Fair and Balanced?

I agree with what Sullivan linked. I've never read so much outrage over a media event. And it was far from just Obama supporters. Clinton supporters were livid that they didn't focus on policy because they thought he is much weaker than her, McCain supporters were upset that the Democratic plans weren't "exposed" more and undecideds just felt more confused.

I wouldn't worry much about what the Politico has to say, Mr. Abel. If beltway contrarianism were a clearly defineable bias, they'd have it...

Pete Abel's observation is well taken. Contra Mikkel...the only people really upset about that debate were Obama supporters.

Pete, however, touches upon -- but never actually describes -- the major implication of his post:

If the "professional" journalists are as much in the "tank" for Obama as bloggers...why grant journalists status above bloggers?!!

Consider the New York Times...America's so-called paper of record:

It publishes a hit piece on McCain alleging adultery with a lobbyist that is widely criticized for its unprofessionalism. It publishes a weird story counting the number of nights the Clintons stayed in the same house.

The newsroom...altho not the editorial pages...are widely reputed to be pro-Obama.

Why should anyone bother reading the NYT's coverage? It will always be pro-Obama, anti-McCain and anti-HRC.

One gets more and better work from bloggers . . . who have the HONESTY to admit their own biases in their writing!

And how is "pure journalism" served by asking Obama if his former pastor loves America as much as he does, or asking him to define his relationship with a neighbor who was a member of the Weather Underground 40 years ago?

I'll be as blunt as I know how. I'm unemployed, facing eviction, and likely to end up living in a shelter in a few weeks. How are Rev. Wright's love for his country or the exact nature of Obama's relationship with William Ayers going to help me decide how his presidency (or Clinton's or McCain's) are going to affect the policies and issues important in MY life?

I hope you'll be alright, Kathy. I also think your point is very true--a lot of people's actual personal experiences make them wonder about policy issues. And instead what we get are an hour's worth of harrumping questions about flag lapel pins.

I don't mind partisan posts or even inflammatory ones all that much. If I don't want to be bothered I just skip over them. I do have some issues when people try and pretend their partisan post are journalism. The ability may be there but the objectivity is not.

Pete,

The outrages are layering one upon the other, so let me go back to the beginning.
The problem with the questioning in the debate was the insertion of the moderators' judgment on what the voters wanted to know.
The media often create inerest in controversail sub-texts rather than relect it.
I've always thought it was the meda's job to educate (as in inform) by rising above the lowest common denominator, rather than cater to it, Their failing in that, miserably.

Careers are being made on the back of a very a serious election process.
Since every commentator, and reporter and their brothers have a stake in using this as a means to improving their financial future, there is a tendency to come up with new, exciting twists to the story in order to rise above the crowd., The result is that we get further and further away from the meat and potatoes of the issues, and fight the political wars on the fluff at the edges.

Just like bogs are dependent on the media and other blogs for the substance of their posts, the media are depending on each other and on blogs. They forget, however, that blogs and media are a skewed relfection of the real world and real voters.
'I heard one pweson say this' now passes for genuine reporting.
'I read this on Daily Kos' now passes for real reporting.

I suspect the fast pace of the news cycle is one cause for this. No time to reflect.

None of the reasons comprise an excuse, however. With reporting and moderating debates comes responibility. Time must be found to filter the chaff from the wheat., the substantive from the merely attention grabbing

"Pete Abel's observation is well taken. Contra Mikkel...the only people really upset about that debate were Obama supporters."

I'm not sure that your statement is true, but even if it is, I suspect it is the fact that people who are tired of elections being about distractions and distortions are MUCH more likely to support Obama that explains why they were more vocal after this debate. This debate struck me as idiotic not because they piled on Obama, but because we're trying to select the person who will set the direction for this country over the next 4-8 years, and the primary forum for informing the voters about that person focused on lapel pins and other unimportant topics rather than what matters to the country right now. Imagine if GM was selecting a new CEO, and the search focused primarily on the candidate's dress and friendships - we would all expect to see the company fail miserably after selecting a candidate using such a process. When selecting a candidate for a job, focus on the issues that are relevant to the job, not on tangential issues that have little or no impact.

Marlowecan said:
"the only people really upset about that debate were Obama supporters. "

That's a blatantly false statement. How arrogant and elitist it is to presume to speak for actual voters.

