Media "bias" - what if one side DESERVES more criticism?

I was chatting with a Hillary-supporting friend earlier who, like Hillary's staff, backers, and Hillary herself, can't keep complaining about the media coverage being (allegedly) more negative against Hillary than against Obama.  "It's not fair," complained my friend.  "There should be some rule that the network news has to run equal numbers of positive and negative stories for each candidate!"

This is one of the worst problems to come out of the modern cable news debate and news programs: the ludicrous notion that being "fair" means giving both sides of an issue equal say, equal time, and equal respect, regardless of whether one side is, through research and anaylsis, objectively superior to the other.  It is not "fair and balanced" to just let both sides have their say unchecked -- the truth is not neutral between two opposing positions.

It is not "fair" to give equal time and respect to global warming skeptics as to global warming proponents.  It is not "fair" to give equal time and respect to evolution deniers as to evolution supporters.  It is not "fair" to give equal time and respect to both sides of an issue when one side is clearly more supported and researched and established than another.  It is the media's job (at least, it used to be) to get to the bottom of the truth, no matter which side it helps or hurts.  The idea that networks have to balance every person critical of the Iraq war with a person glowingly optimistic about the Iraq war is one of the reasons a significant percentage of Americans -- a faaaaar higher percentage than most any other country -- still believes things are going well, and the net result is seeing McCain beating Clinton and tieing Obama in recent polls.

For political candidates, the same principal must apply.  The idea that there should be a "rule" that requires news organizations to balance their positive and negative coverage per candidate is ridiculous, because it doesn't allow for the possibility -- which is in fact a near-certainty -- that one candidate may do and say things more deserving of criticism than another.  When you see Hillary Clinton getting more negative coverage than Obama, why is your first instinct that the media must be biased?  Shouldn't the more likely scenario be that, oh, maybe Clinton has simply pulled more shit to be called out on??  

And yet, the media is still trying to self-correct, and so has to blow negative stories on Obama way way out of proportion in order to balance the time spent on negative stories on Clinton.  The net result is that the general public gets a "eh, they all suck" perspective, and can defend almost anything negative about anyone just by saying "well, your guy did crappy stuff, too."  Ugh.

When striking down the undemocratic and unconstitutional "Fairness Doctrine" (which, for the life of me, I cannot understand how even today, some supposed "Democrats" claim to support this revolting piece of anti-free speech filth), Justice Brennan wrote that the "chilling" doctrine, contrary to its stated Orwellian purpose, had "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."  Well of course it did.  Any time a news source, through their own rules or through outside pressure, tries to define "fairness" as being equally positive or negative to both sides, regardless of facts, it is ironically, by definition, holding a less balanced and less neutral point of view than if they were to just report the truth.  

So, no, I do not think there should be a "rule" that lets people or positions get equal treatment when they're clearly in the wrong, and I wish people would recognize at least the possibility that, if Obama's press coverage has allegedly been more positive, that it may not be a reflection of "bias" but simply because Obama happens to be an objectively better candidate.

•  Tips/thoughts?

  by cartwrightdale on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:58:09 PM PDT

  •  Yes

    Your take on the fairness doctrine is exaggerated and inoccrect, and seems based mostly on the howls coming from the right.  To call it "filth" is beyond the pale. In fact, it is an excellent idea that should be reinstated, with some adjustments. Because of your extreme language, I can't tip you.

    by anastasia p on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:35:34 PM PDT

    •  Well

      That happens to be a topic I'm very well-versed on and passionate about.  It is not an exaggeration at all to call it filth.

      As I posted down thread -- if 20/20 does a special on gay rights, you're saying by law they have to devote time to anti-gay zealots insisting homosexuality is a choice?  If NBC does an expose on mistakes made during the Iraq war, you're saying by law they have to devote time to people saying everything's peachy, regardless of the evidence?  If PBS does a program on glacier erosion due to global warming, you're saying by law they have to include global warming skeptics insisting there's nothing to worry about, or you'll fine them and take away their broadcasting license?

