Preconceptions and Results of the Comparison: A Reflection on the Exercise

When the time came to choose the news outlets I would analyze for this class early in the semester, I chose the news outlets that I did because I knew they were different, and wanted to find out how and to what extent. I now look back on those outlets, and while I leave the final comparison for my presentation and paper, lay out how I saw them.

I found myself somewhat disappointed in the Huffington Post. While online deadlines were often very tight, I had hoped that not having to lay out news pages or fill a half-hour of programming would open the door for the possibility of longer-form reporting. Instead, many of the election-related stories I found were links to other sites; were single statements without any background reporting, analysis or attempts to interview others; or were stories covering campaign events with little information about politics. I had heard some about Huffington Post’s liberal tilt, but had not expected it to be manifested so much, as McCain and Palin received far more scrutiny than Obama or Biden did, given that Palin might be criticized for a slip of the tongue, but Biden would not be.

I found FOX’s bias to be less open than I had thought, with some exceptions like Bill O’Reilly’s programs. While the reporters mostly interviewed conservatives, most of the reports were not overtly biased enough for the viewers who were not watching because they were conservatives to question “fair and balanced” label. As OutFoxed reported, much of the bias consisted in the stories’ presentation and framing, such as giving far more time to stories about Bill Ayers than to any that would cast Sarah Palin in a negative light. Then again, I found that some of FOX’s limitations are due to television’s limitations as a news medium, so their reporters and editors are not entirely to blame. While television journalism can often “show” news better than newspapers can, they are significantly less able to “tell” about the news. FOX has made many unacceptable ethical decisions, produced few pieces of good election journalism, and is not an example to be emulated, but the situation is a bit more nuanced than I had thought.

My more favorable view of the Washington Post was partly based on my observation that while it often pursued horse race journalism and had other flaws prevalent in the news media, it avoided the mistakes the other two had made, and did not make many of its own. Its stories about the current status of the candidates and what tactics they were using to take the lead or prevent the other candidate for doing so often went into the issues behind each one, such as explaining what blacks think about Obama, rather than just suggesting that his advantage is because of the black community, or merely reporting the statistic.

The Washington Post had many other stories that went into the issues in more depth than the other two did, and worked to help understand the candidates’ views. While the Washington Post may be better than the two other outlets I covered, it is by no means the best or ideal journalism, primarily because it does not completely rise above some of the more prevalent flaws in election journalism, or the limitations of the media or the media producers, even if it is more informative and professional than Huffington Post or FOX News. I did not expect the Washington Post to be perfect, though, and while its flaws were disappointing, they were by no means surprising.

This exercise helped reinforce my belief that while some news outlets do better journalism than others, especially regarding elections, as a whole, the media have a long way to go in making their reports more informative, more investigative and more professional, and as rising journalists, it is our duty to start the movement and advance it.

Anna Uhls: An Informative Talk about Journalism Jobs in the Internet Age

Anna Uhls’ talk on her getting a job at the Washington Post was interesting in several ways for me as a, a journalism student, a blogger analyzing the Washington Post’s coverage, and, in a few months, a job-seeker in the journalism industryl. While Anna had been touted as an example of an exceptional journalism graduate who managed to get a job at the Washington Post after graduating, I was a bit surprised to hear of the circumstances, It had taken her four months to get the job at the Washington Post, which helped me see that waiting several months for a job after graduation would be typical for anyone, even the very talented. Her explanation of how she got the job with the skills she had effectively helped me understand how knowledge of the Internet can make young reporters an important resource for newspapers, even in the current economy. 

 Anna was also remarkably modest about the nature of the work and the nature of the job, stating that she had gotten the job partly due to luck, and was the “little fish” who, despite knowing how to work with the Internet in ways that many more experienced Post reporters did not, still did fairly basic work. This helped me realize that I should not put my initial expectations too high, and not feel discouraged as my peers get internships and jobs at "big-name" publications. Having recent graduates with interesting stories to tell, especially when such stories relate to the rise of internet journalism and what college students can do for themselves and their future employers in the course of it, is a helpful feature for journalism students about to enter the workforce.

President-Elect Obama's Agenda

While the election may be over, the media attention to it has not completely died out, but has merely shifted over to Barack Obama establishing his administration, especially the steps he must take to address the economy even before taking the oath of office. The Washington Post had several good articles about Obama’s plans

-This article effectively showed Obama’s stance on a critical issue, and indicated how he is using the days between his election and his inauguration to combat the economic problems.

