I guess since the election is over they feel they can admit this with little to worry over.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html
The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.
Gosh I never would have guessed. Wonder if the NY Times will own up now as well? Or any of the major networks? Naaaahhh...
Patiently waiting for the "What about Fox News"!!!!!
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Washington Post Biased Towards Obama?
The Post was one of the really good newspapers in the country. Since I live in NoVa it's
basically the "local" paper. However, this election cycle, the coverage was so biased. Now,
it's not as though they wouldn't print negative stories about the Obama/Biden campaign. It's
just that the negative McCain/Palin articles would be on the cover page and the negative
Obama/Biden ones would be buried around page 20 or so (and much shorter). Hopefully,
they will now feel the need to redeem themselves and get back to reporting the news without
the Obama slant. We shall see, but I'm not that hopeful.
basically the "local" paper. However, this election cycle, the coverage was so biased. Now,
it's not as though they wouldn't print negative stories about the Obama/Biden campaign. It's
just that the negative McCain/Palin articles would be on the cover page and the negative
Obama/Biden ones would be buried around page 20 or so (and much shorter). Hopefully,
they will now feel the need to redeem themselves and get back to reporting the news without
the Obama slant. We shall see, but I'm not that hopeful.
RE: Washington Post Biased Towards Obama?
| Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): I guess since the election is over they feel they can admit this with little to worry over. |
And your point is - ?
mariner
RE: Washington Post Biased Towards Obama?
I've never seen a newspaper or a news outlet of any form that didn't have a bias of some sort.
Don't many major newspapers typically endorse candidates, anyway?
Honestly, who cares? If one news source changes your whole view on an election, then you probably need to get out from under your shell.
Perhaps if more people had voted for McCain, the outcome might have been different. The reasons that didn't happen are many and varied, I'm sure, and probably aren't solely dependent on one newspaper.
Don't many major newspapers typically endorse candidates, anyway?
Honestly, who cares? If one news source changes your whole view on an election, then you probably need to get out from under your shell.
| Quoting RJdxer (Reply 3): That perhaps with a little more balanced reporting the outcome might have been different. |
Perhaps if more people had voted for McCain, the outcome might have been different. The reasons that didn't happen are many and varied, I'm sure, and probably aren't solely dependent on one newspaper.
RE: Washington Post Biased Towards Obama?
| Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 4): I've never seen a newspaper or a news outlet of any form that didn't have a bias of some sort. |
Editorial boards have always had biases, but day to day reporting should not reflect that. Who knows what they're teaching in journalism school these days, but objectivity is LONG gone...
| Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 4): Perhaps if more people had voted for McCain, the outcome might have been different. The reasons that didn't happen are many and varied, I'm sure, and probably aren't solely dependent on one newspaper. |
Granted, I think the larger point is that Obama's consistent and strong campaign message got across well because he used all tools of communication well, including the media outlets that were clearly in support of him. Even the Chicago Tribune endorsed him!
RE: Washington Post Biased Towards Obama?
| Quoting RJdxer (Reply 3): That perhaps with a little more balanced reporting the outcome might have been different. |
And perhaps if Orion had aligned in the House of Saturn on Election Day the outcome might have been different.
You don't lose an election by the margin McCain did solely due to unfavorable press coverage.
-Mir
RE: Washington Post Biased Towards Obama?
| Quoting PSA727 (Reply 1): It's just that the negative McCain/Palin articles would be on the cover page and the negative Obama/Biden ones would be buried around page 20 or so (and much shorter) |
As opposed to certain news orginizations that would run (ad nauseum) negative stories about Obama/Biden and fluff pieces about Palin/McCain with absolutly no rebuttal whatsoever. I guess the other thread is right: we don't need a fairness doctrine.
RE: Washington Post Biased Towards Obama?
| Quoting RJdxer (Reply 3): That perhaps with a little more balanced reporting the outcome might have been different. |
Newspapers are in the business of making money. As such they must reflect the views to their constituency, their readership.
Even so, both the Washington Post and the NYT employ hard right op-ed writers - William Kristol shouted his praises of Ms. Palin in the NYT many times and no one can accuse George Will of a left wing bias.
