I read with interest the diaries about the bias in the traditional media. I was a print journalist before I became a lawyer and I still have a lot of friends in the business. I understand the frustration and anger about some of the media treatment of the issues we discuss here, and usually share the feelings.
Even when I was working as a journalist way back in the dark ages before the internet was an option, those of us in the print media had little respect for most of those in the broadcast media - and it seems to have just gotten worse!
However, I often read the diaries and find myself saying, "Yes, but . . " So, this is from my perspective as a former newspaper reporter and editor.
The New York Times proclaims that it is "All the news that's fit to print." Most of us who have struggled in the newspaper world know that the more accurate description of newspaper coverage is "All the news that prints to fit."
There's a finite news hole to fill. The size of the hole depends on the amount of advertising. Sell more ads and you can have a bigger news hole. So, you have to sell those ads. To sell the ads, you have to convince the advertisers that you will reach a sufficient number of readers (or viewers), so you make "news judgments" that are often based not on some altruistic view of what the public needs to hear, but, instead, what it wants to hear. As the saying goes, if it bleeds, it leads.
The broadcast media faces a similar economic dynamic. It has to sell the advertising to justify its existence to its station or network. Local news and network news has been cut again and again in the past decades because it didn't pay its way. It has to make money or it won't exist.
So, what is "news" that will sell? The judgment is easy here at KOS. It ends up on the Rec List. For the traditional media? You can see the most popular stories on the Yahoo news page or others. The list usually seems to include a two-headed calf, a woman locked in a basement for years as a sex slave, or some other such scintillating, important world news. So "news" too often turns into tabloid fare of who is sleeping with whom, or a "gotcha" game to try to prove some dirt on a celebrity, or politician, to catch the public's attention.
I know that the owners of the major media in the U.S. are conservatives. I know that they have their own views and agendas. However, the root of those agendas is often money. They have money and they want to keep having money, so they favor the Republicans that will help them do so. They have power through the media they control, but if that media can't pay its way - bring in the money - they lose their power. Therefore, I think the primary explanation for a lot of lousy news coverage is nothing more complicated than the desire to make more money. Maybe the Bible was right that the love of money is the root of all evil - even evil in the media.
That said, some bias comes from the other end of the spectrum - those in the media who don't make much money.
Some of the discussion I've seen of the traditional media seemed, at least in my reading, to view the traditional media as an integrated entity directed by its biased owners. I think it is a little more complicated. The people on the ground actually doing the reporting are underpaid, usually liberal, reporters.
Most of them who have been at it for any length of time are cynics. Most begin as idealists, viewing the media as the 4th branch of government with an obligation to inform the public. Freedom of the press is so important that it is secured by the First Amendment. Most reporters I have known started their careers with the intent of serving that noble cause. Then, they face the reality of that news hole determined by the amount of advertising and the "news" decisions based on what will sell. Maybe the managing editor pulls a story critical of a big advertiser that the paper, or station, or network can't afford to lose. Over time, most of the reporters and editors make the transition from idealist to disappointed idealist - a cynic.
At heart, I believe many of those cynics still want to believe in their previous ideals. Most of the ones I know are still Democrats, but they don't have much hope left. They expect to be disappointed. For example, they are looking for the signs that Sen. Obama is not really as good as he looks. This searching for confirmation of the disillusionment they expect, perhaps analyzing events in a manner which indicates that from their cynical perspective they believe they have already found that reason for disillusionment, certainly appears as a bias to those of us who support Sen. Obama.
Another quirk of the print media results in something which appears to be bias. I often see criticism here that the headline on an article is misleading and doesn't really reflect the story. Sometimes that is true. But, as a former headline writer, I challenge you to try the word/number game of writing the perfect headline when you are given a story and told that the headline has already been designated to be a certain type size and fit in a certain column width. So, each letter has a number count. Your headline hole has a certain count. You are told it has to be no more than 1, 2 or maybe 3 lines. Depending on the paper, you may have grammar rules that have to apply - like hanging participles, splitting any adjective and noun, etc. Oh, and to make it more fun? You have a deadline. So, the clock is ticking. Sometimes those misleading headlines are not because of any media bias - just the best an overworked headline writer could do under deadline pressure.
Finally, I think that headlines, and even news stories, are sometimes viewed as biased by writers here at KOS because we have our own biases. I'm not talking about any hidden agenda or conspiracy. But, we share a common "bias" in favor of progressive Democratic ideals. I'm not sure that there is any such thing as a completely fair and neutral reporting, or reading, of the news. As humans we bring our biases with us. The McCain campaign argues that the media has a love affair with Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama's supporters see unfair treatment of him in the media.
I am not trying to defend the indefensible - and Fox News and its ilk are indefensible to me. I still have my bias in favor of printed media over broadcast, no matter what the network or station. Broadcast doesn't have time to do justice to the news in its soundbite format so I find it difficult to accept much of the broadcast coverage, whatever its intent, as fair. The media that prompted this diary are the print media which I still view as having some claim to respectability, like the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time, Newsweek, etc.
I think that all the traditional media make major goofs at times, but the internet can also be fairly criticized for rapid spread of inaccurate, biased information. I think that traditional media are sometimes criticized when they are just trying to do a decent job with the "news that prints to fit" under their financial and time restraints.