      That's what you're advocating, and that's what would happen.  It would set us back ages.  It's the antithesis of a free press.

      by cartwrightdale on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:39:03 PM PDT

  •  As if the "truth" were always self-revealing.

    This is pure crap:

    I cannot understand how even today, some supposed "Democrats" claim to support this revolting piece of anti-free speech filth), Justice Brennan wrote that the "chilling" doctrine, contrary to its stated Orwellian purpose, had "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."  Well of course it did.  Any time a news source, through their own rules or through outside pressure, tries to define "fairness" as being equally positive or negative to both sides, regardless of facts, it is ironically, by definition, holding a less balanced and less neutral point of view than if they were to just report the truth.  

    It's "your truth" you want reported. You seek an echo chamber in the MSM, as it is here, at times.  You seek to impose your own bias and call it "truth."

    No thanks.  I'll take democracy and the clash of views.  I'll take the messiness of a contested truth.  

    by TomP on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:52:08 PM PDT

•  big clinton bias

  the networks act like it stil possible for her to win the pledged delgates, it pretty unlikely

  by SensibleDemocrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:01:17 PM PDT

  •  Ratings are higher in a contest.

    They were even still trying to prop Huckabee up as having a chance, right until the end.  :)

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:01:57 PM PDT

  •  Hillary is just looking for more simpathy

    she gets more than fair coverage, the MSM still talks as though she is a contender, when they should be telling it like it is - she is an also ran unless she is able to pull off some stunt.

    That would be FAIR.

    She got all sorts of coverage just before the last round of primaries, like Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show - she was all over the place - Obama got none of that.

    by importer on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:41:00 PM PDT

•  Exactly

  It's also the current tendency to give equal time and criticism to each candidate that makes it unfair to single one side out - even if they deserve it.  If this balance stuff wasn't the norm, Hillary wouldn't get attention for complaining about the criticism.

  by accumbens on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:02:32 PM PDT

•  Obama is pretty

  damn squeaky clean for a presidential candidate.
  There is just not that much to hammer him on.

  HRC has a boatload of baggage along with those 35 years in the public eye.

  It makes total sense that simply reporting on both candidates careers would lead to a skewing of the amount of reportage to the one with the excessive baggage.

  by Hawkjt on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:03:08 PM PDT

  •  Clean AND articulate. - Biden

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:04:27 PM PDT

    •  Here's hoping cleanliness and articulateness

      are enough...

      by Fasaha on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:08:02 PM PDT

  •  I actually think the MSM has

    be quite fair to HRC.

    And Dan Abrams nightly attempts to "call them as he sees them" are laughable.  He works very hard to find minor and non-existent blunders and mistatements by Obama and his campaign to match his list for Clinton.  I've stopped watching because its so pathetic.

    by mkfarkus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:13:26 PM PDT

    •  They always do that

      Remember those post-debate "truth score cards" in 2004? Where Bush told endless whoppers and they had to twist Kerry's statements and add a lot of "ifs" in order to come up with an equal number of falsehoods. I remember in particular, I think it was in the first debate, when they set on Kerry for claiming a spending figure for the Iraq war that was way too high -- he gave the amount allocated rather than the amount already spent. Within months, of course, it had blown past both figures so he was right.

      The score card after the Cheney/Edwards debate was even more laughable. Cheney connected Iraq and 9/11, then half an hour later denied doing it. Meanwhile, with Edwards they were reduced to "While his statement was technically true, he didn't mention...."

      by anastasia p on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:33:11 PM PDT

      •  The media concept of "fairness"

        giving lies equal time with truth!

        by Virginia mom on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:51:25 PM PDT

•  The problem is Fox's "fair and balanced"

  Once all the networks tried to copy Fox in style if not in substance, they began to believe that being "balanced" was as important as being "fair".  Balance from the media means that small problems on one side need to be given equal weight and scrutiny as big problems on the other, even though fairness wouldn't dictate that.

  I liked that Keith Olbermann took this on directly on Monday and said: I've heard Clinton surrogates claiming that I'm getting a paycheck from the Obama camp and that I'm biased against Clinton - no, Sen. Clinton, the facts are biased against you.

  by barath on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:07:03 PM PDT

  •  Right.

    Or that great Colbert quote -- "reality has a well-known liberal bias."  ;)

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:07:52 PM PDT

•  NICE TITLE!!

  That is an awesome point that I have never articulated quite as well. Thanks, I was smiling when I read that and the rest of your diary.

  by woodstock007 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:07:28 PM PDT

•  Media has been crappy altogether...

  I agree with your premise, though.  Not all positions are equal and coverage should reflect that.

  by LR23 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:07:50 PM PDT

•  Are you joking about the Fairness Doctrine?

  It did not require a 50-50 split.

  If you think that the media or the public is better off without it, we disagree.

  By the way, it's not just the Clinton-Obama coverage.  Look at what happened to John Edwards.  Where is the discussion of issues?

  Bob Herbert, on May 8, 2007, said:

  It’s true that promises from politicians come at us like weeds on steroids. But the nation would get a clearer picture of the character, integrity and leadership qualities of individual candidates if the press would focus more intently on matters of substance.

  As a rule, we’re much more interested in gaffes than in the details of a candidate’s position on a complex issue. We’re much more interested in sound bites than in sound policy.

  That should change. We should give the candidates time to speak. And we should listen.

  http://select.nytimes.com/...

  I think he was on the mark.

  by citizen53 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:07:56 PM PDT

  •  When I studied the Fairness Doctrine in college

    I was revolted then, and am revolted now.  My term paper on the subject was blistering.  There are very few issues on which my passion outweighs my affiliation to party, and that's one.  If Obama came out in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, I probably would demand my money back and stay home in November.  What's the point of supporting a "Democrat" who pisses on the first amendment and wants a Russian-style media?  No fucking thank you.

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:12:54 PM PDT

    •  I think you are so wrong...

      and the proof is in the pudding.

      When 70% of the American people believed that Saddam caused 9-11, then it shows the poor state of a media that is not required to present multiple sides to issues as a prerequisite for using the public airwaves.

      The first amendment protects the media, but it is not unrestricted and it is not a rationale for making money and treating a corporate media machine as having the same rights as a person to exchange ideas.

      I have a problem with the manipulation of people by conglomerates or candidates by the use of viral marketing techniques.  Our society is corrupted because things like the Fairness Doctrine no longer help to stem the tide.

       

      by citizen53 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:21:23 PM PDT

      •  Uh huh.

        So if 20/20 does a special on gay rights, you're saying by law they have to devote time to anti-gay zealots insisting homosexuality is a choice?  If NBC does an expose on mistakes made during the Iraq war, you're saying by law they have to devote time to people saying everything's peachy, regardless of the evidence?  If PBS does a program on glacier erosion due to global warming, you're saying by law they have to include global warming skeptics insisting there's nothing to worry about, or you'll fine them and take away their broadcasting license?

        That's what you're advocating, and that's what would happen.  It would set us back ages.  It's the antithesis of a free press.

        by cartwrightdale on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:33:13 PM PDT

        •  That already happens

          You are very very naive. Almost every story like that is "balanced' by some extremist making unsupported statements. A valid fairness doctrine would not prohibit the media from assessing the basis of claims.

          by anastasia p on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:39:27 PM PDT

          •  Wow.

            Sorry, but there's no such thing as a "valid fairness doctrine."  And no, I don't think you're smarter (nor am I) than William Brennan.

            by cartwrightdale on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:42:45 PM PDT

        •  As I said...

          the Fairness Doctrine never required 50-50.

          If a candidate was called out, he/she would get the opportunity to respond.  That was the strongest equivalency it encompassed.

          Further, it was an easy requirement to meet.  It helped to ensure diversity in ideas.

          You are equating freedom of speech by people with corporate speech.  In either case, neither is an absolute right.

          I think the present state of American media is testament to what has happened when the Fairness Doctrine and regulation became bad things, and the public interest has suffered.

          Finally, it seems to me that you were not even alive when there was regulation and a Fairness Doctrine.   because without it we have regressed to where news and information has taken on a different meaning than before.  I believe they call it infotainment.

          by citizen53 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:42:23 PM PDT

          •  It did NOT ensure diversity.

            It had the absolute opposite effect.  I was in high school when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, but it wasn't until college that I really researched it and understood why it was so insidious.

            by cartwrightdale on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:52:49 PM PDT

            •  You act like you are an authority...

              but it seems to me that you have no sense of the proportionality involved.

              There was a much greater diversity of ideas for public consumption when there was a Fairness Doctrine.

              And you seem to ignore that freedom of speech is not absolute.

              You further ignore that the airwaves belong to the public, not commercial enterprises, and that to obtain a license involves the acceptance of responsibilities.

              If you want to buy the Reagan line, that's fine, but even Obama is for a Fairness Doctrine.  Without it, we get bad information that promotes commercial rather than the public interest.

              Again, 70% of the American public believed that Saddam caused 9-11.  That is what we get without a Fairness Doctrine.

              by citizen53 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:59:53 PM PDT

              •  Uh huh.

                Care to share quotes from the media which claimed Saddam caused 9-11?  No?  Because THERE AREN'T ANY!?!?!?!  

                Jesus fucking Christ.

                by cartwrightdale on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:18:44 PM PDT

          •  No it didn't

            When the Fairness Doctrine was in effect there was little politcal speech on broadcast radio or TV. Stations just stayed away from the topic. The call-in talk format saved AM radio and nearly all of the political action on television has moved to cable. Why would we like some governmental agency keeping score? For most progressives bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is just a code word for limiting right wing talk radio. I would feel a lot better about this if it was Air America who was kicking ass and had a 90% share and we were trying to give the wingnuts a voice. Let's support progressive talk and beat them in the marketplace of ideas. If the Fairness Doctrine is brought back all of the most popular talk shows will move to satelite. Political television is already on cable. The Fairness Doctrine would not apply to cable or satelite.

            by VClib on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:25:00 PM PDT

            •  The FCC used the Fairness Doctrine...

              to ensure broadcasters would present numerous ideas rather than just the broadcaster's view.  Broadcasters had to devote a reasonable percentage of time to coverage of public issues and the coverage of these issues must be fair in the sense that it provides an opportunity for the presentation of contrasting points of view.

              The Fairness Doctrine was in effect staring in 1949, as an offshoot of the Mayflower Doctrine in 1940.  Why is there so little sense of history?

              In fact, it was easy to meet these requirements.  Getting rid of it was a right wing red herring.  And now, predictably, the broadcaster's view is what most people are fed, with nothing to protect the public's right to learn about contrasting points of view.

              by citizen53 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:44:23 PM PDT

              •  Little political discussion

                In the 1970's I worked on the business side of one of the big media companies. I was involved, among other things, in acquiring newspapers and broadcast properties. I have personally prepared FCC license transfer applications. I have personally canvased communities to detail how, as a new owner, we would repond to the needs, interests and aspirations of the broadcast area. I can tell you, from experience, that stations would fulfill their public interest requirements with everything but politics, which was considered too high risk. Sure stations might endorse a candidate and have the other person come in for a rebuttle. But the facts are that the death of the Fairness Doctrine was the birth of political dialogue in broadcast media. We are all upset becaue the wingnuts got there first and have become the dominant force.

                by VClib on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:54:30 PM PDT

                •  Irrespective of what you did...