-This article was an informative exploration into Obama’s views and the reactions to them from people in the military. As Afghanistan is once again assuming national importance, Obama’s plan will have important consequences for the region.

-This article appropriately analyzes how much good Obama can do once in office by examining the limits of a president’s influence, how much has changed and what challenges Obama will face, rather than exulting over Obama’s election as a young, black or Democratic president.

For the Huffington Post, this article effectively shows the details of Obama’s plans once he comes into office, including the various provisions, helping to spark informed debate about it and the main issue of whom Obama will choose for his administration. This was a pleasant example of substantial and informative reporting on their part. FOX News’ Bill O’Reilly wasted no time in smearing Obama. In his November 11 edition of Talking Points, he brought up the issue of illegal immigration, slamming Obama and New York Times for granting illegal immigrants amnesty, and contrasted his position with his proposal that “reasonable” people should accept. It also mentioned that thousands of US citizens have been killed by illegal aliens, and that they will be The First Presidential Problem segment has some conservative undertones, such as when Stephen Moore mentions that the economic problems of the 1970s that Reagan fixed were worse than today’s (an unspoken favoring of an instance of Republican president cleaning up problems from a Democratic predecessor over one that is the other way around), the host’s description of taxes as unpalatable, and the suggestion to rein in government spending.

The excitement may have subsided somewhat after the election, but reporting on the rise of president-elect Obama is comparably important. He has gone from promising changes to inform the voters of what he will do if elected to revealing what changes he hopes to make into law, but it remains to be seen how and if those promises will be fulfilled. These plans will become important in the months and years to come, and the media outlets should do all they can to educate the public on them, just as they should have done what they could to help the public understand his platform during the election.

Matthews on Obama: A Troubling VIew of Journalistic Responsibility

While watching November 7’s Political Grapevine with Brit Hume, I heard about the following exchange between Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough on the previous day’s Morning Joe.

Chris Matthews “I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work.”

Joe Scarborough “Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist.”

Chris Matthews: “Yeah, that is my job, my job is to help this country… to make this work successfully because this country needs a successful presidency more than anything right now,”

Ignoring the hypocrisy evident of Brit Hume pointing out that Matthews believes “objectivity is no longer part of his job as a journalist,” I find Matthews’ sentiments poorly thought out and having troubling implications. His saying this so openly showed a lack of thought on his part, as it sent the message that he put his loyalty to Obama over what is good for viewers. Obama could potentially take advantage of this sentiment and use the program as a sounding board for his messages, knowing that Matthews will not give him any scrutiny except what he believes is for his own good.

Additionally, this shows a lack of understanding of what journalists can do for their countries. Matthews makes the unspoken assumption that what Obama is doing for America is what’s best for America, and does not consider that Obama may be mistaken on some issues. If he reported with the intention of providing a comprehensive examination of Obama’s policies, he would help people see whether his policies were working, and if they were not, publicize their opinion, potentially making Obama understand that his plans were ineffective. There would be no guarantee of this working so effectively, but if Matthews produces reports that are “helpful” to Obama as he says, the people viewing his reports are more likely to internalize his opinion and less likely to protest or even realize that they disagree with his policies.

Journalists cannot be completely "objective," but they can strive to be fair in not giving anyone more or less scrutiny than is warranted, and should strive to avoid any conflicts of interest. Matthews, however, is not making this effort, as he should be saying that he will be evaluating Obama's plans and giving the American people- most notably the voters- the information they need to decide whether he succeeded. The news may not favor the politicians they support, but journalists have a duty to report for the benefit of the American people, not any specific politician, party or ideology.

Sarah Palin in the Post-Election Media

Sarah Palin has been one of the campaign’s most controversial figures from when she was chosen as McCain’s vice presidential nominee. Even though the campaign has been concluded, some Republicans blame Palin for the defeat, while others suggest that she has a potentially strong political future.

-The Huffington Post often dealt with the infighting in the Republican Party
* This story dealt with Palin’s response to criticisms; while it sharply crticizies Palin’s critics, it also shows Palin as angry herself. The article did not go as much into the origins of the misunderstandings as the Washington Post article does, and spends a fair amount of time talking about the clothing.
* This article, cited by the Washington Post’s Reliable Sources column, continues the site’s almost absurd obsession with Palin’s wardrobe, long past when it stopped being relevant.

-The Washington Post effectively helped readers understand Palin.
* This article effectively showcased what Palin was doing in the aftermath of the election.
* This article cast light on some of the disputed comments, helping readers to understand

-Fox alternated between being very supportive of Palin and criticizing her.
*Fox’s Political Grapevine was almost completely approving of Palin, suggesting that she still maintained her fame despite having lost, and did not go into any of the infighting.
*The Carl Cameron report features anonymous reports criticizing Palin’s performance by McCain campaign officials who suggest Palin was unprepared for public appearances and blamed others for it. Many of the stories are not especially newsworthy, as they reveal little about her political knowledge or even about her character, and merely show embarrassing moments for her. Using exclusively anonymous sources was another problem, as there is no way of verifying whether any of this is true, and doing so potentially amounts to allowing McCain supporters to attack Palin without any repercussions rather than performing real journalism.

While Palin has often been discussed in the media, the discussion has rarely been substantial. The media should focus less on what clothes Palin buys or the minor gaffes she makes on the spot, and focus more on what kind of politician- and person- Palin is. The Washington Post is closer than most in this regard, but most news outlets generally have some ways to go before they can be anywhere near ideal in their reporting on this subjects.

Election Night: A Groundbreaking Night in American Politics

The night of the US presidential election is often one in which many newsworthy events happen in rapid succession, no less in this election when Senator Barack Obama became the first black president. With events happening as quickly as they do, the news outlets often struggle to keep up while doing their job of covering the elections in a professional and comprehensive manner.

The Washington Post
The Washington post continues to provide effective and in-depth coverage right
-This article effectively humanizes Obama, and gives a sense of how the candidates at the center of the issue feel as their career for the next four years is decided.
-This story deals with the turnout issue, by dealing with who is voting and why. It is also important because it debunks the lies that are used to scare people away from the polls by publicizing their being used, which will ideally help bring more people to the polls by making them understand that they can vote without any repercussions.

Unfortunately, the interactive map was somewhat slow on the site, making it difficult to track the votes in real time.

The Huffington Post
The Huffington Post provides some good election night journalism, but it has some troubling ethical and professional flaws, showing the writers are either careless or disregard the rules.

-The section on voting problems had some good stories, which had important information for voters .
*This story had troubling implications, as it raised the potential for voters to be misled, and it was good that the Huffington Post publicized this issue.
*This story effectively publicizes an issue that potentially misled voters into missing their opportunity to vote, and helps highlight how important the closing times can be to voting.
*This story helped highlight another issue of voters being unfairly disqualified, one that is especially relevant in the current economic crisis
-This clip from Fox News, however, served little purpose except curiosity value, and a chance for liberals to celebrate the coincidence of one of McCain's chances for victory slipping away the first time its importance is mentioned.
-This article seems to be trying to make the implication that the Ohio Republican Party, and not just a few of its officials, are responsible for trying to disqualify student ballots, particularly in "But if the Iowa Republican Party is not eager to be associated with the challenging the ballots of young voters, they have yet to communicate their displeasure to those who are responsible for the tactic." The evidence provided does not justify making such a bold claim.

-One egregious ethical mistake they made was referring to Obama as "President-Elect" Obama at 10:15 PM, when Obama still only had 202 out of the 270 required electoral votes to become President. While this does not approach Fox's prematurely declaring Bush victorious in 2000 in egregiousness, it speaks to the Huffington Post's liberal bias and inadequately based confidence in Obama's victory. Journalists should not presume to know what will happen next and claim that presumption as fact, especially not in the course of a night that decides America's future, and the Huffington Post's lack of caution is unbecoming of them.

The information section updated quickly and provided good information on the current status of the race.

Fox News

Fox News had ethical flaws in its election night news.
-Realignment, a section talking about the liberals taking control of government, had a heavily anti-liberal viewpoint, characterizing the liberals as unwilling to compromise and wanting to ram their liberal agenda through Congress. The participants debated whether Obama was "far-left," and all did so under the unspoken assumption that it was bad to be "far-left." They are also currently placing Obama under considerably greater scrutiny than they did on Bush, suggesting that Obama is a "stealth candidate" who enters the presidency without people knowing who he is, showing that they have two different standards for candidates on the right and the left of the American political spectrum. They also misrepresent what America being a center-right nation means;
-Obama Elected President, however, features a guest suggesting that Obama being elected the first black president is noteworthy regardless of what the viewer thinks about it. While he is possibly saying it recognizing that many of the Fox viewers do not approve of Obama's being elected, he presented a good point, and did well to mention Obama's appeal among young people, even though he did not have much time to do so.
-The Palin Factor section clearly favors Palin, rejecting almost out of hand what they described as the "conventional wisdom" in the media that Palin was a liability for McCain. While it had some good points, such as Palin being picked to appeal to women, the people seemed unwilling to consider whether Palin would alienate voters, as they suggested that the people who did not support Palin would not have voted for McCain anyway, a slightly defeatist attitude that frees them from examining the facts. They also take jabs at the "liberal media," arguing that Palin received far more scrutiny than Biden or Obama did. This not only fails to take into account the attention given to Obama's past, but also suggests that all candidates must be investigated equally, regardless of whether any aspect of them demands investigation like Palin's conduct as governor does.

The interactive map showed the percentage fields for each state, but did not show which candidate had been declared the winner, and did not work as well as it could have.

Conclusion

Journalists are often put into situations in which their personal beliefs are in the news, and while they may have their biases, when they do stories on the news, they must cover it fairly. The Huffington Post and Fox News, albeit more the latter than the former, failed to do this, allowing their bias to color the news and potentially give the viewers misconceptions. The Washington Post was also the best at giving in-depth and useful information, and the Huffington Post provided some good information about voing, but Fox News provided little except partisan opinion and spin. Journalists must not only deliver the news first, but also do so accurately and fairly, and of the three news outlets I reviewed, the Washington Post performed the best in these regards.

The Final Days of the Election

While the decision of whom to elect President of the United States is up to the voters, the media can help to frame the situation by reporting on their status up until Election Day. The way they do so can impact the situation, as they can choose to evaluate the issues behind the race and the ongoing processes within in order to help the voters understand how it came to where it is, or they can merely highlight the statistics, believing that it is all the voters care about and that anything else could distract from them.

-The Washington Post appropriately puts the tone of the campaign first, with the insightful revelation that this stage of the election is unusually negative, and also goes into what McCain and Obama are saying to take or keep the lead, respectiely. It briefly goes into why each state may be important, but does so from a historical perspective, rather than a demographical or statistical one. While this is more about the current status of the campaign than the issues behind it, it does a significantly better job of putting the status in context than the Huffington Post or Fox News. The article mentions a Washington Post-ABC News poll that puts Obama’s lead at 11 percentage points.

-The Huffington Post eagerly published statistics about the election in the top story on the front page , possibly because of a horse race mentality, or because the numbers heavily favored the Democratic ticket. It mentioned a CBS poll indicating Obama had a 13-point lead, and a USA-Today Gallup Poll giving him an 11-point lead. This article presents an interesting poll statistic about whether Palin is seen as an asset or a liability for McCain, but could have been publicized earlier.

-Fox News’ “Closing Arguments” is a highly misleading title for the news section about the last days of the election. The segment almost exclusively went into what chances both candidates had of victory, what states would be favorable to them and who would vote for them. The titular arguments were only mentioned in the context of how it would affect their polls. The section attempted to cover the issues, but with not much of the little time they had remaining, it came off as a half-hearted effort to cover too much ground. Its estimates of Obama’s lead were considerably more cautious than Huffington Post’s, suggesting that it was 6-8 points, and arguing that the lead could be overturned- noticeably lower than the Huffington Post or The Washington Post, suggesting that Fox does not wish for the reports to sound too pessimistic about McCain’s chances.

The Washington Post is by no means perfect, but it takes the important first step of considering the past when talking about present events. While it may be important to discuss the impending result of the election, it is more important to discuss what is at stake, what the candidates are- or are not- talking about, and what ideology will guide the country for the next four years. The election is more than a race between two politicians with the public eagerly awaiting the outcome and attempting to shift it toward what they desire, but also a clash between ideologies and a contest to determine the direction of the nation, and news outlets that treat it as such will help the citizens make the best choice for their country.

Contrasting the Washington Post, Fox News and the Huffington Post on Obama's Infomercial

For this post, I have decided to examine all three outlets' treatment of a single story- Obama's recent 30-minute infomercial. As I have seen in my study, the Washington Post presents a far more comprehensive and in-depth analysis than the other two, which often allow partisan bias to color their reporting.

The Washington Post analyzed Obama’s ad, and put it in the context of the current campaign. It effectively showed how much Obama spent, what went into the ad and what some of his other tactics were, providing a more comprehensive view of the campaign. It also provided Howard Kurtz’s fair, informative commentary.

-The Huffington post featured http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/10/obama-ad-rating.html this article about how many people watched the infomercial and a direct link to the infomercial itself, but showed little effort in critiquing the infomercial or getting any new opinions. It only emphasized how popular it was, which Fox News had mentioned in its report.

-Fox News brought up the ad, presenting its main talking points, and seeming to show the audience reacting approvingly. However, the presenter focused on the audience’s negative reaction to the speech, while suggesting that the undecideds liked Obama as a person, clearly casting Obama in a negative light by suggesting that the people who judged him on character were not focusing on what mattered. The completely unanimous negative evaluation of the infomercial, especially in light of Fox’s conservative bias, also makes me doubt the methodology behind selecting the “undecided” voters.

While the story was in and of itself relatively unimportant, it helped highlight the three outlets' approaches to the election. The differences signify that often, the hectic deadlines of the internet and radio potentially lead to less comprehensive journalism due to time constraints. Stories that focus on being the first instead of being the best may outpace the competition, but if they do not provide enough information, they do not do the voters any good.

Mark Finkelstein: An Interesting Presenter of an Alternative View

While I often disagreed with what Mark Finkelstein's said in his talk at today's class, I personally found him more insightful and fair than Cliff Kincaid. Finkelstein incorporated a good body of evidence and historical detail in his talk, and came off as well-informed. His examples of liberal bias, like Dan Rather's forging the memos, were significantly more substantial than the ones Kincaid provided. He made the appropriate distinction between people who go on TV and give their opinion and people who make biased news reports, although he failed to note that Fox News claims to be "Fair and Balanced" in an almost Orwellian way. Rather than primarily focusing on the liberal media, Finkelstein provided effective advice about blogging, such as the effect that linking can have, and made an appropriate gesture of giving us his card after the talk, allowing us to contact him for any questions.

Unfortunately, Finkelstein tends to focus too much on the liberal media, while neglecting conservative and apolitical biases. Unlike Kincaid, however, he readily admits that there are conservative biases out there, but states that he has chosen to focus on liberal biases, showing that he is acknowledges the problem but chooses to focus his attention elsewhere, rather than willfully denying it. He occasionally used highly provocative comparisons, like equating Obama's association with Ayers with McCain associating with a KKK member. While I did not always agree with Kincaid, I respected his alternative viewpoint, and think that he should be invited back for Independent Media, as well as potentially for future Covering the National Election classes.

The Washington Post: "Why" as well as "What"

Journalism serves to answer the basic questions: who, what, when, where, why and how? While the first four serve as the basis for the "hard facts" of the story, the "why" and the "how" are no less important, as they serve to connect the story with other events and larger issues. Even if a story about a campaign event is perfectly accurate and as comprehensive as possible, if it does not have the "how" or the "why", it does not help the public understand the event's significance, which is why the Washington Post's reports are important as they are in this election.

-This Article effectively reports on why Obama currently possesses the advantage in the polls, and with whom. While knowing who is ahead can be important, the reasons why they are ahead helps illustrate the electorate's priorities and preferences in a candidate, as well as whether candidate strategies are attracting or alienating potential voters.

-While Sarah Palin is one of the more controversial figures in the 2008 race, few articles that I have seen have gone as in-depth into her effec on the campaign as this one does. Knowing what effect she has on the McCain campaign and what Republicans think of her is more useful information than discussion about her family, college education, or wardrobe, as this issue directly impacts McCain's chance of winning and strategies.

-This article takes an effective historical look at mailed political ads and how they changed over time, which is more substantial than merely highlighting new negative political ads. Unfortunately, it was placed in A13, a somewhat out of the way position, and should have been placed more prominently.

Elections and the events they involve are not self-contained, but are built off of past events, often involve the issues that arise in the course of the election, and once the candidates are elected, often lead to new discussions and new issues. Reporting on elections must thus take context into account, or else it will be nothing more than recounting current events, and of no benefit for informing voters. The Washington Post, however, fulfills this ideal in these stories and is well worth taking the time to read it.

Huffington Post: Misplaced Priorities in Story Selection

A news outlet’s intentions and professionalism are not only shown in how they report on the issues, but which ones they report on. Unfortunately, the latter standard shows the Huffington Post’s priorities are often misplaced, as they delve into completely inconsequential news about Sarah Palin.


-This article about Palin’s clothing is unbelievably superficial reporting, and without any redeeming news value apart from satisfying personal curiosity or serving as an attack on Palin. While $150,000 on clothing seems excessive, even for presidential candidates who must strive to look professional and appealing, it is an inconsequential sum compared to how much is spent on campaign expenses or new spending plans, items that if covered, would help readers understand the campaigns. This story from Politico, which the Post linked to, is a significantly better example in that it actually speaks to Republican donors and finds out what they think about this, receiving various and nuanced opinions in the process.

-This article , like many of the other stories about Palin’s ignorance, is mere “gotcha” journalism, potentially the result of the Huffington Post reporters trying to seem clever and analytical, or trying to make Palin appear stupid, rather than .pursuing informative election coverage. The ignorance might have some relevance if it could be demonstrably linked with Palin’s voting on global warming, but as it stands, all this signifies is that Palin has difficulty demonstrating her knowledge in press conferences.

-This article gives more attention to an admittedly vulgar Freudian slip McCain made to a greater degree than any of President Bush’s gaffes. While the Huffington Post did report on Obama’s remarks about “bitter” Americans – albeit without any regard for journalistic ethics concerning deception or political participation – those remarks were more newsworthy because they spoke to Obama’s thoughts about American conservatives and were clearly more deliberate, and attracted more attention from the national press than McCain’s adding an “n” to “cut” likely ever will.

The criticisms leveled against Sarah Palin have varying degrees of legitimacy. Her supposedly dealing harshly with people who opposed her in her tenure as Governor of Alaska is concerning and worth investigation, given that she is being considered for a position of even greater responsibility. Criticisms about her family and politicizing not having an abortion despite knowing that her son would have Down syndrome is overly personal reporting, albeit with some relevance to her political views. The stories I listed, however, are nearly inconsequential, and by posting them on the website, the managers of Huffington Post send a message to their writers, their readers, the candidates and the wider journalistic community that these stories are, in fact, news.

The stories also indicate a strong anti-Republican and especially anti-Palin tilt in the Huffington Post’s news. While news organizations should not create false balance or censor stories for fear of being labeled as biased, the Huffington Post seems to put McCain and Palin to a higher standard of scrutiny than Obama and Biden, as I have never seen them cast the Democrats in a critical light over something so minor, like Obama’s absent flag pin. While objectivity is an appealing but flawed concept for journalists, striving for fairness is an absolute necessity, and is severely lacking in the Huffington Post’s coverage of Republicans.

Fox News: Shortcomings From Its Medium and Shortcomings From Itself

While Fox is not always the most reliable or in-depth news outlet concerning the election, not all of it is the individual reporters’ or producers’ fault. Part of it is due to an inability to vigorously pursue stories, but part of it is due to the vigorous competition to get stories out quickly, and part of it is due to televisions’ limitations as a news medium.

-The segment about the “Race Debate”, which lasts four minutes, only includes one expert, talking about a single comment Limbaugh made. It only covers a small part of the issue, and does not make enough of an effort to speak to a variety of people about their perspectives the same way this story from the Washington Post does, and it would take me less time to read that article.

-The “Gutter Journalism” piece had largely superficial analysis of the article, dismissing the claims about Cindy McCain out of hand without bringing up any evidence to refute them, primarily focusing on a Facebook message the reporter sent to her minor daughter. The show included three experts, but as they were introduced in the last two minutes and fifty seconds of the segment, they each had, on average, less than a minute to speak. The media’s treatment of Cindy McCain deserves scrutiny, but it also deserves more substantial analysis that goes beyond its most superficial and surface-level aspects.

-“What Did He Know,” the second part of Sean Hannity’s “Obama and Friends: History of Radicalism”, apart from the explicit bias in the title, and painting Obama as associated with radicals, spends much of the first two minutes replaying commercials and footage tying Obama to Ayers, essentially giving them free showing on the news. The entire six-minute segment- longer than the two previous shows that had potential journalistic value- does little except serve as a lengthy attack ad on Obama that makes him sound as though he is covering up his association with Ayers, and is a disturbing example of Fox’s priorities with regards to newsworthiness.

