the Iraq War. Following the NYT story, there was a chance to really look at the role of the press, relationship of the press to the military, abuse of executive power, abuse of the public and the press by the military and other big issues in a time of media consolidation.
The NYT story got zero coverage in the MSM outside PBS. Now this is what I think of when I use the term "disgrace": the offense is perpetrated on the public, with an ignorant complicity on the part of the press. We are manipulated via a covert "psy-ops" Pentagon program into supporting a pre-emptive war. The issue is finally exposed briefly, then covered up, buried by the press it implicates in a scandal of historic proportions. Disgusting is too mild a term. Bias is revealed not only in what is shown or said, but perhaps more importantly by what is not shown. I plan to write Halperin a letter about this. I have made numerous inquiries into the "Military analyst non-story" suppression, and haven't been able to find out how it actually occurred.
November 23, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ric478464,
Thank you so much for providing this comparative. The contrast really gives you a smack.
Maybe this is just about focusing too narrowly on something, if only briefly, and thus missing the larger context completely. Halperin may, at least privately, review his comments with some embarrassment.
November 24, 2008 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink