Showing posts with label media bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media bias. Show all posts

25 September 2009

Who Elected This President?

It turns out, the American media may have played a part in electing Barack Obama as President of the United States. A new national poll conducted by Sacred Heart University has been released on "Trust and Satisfaction with the National News Media." It's posted here and shows that 89.3% of those surveyed believe that the national media played a "very strong or somewhat strong role" in helping elect President Obama.

The University's Polling Institute surveyed 800 Americans nationwide between Sept. 8-11, and covered news subjects from 2003 and 2007. The poll is the third of its kind, and reveals current American attitudes on the fairness, reliability, and influence of news media.

This can not be news to those of us who actually work in the national media. We were there. If we are honest, we acknowledge our part in it. He was younger, sexier (it's a TV term, folks) and we wanted to do stories about the popular team.

So what are we doing now? We apparently haven't stopped.

Sixty-nine percent of those surveyed said the national news media are intent on promoting the Obama presidency. Only 26.5% disagreed and said something to the effect of "oh, those news media people aren't doing that!"

Yeah. Right. I don't often say "perception is reality" but have you ever seen an industry where that particular statement seemed more appropo?

But here's the part that ought to scare the folks at the top of four (maybe more?) very big news organizations: when asked which news source they trusted the most, the highest percentage of respondents chose Fox News. Oh, now don't get your shorts in a wad. Fox only rated a 30% share.

And oddly enough, when asked who they trusted the least, the same group (but presumably a different section) also chose Fox News.

About a quarter of those surveyed (24.3%) said they believe all or most of what is reported, 54% believe some, and 20.4% believe little or none.

"It is sad, when we find that only 55.9% say they expect the media to tell them the truth today. This perception of bias will eventually catch up with the news media outlets - we found 45.9% have permanently stopped watching a news media organization, print or electronic, because of perceived bias." Jerry C. Lindsley, director of the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute

Catch up with news media outlets? Like as in falling ratings? Dropping ad revenues? Fewer advertisements? Less attention to every little thing that we say?

Hmmmm, you think?

17 June 2009

President Swats Fly. Dog bites Man. Bus Hits Car. Fire Burns House... (blah blah blah...)

I'm not sure what to make of today's news out of CNN. Well, that's not true. I know exactly what to make of it.

The headline tells it all: (President) Obama Kills a Fly. The video is posted here on Youtube.com. Go watch and then come back. (I'm not going to explain it, because you can watch it more effectively than I can dissect it.)

You're back? Okay, so what's next? How about...

President Opens Door for Wife, perhaps?
President Eats Dinner with Napkin, maybe?
Barack Obama Smiles at Senate Leaders. Or my favorite:
President Obama Interrupts Interview to Wash Hands.

The President is an intelligent, well-educated, well-spoken man. But I assume even he is laughing at the fawning of the media at this moment. He swats a fly and kills it in one swipe and THAT makes national news?

I bet he's dying to get that reporter on the basketball court right now. Imagine the news that would make.

16 June 2009

Prescription for the Media

ABC News announced today that on June 24, the network will turn its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care. As capstone to the move, ABC News anchor, Charlie Gibson will deliver World News Tonight from the Blue Room of the White House. The network will also air a prime time special, "Prescription for America," originating from the East Room of the White House. Good Morning America will originate from inside 1600 Pennsylvania that day, as well.
Checking around the Internet, the words "whore" and "prostitute" are coming up in the google searches on the subject.

I'm betting that those words were also in play during the days and weeks leading up to NBC's two-part special, "Inside the White House." The specials, which aired in early June, were part of a long tradition at NBC, but this time, the network's main anchor, Brian Williams said they would,
"show aspects of life in the White House — the Obama White House — that no one on the outside has ever seen before."
In other words, they followed President Barack Obama around like a puppy until shooed away by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

While I do think the prostitution references are a bit harsh and overdone, the whole thing feels wrong. We should we keep ourselves a respectable, professional distance. And when will the pandering and sucking up will end? By now, shouldn't the whole "honeymoon with the media" thing be over? This is the national media we are talking about. These are people paid to critically examine and present both sides of issues. They're expected to be the barking dogs of our government and people. They need to start sniffing around again.

