| | There has been a lot of talk about media bias in the last year. The conversation has kind of turned into a shouting match this week. A new Pew research poll found that there was nearly twice the positive media coverage of Barack Obama as compared to John McCain. Naturally, there are a number of people unhappy about this and a number of people saying "I told you so." I even read an article by a reporter today saying that he was ashamed of his profession, in light of the recent poll.
Before I go on, let me be clear. I do not believe that Barack Obama is the Messiah. I am also not ready to say that the media has not been biased. I am ready to say that using the Pew research poll doesn't make sense. Plain and simple: It is not a measurement of media bias.
I was thinking about the results of this recent poll and actually trying to decide what it means, rather than allow other people to tell me what it means. To me, it doesn't necessarily reveal a bias. Now, if there was a bias, you would expect this poll to show the bias. However, if there was absolutely no bias, would you expect the ratio of positive/negative stories to be identical for both candidates? I wouldn't.
Take for example the unlikely scenario that Hitler came back from the dead and decided to run for President of the United States. Now, in this scenario, I can imagine approximately 99.98% of Hitler's press coverage would be negative. [Wait a second, did you just call McCain Hitler? No, no I didn't. I'm just trying to make a point.] Obviously, we have to admit that the number of negative and positive news reports about a candidate do not describe bias.
Here's another point I'd like to make. By saying that the ratios should be the same for each candidate, people are implying that a media source should not release a story about a candidate unless they have another story about the other candidate that is also positive or negative. This is absurd! If Hitler did come back from the dead and had the gall to run for US President, I would hope that FOX News and MSNBC alike would report about his past, as well as any new mischief he had wreaked since his rise from ashes. And I would not expect those news agencies to spend countless hours trying to find a comparable number of positive stories to balance the negative ones they had about Hitler. I would simply expect those news agencies to report news they discover - whether that news be important (Hitler plans to bomb Iran his first day in office) or off-topic (Hitler has been working out 3 times a week at the gym; Hitler spent $20 grand on a new tuxedo).
Do you know of any ways to logically measure the media bias in America?
Here are 2 very unscientific measurements of media bias. Ascribing to the way bias is being defined today, I am being 'unbiased,' giving one example for each party  .
1. FOX News has continually used Barack Obama's middle name - Hussein - when referring to the Democratic Candidate. Why is this bias? It's NOT because other media outlets have not used Obama's middle name, but because FOX News has not once used John McCain's middle name - which is Sidney, by the way. Can you believe that? Sidney. Who would vote for a guy with that middle name!?!
2. The LA Times is reportedly "sitting on" a video of Barack Obama speaking at a dinner. According to other news outlets, the footage includes Obama praising a University of Chicago professor who had previously been "a mouthpiece" of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. This professor and Sen. Obama served together at the U. of Chicago for several years. If the reports are true, the LA Times should definitely release the video - or else they are clearly showing their bias to the world.
|
| | Posted 10/28/2008 5:09 PM - 21 Views - 2 eProps - 1 Comment
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
