Sunday, September 14, 2008
A market view of media bias over vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin
Posted by John Keller
Yeah, I know. We're all sick of hearing claims of media bias when it comes to Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. I'm starting to get my fill of it, too -- and by way of full disclosure, I'm a big Sarah Palin supporter.
I'm not getting too worked up about bias involving Gov. Sarah Palin. First, the media are defeating themselves by showing their hands. Credibility in the media, in general, is at historic lows, and I have a suspicion we are seeing the last gasps of this dinosaur we've come to know as the mainstream media. Besides, taking shots just makes people like her more.
Some of the attention Palin has been getting lately is just downright funny, no matter your political persuasion. Did you see Tina Fey as Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live last night? I think the SNL Palin portrayal was spot-on. Take a look below if you don't believe me. Global warming "is just God huggin' us closer." Let's vote right now.
I have a feeling, however, that attacks on Sarah Palin from the national press are going to start dwindling out, particularly if the McCain-Palin ticket keeps rising in the polls. Folks in the press aren't stupid, really (just STOP that now!). They know that if McCain wins, they'll need access to Palin for their stories after 4 Nov.
I'm guessing that Palin's people are keeping score; she's flexing that velvet-gloved mailed fist, and the worst offenders in the media risk getting themselves frozen out -- at least for a time -- if Palin takes office as vice president.
No one in the national press wants to be in Vice President Palin's doghouse for long. Those folks will watch the polls and keep their fingers in the wind; if they see the Obama-Biden ticket on a long downward slide, then almost overnight look to see the national press as Palin's best friends.
It's funny how things work. Press bias is temporary. Keeping themselves in the game is forever. ¶ 9/14/2008 09:28:00 AM
Posted by John Keller
Yeah, I know. We're all sick of hearing claims of media bias when it comes to Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. I'm starting to get my fill of it, too -- and by way of full disclosure, I'm a big Sarah Palin supporter.
I'm not getting too worked up about bias involving Gov. Sarah Palin. First, the media are defeating themselves by showing their hands. Credibility in the media, in general, is at historic lows, and I have a suspicion we are seeing the last gasps of this dinosaur we've come to know as the mainstream media. Besides, taking shots just makes people like her more.
Some of the attention Palin has been getting lately is just downright funny, no matter your political persuasion. Did you see Tina Fey as Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live last night? I think the SNL Palin portrayal was spot-on. Take a look below if you don't believe me. Global warming "is just God huggin' us closer." Let's vote right now.
I have a feeling, however, that attacks on Sarah Palin from the national press are going to start dwindling out, particularly if the McCain-Palin ticket keeps rising in the polls. Folks in the press aren't stupid, really (just STOP that now!). They know that if McCain wins, they'll need access to Palin for their stories after 4 Nov.
I'm guessing that Palin's people are keeping score; she's flexing that velvet-gloved mailed fist, and the worst offenders in the media risk getting themselves frozen out -- at least for a time -- if Palin takes office as vice president.
No one in the national press wants to be in Vice President Palin's doghouse for long. Those folks will watch the polls and keep their fingers in the wind; if they see the Obama-Biden ticket on a long downward slide, then almost overnight look to see the national press as Palin's best friends.
It's funny how things work. Press bias is temporary. Keeping themselves in the game is forever. ¶ 9/14/2008 09:28:00 AM
Comments:
<< Home
You paint a sorry picture of journalism today, that I am sad to say I'm ill-equipped to argue with. While I think that journalists should get more people to question phrases like "thanks, but no thanks" (more like, "please...thank you...no thanks, but I'll keep the money)or figures like “20 percent of the U.S. energy supply.” Try 14 percent (and falling) of US-produced oil (not what we consume, but what we produce, & not including any other form of energy.) Or claims such as "John McCain voted five times to cut funding for education" (don't believe it.) But it’s not OK to ask her if she can manage with children, or ask if she as a woman is fit to command. What’s depressing is the notion that a journalist would let the popularity of a candidate, law, or ethnic group dictate his or her reporting. Granted, it’s a little less depressing if the reporter doesn’t have anything meaningful to say, but letting polls and one's prospects for access decide what one will report got us into the trouble we have today, and lets our leaders get away with lying to us. Whether it’s about sex, or uranium, a lie is still a lie. And like Hillary/Poehler in Saturday’s sketch, I invite the media to grow a pair and do their jobs; further, I invite them to do their jobs with integrity, and without regard to who will be in the white house. In a very real way, the people are to blame. We get what we demand, from our reporters, and from our leaders. Factcheck.org
You're out of your mind. Did you complain against the percieved media bias against Hillary Clinton when she ran in the primary. I think not. Palin said Clinton was whining at the time. The media is just doing the vetting that McCain should have done. Quit your whining. Let's face it if she can't handle the scrutiny how is she going to handle dealing with world leaders who denegrate her because of her gender. Grow up and face the fact that she is a political lightweight and was picked to placate the far right political base. She is nowhere near qualified for the 2nd highest job in the US gavernment.
Kirk touches lightly around a tree but the problem is deep sickness within the forest where the Main Stream Media (MSM) is effectively a third party hiding in sheep's clothing of objectivity. The repetitive cacophony filling the networks is effective disinformation rivaling that of some controlled nations. When one of the parties and the media align, Democracy suffers. A recent example, in addition to virulent attacks on governor Palin is the attempt by activists of one party to prevent an opposition reporter, Stanley Kurtz from obtaining access to some 907 files relating to what a Community Organizer does with $110,000,000 in Annenberg grant funds intended for helping failed minority schools. Obama cited this experience more than once as valuable part of his resume. WGN in Chicago, however, has been inundated with offensive calls and threatened to prevent even an interview with the reporter's story of public information being denied him. Further, the Librarian of the public library says the information is not permitted for review. Why have the MSM been so silent? Why do they not lead that parade about the candidate seeking the Presidential office? Perhaps inconvenient truths in opposition to their agenda might be revealed. Kirk, I admire your directness suggesting the media to do their jobs. From my perspective they are; objectivity and balance died a long time ago.
Media bias is not critizing it is trying to destroy a person they believe to be threat to their agenda. We no longer have reporting by the media. What we have is editorializing their agenda in an attempt to meet their personal vision. I believe the media today is afraid of Gov. Palin. If they do not like for fear she might get the 3 AM call they should really be afraid of the other side at 3 AM.
Some of us are not sick of the continued claims of media bias against Republicans because these claims are true.
It wouldn't be so bad if they admitted it. Almost everyone has some source of bias, but the trick is to master it so that no one can tell what it is by your actions and statements. This is impossible for Old Media journalists, who blatantly skew their coverage and then vehemently deny skewing it.
If they admitted their partisan nature, then the public could decide for themselves whether to continue to receive news from such sources. By denying it, the Old Media continues to (try to) pull the wool over the public's eyes. And some folks, regrettably, are duped.
Dr J
Post a Comment
It wouldn't be so bad if they admitted it. Almost everyone has some source of bias, but the trick is to master it so that no one can tell what it is by your actions and statements. This is impossible for Old Media journalists, who blatantly skew their coverage and then vehemently deny skewing it.
If they admitted their partisan nature, then the public could decide for themselves whether to continue to receive news from such sources. By denying it, the Old Media continues to (try to) pull the wool over the public's eyes. And some folks, regrettably, are duped.
Dr J
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