You mistake blogs and columinists for 'the people'.
It's like all those politicians who begin stating their opinions with the eternal 'the American people want....."

Some reporters actually have gone to the trouble to interview average people in Pensylvavia and neighboring states, and that is not at all what they found.
By al large majority, they just wanted to get to the issues and forget about lapel pins. One such reporter works for the Daily News in NY, but because his article contained no gimmicky stuff, it has not been picked up by blogs or other media. Luckily he, and another reporter (I forget which paper she works for), who came back with similar findings, were interviewed on NPR.

Also, 'honest' bias is still bias. What we need are reporters and commentators who can do their jobs in spite of personal bias.
Insisting that reporters have no personal opinions means insisting that reporters not be human beings.

What we also need are consumers of news who are not so paranoid as to see 'bias' in every bit of news that doesn't fit in with their own bias.

"... nor can ... reporters avert their gaze from the fact that questions about how well candidates connect personally and culturally with voters matter a lot — they were decisive factors in both the 2000 and 2004 elections."

The first problem with this statement is that nobody (and I mean nobody) knows whether the "personal connection" factor was decisive in those elections--or whether it would have been decisive if the media could help but magnify such concerns out of all proportion vis-a-vis other issues.

As to the larger point, I do not dispute that character is an important factor in electing a president. But this provides no defense for the questions asked Wednesday night, which were not constructed to elicit any revelations about either candidate's character. There's gotta be 100 things you could ask about how Obama thinks about his relationship with Rev. Wright, for example, that I would really like to know (not that I personally think much of it is relevant to choosing between them). Instead, we get "Do you think Rev. Wright loves America as much as you?" Are you kidding me?

I daresay there are few who know Obama--including and especially the moderators--who genuinely question his patriotism (never mind the absurdity that it is related to flag pins). So what is the newsperson's role in such a case? You cannot tell me that it is in any way professional to perpetuate inanities that they do not believe to be true. Obama's patriotism is an "issue" as much as his Muslim faith is or Hillary's complicity in Vince Foster's death (even if it is "all over the internet"). If anything, it is incumbent upon a responsible fourth estate to dispel inaccuracies and misperceptions in order to further an untainted political process. (Talk about questionable patriotism.)

The media must act responsibly because of its vast power to cement narratives that can affect people's attitudes. Again, I'm not saying it is illegitimate to explore in a debate how either candidate would handle Republican attacks or perceived character flaws, but I didn't hear any questions that ACTUALLY did that. And it is totally unacceptable to do so at the expense of the omission of timely and unquestionably paramount topics.

Looks like Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" might be working. Hillary is now AHEAD of BO in the National Gallup Poll for the first time in a month-plus. And the Pinch Sulzberger in-the-tank-for-BO NYT is coming out tomorrow with a big spread how it's all over for Hillary---just as she's climbing out of the hold the MSM dug for her!!!

Last night on Jay Leno, both HRC & BO were pilloried, but the audience strangely was pro-Hillary!!!

A cloud no bigger than a man's hand?

RE t 'connecting with people', the same questions arise as with he lapel pin.

Who judges how people connect and to whom?
That story has also been co-opted by commentators; Someone decides it's important, and the idea gets picked up in commentary, and in no time at all it becomes the 'truth'.

I'm conssitently shocked when callers to C-Span express 'their opinion' by almost verbatim quotes from an opinion piece. Someone's opinion can become a self-fulfilling phenomenon.

It's the same with polls. Polls supposedly measure opinions, but when the results are published, they influence subsequent opinions.

A lot of these 'legitimate questions' are self-perpetuating chicken-and-egg stories,
Journalists and moderators have the responsibility to recognize that and to deal with it with an eye to their own contribution to the perpetuation and to judge wisely what's worth perpetuating.

But nor can serious reporters avert their gaze from the fact that questions about how well candidates connect personally and culturally with voters matter a lot — they were decisive factors in both the 2000 and 2004 elections.

These "serious" "reporters" are the ones that pushed the bullsh** "character issues" that decided the 2000 and 2004 elections.

And Pete... please stop wasting your time on the Politico. It's just another cog in the Fox News/Limbaugh/Drudge machine.

Looks like Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" might be working.

OMG!! You know Limbaugh couldn't determine the nominee of his own party, right?