                  we were better off with the doctrine than without it.

                  by citizen53 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:47:24 PM PDT

    •  You sound like you didn't study it closely enough

      There are many good aspects to the fairness doctrtine and we in fact need something like it again, not providing exactly equal time to everyone who has an opinion on an issue but allowing  for valid, divergent viewpoints to be presented. I think on this issue you are letting passion blind you to facts. Just the extreme language you are using -- "blistering," "Russian-style" - calls into question your ability to judge this issue with any, yes, fairness. I truly don't get where you are coming from and while you are so over-the-top about this.

      by anastasia p on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:38:13 PM PDT

      •  Because it is so so so offensive

        Honestly, in all the research I've done on this I have yet to see a single defense of government intrusion on free speech that even comes close to being in line with liberal and progressive ideals.  The government should never ever be allowed to limit, restrict, or punish speech.  Ever.  You're demanding that if someone broadcasts a show on a certain topic, that if you don't include the "other side" of the debate, the government can fine you or shut you down.  Where does that extend to?  How about the internet?  Wouldn't that be a nice world where the government could come in and shut down dailykos because we didn't allow freepers to respond.  Lovely.

        Yes, I know you'll say "but but but I don't mean the internet -- just radio and tv!"  But what's the difference?  So if Markos wanted to have a TV show, the government could SHUT IT DOWN if he didn't have Hannity on to give the opposing view?  That's just so offensive to me.  I just can't understand the logic or the defense of that position.

        by cartwrightdale on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:50:17 PM PDT

•  I agree with you, but your poll is biased!

  First, let me say that I do think the media is biased, but the nature of the bias varies from one network to the next.  It seems to me that CNN has a bit of a pro-Clinton bias.  But more often, I think they just settle on whatever story is the most sensational... regardless of the subject.

  To be fair, in your poll, I would have included a few more choices.  I suppose there are some out there who feel either that the media is not biased or that they are not consistent about it.  I believe the latter.

  For example, it was fair to cover the Rev. Wright issue, but I think the MSM milked it beyond reason.  Also, they don't seem interested in doing any investigation of their own.  They are more like a conduit for others.  Nuance (my nod to Paul Reiser) is a concept that is lost on them...

  by P Mikkelsen on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:17:43 PM PDT

•  My .02

  is that the Clinton's have a much larger historical body of work to be analysed and reported on.  Add that to the list of people/groups they've pissed off over a 20 year span and there you have it.  The Clinton's need to realize that any percieved "media bias" is largely of thier own making due to thier past action/inaction.

  by lzyltnin on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:23:14 PM PDT

•  Bias-sensitivity leads to worse journalism

  This points to a bigger problem in journalism, which is that the fear of being labeled as biased or unfair has led many journalists to change their practices.  Many now essentially forgo journalism and simply act as stenographers, reporting what others say without analyzing it for merit or validity.  Hence, the rash of reporting of this type: "X's campaign says Y, but A's campaign responded by saying B."  The stories that do get covered tend not to be substantial issues stories, but superficial ones, because real issues are messy, complex, and open one up to accusations of bias.  So reporting on a candidate's mis-statement or uncovering an affair from years ago become popular because they are more black-and-white.  Comparing candidates plans on health care requires judgment, even if the piece doesn't favor one plan over another.  There are many reasons why journalism is devolving, but I do think that the fear of being labeled biased or unfair is one of them.  BTW: I don't necessarily have a solution, I just think that this is a problem.

  by Sedi on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:23:24 PM PDT

  •  Well said

    So much of TV coverage of the new these days is just two paid hacks taking turns spouting talking points-is there ANY reason to hear from Lanny Davis about the primary race (I don't know that Obama guy they always have on CNN, but the same goes for him).  If you know what someone is going to say before they say it, why bother?  I watch MUCH less cable news because of that.

    by ksduck on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:39:20 PM PDT

•  what do you mean by "if"???