On the other hand, Rupert Murdoch, owner of many newspapers and tv stations, deliberately tried to affect the outcome of the election both in his publications, his broadcasting outlets and in his own public statements.
If you seriously believe that a moderate bias in the Washington Post and the NYT affected the outcome of the election, I shrug.
mariner
RE: Washington Post Biased Towards Obama?
| Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 4): If one news source changes your whole view on an election, then you probably need to get out from under your shell. |
But for one news source to come out and report its bias, you have to wonder about all the others.
| Quoting Mir (Reply 6): You don't lose an election by the margin McCain did solely due to unfavorable press coverage. |
But you don't win one that way either.
What will most likely become more and more clear over the following months and years is that the press did more than their fair share to help elect President Elect Obama. The big question is, what will they expect in return for it?
RE: Washington Post Biased Towards Obama?
Honestly, I don't think there was a lot of "positive" reporting that could be done on McCain's awful, horrible, negative campaign. Not unless it was pure crap.
Just the pick of Palin as VP justifies STACKS of "negative" tone in articles and op/ed pieces. She is way too ignorant of the world, very polarizing, and justified every bit of negativity she drew.
Just the pick of Palin as VP justifies STACKS of "negative" tone in articles and op/ed pieces. She is way too ignorant of the world, very polarizing, and justified every bit of negativity she drew.
RE: Washington Post Biased Towards Obama?
| Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): Gosh I never would have guessed. Wonder if the NY Times will own up now as well? Or any of the major networks? Naaaahhh... |
There are plenty of conservative-biased newspapers in the U.S. Not every newspaper in America is bleeding-heart liberal, despite popular opinion.
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and the Washington Times are just two examples.
RE: Washington Post Biased Towards Obama?
| Quoting RJdxer (Reply 3): Quoting Mariner (Reply 2): And your point is - ? That perhaps with a little more balanced reporting the outcome might have been different. |
And if McCain had picked the correct running mate the results might have been different.
Had McCain not ran such an attacking negative campaign the results might have been different.
Had McCain not pulled the halting my campaign to work on the financial situation the results might have been different.
Would have, could have should have.
RE: Washington Post Biased Towards Obama?
| Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 15): Would have, could have should have. |
I think that sums up the point of this thread. There will always be bias, always has been, always will be. It's what sells papers and tv/radio ads. I personally don't like it but I've learned to deal with it by corroborating the stories from multiple sources.
What bothers me is that by claiming bias (from either side) they are somehow suggesting that the American public is so gullible and uneducated that it will buy anything the press says at face value. We put a man on the Moon, built the modern aircraft carrier, led the world in world wars yet we let a paper dictate how we vote?
Besides, most people who still read the paper already know on what side they stand.
RE: Washington Post Biased Towards Obama?
| Quoting Charles79 (Reply 16): What bothers me is that by claiming bias (from either side) they are somehow suggesting that the American public is so gullible and uneducated that it will buy anything the press says at face value. We put a man on the Moon, built the modern aircraft carrier, led the world in world wars yet we let a paper dictate how we vote? |
Sums it up, but a shame that they had to feel that in order to get him elected they had to "help" him out.
RE: Washington Post Biased Towards Obama?
| Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17): Sums it up, but a shame that they had to feel that in order to get him elected they had to "help" him out. |
I agree with you, it's a shame, and it tarnished the reputation of the trade (whatever was left of it). Without the help of the media I think the result would have been the same but it would have certainly given the process more legitimacy. The media ended up making a mockery of itself and casting a doubt over the election.
Makes you wonder though how they'll treat him the minute he has to back out of a promise he made (which I get the feeling will happen sooner than later).
RE: Washington Post Biased Towards Obama?
| Quoting RJdxer (Reply 19): Who did they endorse in the general election and whom did that help? |
Ah, answering a question with a question - dodging the issue. But I will be courteous and answer yours.
I don't think Mr. Obama needed any help in New York. Check out what has happened to the New York Congressional delegation from that state.
mariner