« News From the Israeli and Palestinian Front: April 19th
Danny Federici (1950-2008) »



Fair and Balanced?

April 19th, 2008
By PETE ABEL, Managing Editor

Print Print

At Politico, John Harris and Jim Vandehei take their turn scolding the media for scolding ABC. Though I don’t agree with everything they write, I do — even as an Obama supporter — agree with their essential thesis:

It is not reporters’ job to promote the opposition’s story lines — especially dubious ones like the suggestion that because Obama does not favor flag pins on his lapel it reflects adversely on his patriotism. 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.

… In the wake of the debate, it is time for Obama’s cheerleaders in the media to ask some questions of themselves.

Of course, while some of us at TMV write like journalists, and some of us occasionally produce posts that (with a tweak here or there) could pass the standards of editors at major American newspapers and news magazines, we are not a pure journalistic site and don’t pretend to be one. We are instead a group of opinionated people who like to express our opinions about the news of the day, hoping we’ll prompt or provoke reactions from our readers, who will in turn prompt or provoke us to think about what we wrote. Thus, we’re more than entitled to be blatant about our preferred candidates and not subject said preferences to any screen or filter other than the screens and filters presented by our readers.

In contrast, the media (old and new) that stake a claim on “pure journalism” — that present their writers as “pure journalists” — they must rightly operate at a different level, which is precisely why I think they’d be well served by an open, honest read of Harris’ and Vandehei’s critique.



This entry was posted on Saturday, April 19th, 2008 at 8:31 am and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Journalism, Media, Media Criticism. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 14 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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...
    • ^
    • v
    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!
    • ^
    • v
    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?
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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
    • ^
    • v
    "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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    "... nor can ... reporters avert their gaze from