  There is nothing hypothetical about it.

  by teacherken on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:30:54 PM PDT

•  Accusations of media bias are subjective

  and too slippery to pin down.  People (myself included) are amazingly good at rationalizing feelings into facts.  Any sports fan who's watched a game with a fan of the opposing team knows what I mean.  I frequent sports message boards a lot (Go Ducks!), and I have never, ever seen a fan say, "Boy, the refs really handed us that game, didn't they".  Even the most egregiously bad calls are rationalized to be correct.  

  If you're an Obama supporter, go read a comment thread at TalkLeft and see the kinds of things they find objectionable about Obama-its amazing the trivial things they'll bring up.  In 6 months, we here at DKos will probably be chagrined at the stuff that sat on the rec list for days as testament of Clinton being unfit for office-it'll seem really small once its not puffed up with the emotion of competition.

  by ksduck on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:33:45 PM PDT

•  That's the core of the problem.

  The media "fair and balance" out a political system where one party doesn't believe in Democracy, works for the benefit of the Saudis over America, and otherwise commits treason on a daily basis.

  Our media is corporate-fascist propaganda, and as with any propaganda, we the citizens who have to ingest it are the only ones on the planet who don't know it's propaganda. Ask any European and they can tell you how much of a joke American news is.

  by Flibberty Gibbet on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:43:09 PM PDT

  •  It's funny

    Our tv journalism is a sensationalist joke, but our print media is generally quite good.  In Britain, their tv journalism is quite good, but their print media is largely sensationalist trash.  Weird.  :)

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:54:13 PM PDT

    •  I've never heard anyone in Britain

      refer to our print media as "quite good." And I think it's a symptom of our isolation that many of us seem to think it is.

      by Flibberty Gibbet on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:15:10 AM PDT

•  Do you really want to empower the corporate media

  and say it's okay for them to arbitrate?
  We'd only get "moderate" republicans elected if you did.

  by Barry in MIA on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:54:15 PM PDT

•  Your Poll Would Seem to be Missing

  ....some fairly obvious inclusions.

  by TooFolkGR on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:54:23 PM PDT

  •  What should I have added?

    "The media is completely neutral and fair to both sides"?  :)

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:55:06 PM PDT

    •  Possibly

      But yeah, a choice along the lines of, "I do not believe the media has been overly biased towards either candidate," should have been there.

      by TooFolkGR on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:56:38 PM PDT

•  The Dem. bias is for a horserace...

  The hard part is the obvious and huge bias against the Democrat (whoever it is) vs. the flowers and chocolate they'll give McCain.

  by The BBQ Chicken Madness on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:54:39 PM PDT

•  Spot On With This

  Senator Clinton's campaign worked for the negative media coverage for herself and for Obama.

  Senator Clinton is also responsible for the anger of both her supporters and Senator Obama's.

  Senator Clinton's strategy is divide and conquer for personal victory.

  Senator Obama's strategy is unite and conquer our problems for the common good.

  "He is the best physician, who is the greatest inspirer of hope." Samuel Taylor Coleridge

  by stanjz on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:11:27 PM PDT

•  Media meta-bias conveys legitimacy

  Meta-bias is simply how much coverage you get as opposed to your opponent. The Clinton campaign gets (and has always gotten) about 85% of the coverage of the democratic race. Still, today. All Clinton, almost all the time. When Obama is discussed, it's usually vis-a-vis Clinton, or gleefully hammering him for Reverend Wright, or his weak-assed bowling.

  The media does it's worst by ignoring you, condescending to you, hoping you'll fade away. I'm still waiting, waiting, waiting for somebody, ANYBODY, to do a full-out positive story on the Obama campaign, the historic nature of it's wide grassroots support, the great and unprecedented things that it's already accomplished, and what such an insurgeancy might auger for the comfortably entrenched status quo. This is NEWS, after all.

  by Asherd on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:36:24 PM PDT