Being considered a professional is important. But most of us are 'old' professionals, not old in age, but old in thinking style and approach to living. Old professionals separate science and spirit and think in terms of either/or - 'you're either for me, or against me.' New professionals connect science and spirit and think in both/and terms. Please read: The New Professionalism: Connecting Science and Spirit, available at www.WisdomAtWorkUSA.com.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Mainstream Media Bias Against the President?
Does the Herald
have a bias against Obama?
Consider the front page story that appeared about the last
debate Tuesday morning.
On the front page [very significant] clearly labeled “news
analysis” [also significant] is the headline: “The winner: maybe Obama.”Hmmmm.What does that suggest? To me,
it casts doubt, creates suspicion, hints
that things are not as they seem, that perhaps
there’s some manipulation or falseness involved.You know, like the conspiracy to make the
unemployment numbers seem better than they are.
Is this bias?If one
considers the levels of choice and decision making involved in getting
something on the front page of a newspaper, perhaps it is. The writer, Marc
Caputo, first decides on which words to use—what they infer and suggest and
what they actually say. Caputo chooses “maybe.”Hmmmmmm. Then his editor and his editor review and allow, “maybe.” The
fact that it appears in the paper on the front page no less, suggests the
management and owners of the Herald
Then the story itself; it starts off with the first 5 or 6
paragraphs that seem to be pro-Romney. The next few paragraphs are a bit more
neutral and slightly pro-Obama. Then it says, damning with faint praise: “And
the president probably won, but he probably needed a far bigger win to change
the trajectory of the race. He didn’t score the type of knockout that Romney
did during the first debate. So Obama, who started to close the gap after the
second debate, is likely to still trail in the polls….A sign Obama was behind: He went on the attack
early and often with one-liners and barbs. Romney held his own, but it’s
tougher to score on defense.”
Poor, honest, hard-working, all-American Romney, struggling
to hold his own against the vicious attacks of the nasty black man who isn’t
even a citizen!
There’s no question of the slant in that article. Yes, the
Herald labeled it “news analysis” which means opinion, but the fact of it’s
being on the front page, suggests a strategic series of choices by those
deciding what goes on the front page—the management team, to put it there.Is this bias? If we know that most people
don’t read the labels such as “new analysis” but only the headlines: “The
winner: maybe Obama,” I think we have the kind of subtle bias that has not only
characterized this campaign but all the coverage of the President.
The October 15 issue of the Christian Science Monitor in an article entitled: “Are the
mainstream media biased?” has this paragraph near the end: “The Pew Research
Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism crunched numbers late last year
and found that coverage of Obama had a negative tone more often than did coverage
of Republican presidential aspirants [right? That gang of charlatans and
buffoons got more favorable coverage than the President? Can you believe
that?].As of this spring, the project
was tracking the tone of coverage for Romney and Obama, and was finding a
generally positive tone for Romney from March through May. For Obama, the tilt
was more negative.”
So the negative bias seems to be real and pervasive, a
constant drip, drip, drip clouding the perceptions of those casual, uninformed
consumers of mainstream—I hate to agree with Palin but I will, “lame street”
media. Are the casual, uninformed consumers of mainstream media also the
uninformed voter and the much vaunted “independents” who still haven’t made up
their minds? Maybe.