Good news/Bad news about media bias

For future reference italicized words mean I cut and paste them from another source. I also usually won't post on Friday through Sunday. However I woke up early today and I read this good news/bad news article for Republicans that I wanted to share. The good news is, for all of you who have been screaming that the media is biased against our candidates, you're right. Bad news, no one plans on doing anything about it.

This is the Washington Post this morning (November 9th) reviewing the Washington Post's coverage of the Presidential campaign. Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion." You did just read that correct. They didn't cover the issues thorougly,because they were caught up in covering the "exciting" Obama campaign. The Post continues it's critique of it self. The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32). Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager. One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.

So it was just a few newspapers slanted for Democrats. Who cares! No one even reads those things anymore. ABC News talking about ABC News a few days before the election. If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, (here's the definition of cipher, because I can't be the only one who never heard that term)who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography. That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

The press will even report on the fact that independent research centers find their coverage biased. The LA Times headline a few days ago; McCain's media coverage largely negative, Pew Research Center finds.

But, you argue, this had to be a one time event based on the significance of the first black candidate having a serious shot at the Presidency. The press is usually pretty fair...right? Apparently not even to the Democratic candidates they take a dislike to. The media attempts to thin out the primary's and help the Democrats pick their own candidates. Early in 1992 the New Republic's Hendrik Hertzberg surveyed major reporters in New Hampshire and asked them which Democrat they would vote for: "The answer was always the same; and the answer was always Clinton. So they weeded out the other Dems for the voters in the Democratic primaries. Then went on, in their own opinion, to help him win the White House. In a postcampaign survey of 250 reporters and media executives by the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press: "A substantial majority (55 percent) of the American journalists who followed the 1992 presidential campaign believe that George Bush's candidacy was damaged by the way the press covered him. Again you read that correctly. 55% of reporters believe their coverage help damage the candidacy of the first Bush. I guess the other 45% didn't want to boast.


So why is this important? Well until the past few years it wasn't. As we learned back in 2001 in Bias, for some reason the majority of people who get in to journalism have always tended to be Democrats, and have always slanted coverage in their favor. However beginning in the 90's their influence has had more of effect. In surveys done from the 50's-80's, 85-95 percent of American voters joined a party. In 1990 that started changing and people started listing themselves as independents. They wanted the freedom to be pro choice Republican, or strong defense Democrat, or whatever their hot button became, they weren't just going to vote the party ticket anymore. It used to be that the debate on qualifications, character, etc happened in the primary. Once that was settled among the voters of the party, it became a rally to get your party people (whoa party people) to the voting booth. Today up to 42% of registered voters now list themselves as independent, making Independent's the dominant party. Today's candidates have to "run to the center" in a battle to get the independent voters. But Democrats have a decided advantage because as we just learned most of today's media coverage is biased in their favor. And complaining about it isn't going to do a thing.

So how do we overcome this? If I had that answer I'd be doing more than writing a blog in my boxers! But I see a glimmer of hope. In the previous articles I referenced, and even this MSNBC article say that coverage gets better or worse depending on poll numbers. So it's not that bad poll numbers are a result of negative media coverage, it's that the media tends to get negative on a candidate if their poll numbers drop. The Pew's research in 2000, for example, found that Democrat Al Gore got a level of negative coverage almost identical to the level Republican McCain is now receiving. Coverage of then-Gov. George W. Bush that year was more positive than Gore's, but more negative than Obama's has been this time. So even when the GOP polls are up, don't expect Democrat-level coverage. However all Americans should be outraged by the fact that if your candidate slips in the polls, the media will further their slide. But that's not going to happen anytime soon. So we need to find ways to get our poll numbers up and keep them there if we want want a fair shake in the press. The comment section is now open for your brilliant suggestions.

Because I don't like to end on negatives, remember this. Over 57 million Americans voted Republican last Tuesday despite, a candidate most of us didn't like, after running a weak campaign, after 4 years of Republicans not handling their business in DC. The message is still strong, and instinctively people recognize it's truth. The challange is for those Republicans who are selected to serve to follow the conservative manifesto. For those of you not familiar with it, here are the 10 points from 1937 that were written in opposition to The New Deal. They were right then, and remain true today.

1. Immediate revision of taxes on capital gains and undistributed profits in order to free investment funds.

2. Reduced expenditures to achieve a balanced budget, and thus, to still fears deterring business expansion.

3. An end to coercion and violence in relations between capital and labor.

4. Opposition to “unnecessary” government competition with private enterprise.

5. Recognition that private investment and enterprise require a reasonable profit.

6. Safeguarding the collateral upon which credit rests.

7. Reduction of taxes, or if this proved impossible at the moment, firm assurance of no further increases.

8. Maintenance of state rights, home rule, and local self-government, except where proved definitely inadequate.

9. Economical and non-political relief to unemployed with maximum local responsibility.

10. Reliance upon the American form of government and the American system of enterprise.