The Republican National Committee thinks it's unseemly. (That's a literary tool called understatement.) They wrote to David Westin, President of the network to protest the airing of what they called an "infomercial" on the administration's health care reform proposal.

Mr. Westin didn't answer back, but a Senior Vice President at the network did, offering:

"I hope we can all agree that a robust debate of health care issues and potential policies is in order. ABC News prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all news makers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. In the end, no one watching, listening to, or reading ABC News will lack for an understanding of all sides of these important questions."
A robust debate? I may be wrong, but I don't go into someone's own house to criticize them. I just don't. In this case, I might do it out on the lawn, from the same neighborhood, in a room in a hotel across from Lafayette Park or other nearby location. And I have. But I don't do that in their living room. Or their East Room.
I like my politics with two parties. I do. I like to listen to both sides. I also shut both out equally. The funny thing is that the people "back home" conclude that I'm very liberal while the people I work with seem to think I'm kinda (to put it mildly) conservative. The fact that I'm offensive to both sensibilities implies to my mind that I might be doing something right. They did tell us in journalism 101 to expect to be disliked. By that standard, I've succeeded.
So here I am, watching first NBC News and now ABC News go before the current administration, hat in hand, asking to be allowed up close to cover a President whose approval ratings are through the roof. As if they want a little of his lustrous popularity to rub off on them.
A Senator from my home state in the West once hugged me on the White House lawn. It was a sickly squeamish woman that faced the cameras soon after.
Someone needs to remind them that we aren't in it to buddy up with someone so that the other kids like us, too. This isn't kindergarten. It's not even high school. But if we were to use that metaphor, we cheered when he entered the field, but now it's time for us to go sit in the stands and leave the quarterback alone so he can do his job.
We're not players. Not really. We're not cheerleaders. Although looking around Los Angeles television sometimes, I can see where some might get that idea. But no, the cheerleaders are on the front row in their short skirts.
Our profession doesn't get sunshine blown up its skirts. We aren't on the field to play, and we do not take orders from the quarterback. This is what we're supposed to do: go sit in the stands and call the game. We're onlookers by nature, with a lofty perch. We need to go sit in our cheap seats and our ivory towers and remember that the reason we are (occasionally) looked up to is because we set ourselves apart.
Someone also ought to point out to the brain trusts that are making these decisions that Mr. Obama's numbers are showing weakness. And that when the scandals come, which they inevitably will (I'm not saying his people are corrupt, but when was the last scandal-free administration? Was there ever one?) do you really want to have your people so close to the line of the fire? The potential for disaster is huge there.
So I say, "Out! Out! Out of that White House." We need to quit acting like lapdogs and go back to barking.

05 May 2009

Standing Up for Journalism

Where did the respect go? Did it return suddenly with a change of administration?
There is much being made of the White House Press Corps' standing and sitting during the entrance of the President.
Some have noted that they didn't do it for President George W. Bush. Not routinely.
But they did stand up on one occasion. As a sign of respect, they stood for his arrival at his final chat with them in the briefing room. And as has been pointed out by others, members of the national press do and did stand up whenever he (or any other sitting U.S. President) entered the East Room of the White House for a news conference.
If it seems we're getting a little trifling and "ticky" with the respect parceled out, well, that's who we are. And that's what some folks are interested in quantifying. These, of course, are the same people who count stories on various public figures, and then time them. Using a stopwatch.
Is it just that we're more comfortable in "our room" in the White House and that there, we offer less respect? Do we feel less inclined (Or perhaps pushed. I know few reporters who offer visible signs of respect on anything but a "this is policy" or ordered basis.) to do so on what might be considered "our turf?"
Well, no. The fact is that reporters generally don't stand for the President of the United States' arrival in the Press Briefing room out of consideration for photographers who are positioned in the back of the room. We spend our lives trying to do our jobs and be considerate of their needs as well. This is not exception. We try to stay out of the picture.
Except that an exception is being made. Members of the White House Press Corps apparently jumped to their feet in the WH Press Briefing room for the entrance of President Barack Obama during his most recent appearance. In these days of journalisto starpower, were reporters suddenly jumping up and into the frame? I'm still thinking this one over.
I'm not sure I like it. Something's lost. Something that approaches objectivity and the appearance of being nonpartisan. Something I hope we soon find again. And for heavens' sake... SIT DOWN.