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.