-While this is not election-related, the news item about a horse getting its head stuck in a tree illustrates an essential flaw in television news. While I would consider this story not worth my time if I encountered it in the paper or on an online news site, on television, I have to sit through it, or turn away from the news for a minute, and potentially miss the story coming up next. The story is also a significant waste of time for the show, and takes up far more of the news hole than a similar item would if it appeared in the paper.

Television news’ immediacy is important for many stories, especially in terrorist attacks like those of September 11, 2001, when a catastrophic event happens that people need to hear about immediately; or in natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, when important information concerning evacuation and shelter can be broadcast over the airwaves. While these are situations in which the news should come in as soon as possible, they are also situations that need extensive coverage, and in an age when Internet journalists can deliver news extremely quickly, TV news must find some niche other than immediacy in order to prove it still has worth for the public.

Washington Post: In-Depth Reporting on Complicated Issues

In-Depth Reporting in an Industry of Deadlines

Former Ithaca College professor Michael Scully once called television journalism “a mile wide and an inch deep.” My experience with television news has largely confirmed this statement; the networks I’ve watched, including CNN and FOX, barely have enough time to cover the current issues in America and the rest of the world in the twenty minutes they have on air, much less go in-depth about any of them, when they are not squandering time on “news of the weird” stories like people finding strange objects in their food.

-This article effectively addressed the issue of negative campaign ads, and brought their effectiveness into question. It appropriately analyzed the tone and helped find where they went wrong.

-This article appropriately touches on Obama’s tactics, and is especially useful as it may impact what he offers to do while in office.

-This article effectively keeps the reader updated on the candidates changing policies, and effectively discusses the policies and their implications.

Staying relevant is an important issue for the news business, but so is providing high-quality and in-depth reporting. Many television stations and some blogs fail to do that, and even many newspapers, given the space and the opportunity, do not serve this need. Citizens should look to newspapers like the Washington Post for in-depth coverage of the issues that guide our presidential race.

Matt Drudge: The First of a Brave New World for Journalists

Matt Drudge is in many ways a threat to the traditional structure and ideology of journalism, which may help explain his appeal. He has no formal journalism training, nor even any experience in any mainstream media company, thus raising the notion that anyone with enough skill can become a journalist regardless of backgrounds. He works by himself without any editors or supervisors, and thereby appeals to those who are disgusted with the media's power structure and seeming institutional liberal bias.

I find Drudge's appeal troubling for several reasons. His lack of editorial oversight removes any barriers to his making mistakes apart from whatever care he exercises. While having editors to review one's work does not necessarily prevent mistakes or breaches of ethics- Stephen Glass was able to fabricate articles for The New Republic despite its extensive editing process- it helps reporters receive input on their work, notice mistakes that they missed and make the best ethical decisions in reporting. Without this oversight, Drudge essentially runs his sight with his own judgment, unchecked by anyone else, and can make mistakes without authority disciplining him. Drudge's standing apart from the mainstream media poses a problem for them in a time when the public trusts the news media less and less. News bloggers like him have the potential to accelerate this process by presenting an alternative to the news media, making it less likely that the public will trust them again. While this belief is partly based on my fear that as newspapers are cutting back, it will become more and more difficult for print journalists like me to get jobs, I personally believe that professional news journalists, at best, have the best training, experience and resources to handle important issues, and that print journalism has demonstrated a greater willingness to go in-depth into issues than broadcast journalism. As someone who hopes to do whatever is necessary to restore the public's faith in the news media, I see the rise of an alternative whose practitioners do not report as we do as a new movement that media consumers should not trust so readily.

While bloggers do not always follow appropriate ethical guidelines and pose a potential threat to any efforts journalists in the mainstream media may make to re-establish the public's trust in them, they have the ability to pick up on stories that the mainstream media would miss or not be able to report on because of advertiser or corporate pressure. Instead of being dismissed as amateurs thinking that they can outdo people who do it for a living, citizen journalists' talents should be harnessed by being placed under the oversight of a special panel designed to handle them.

-The panel should be a non-profit, non-governmental organization composed of retired journalists, journalism professors, and other experts on journalism not currently involved in the mainstream media. The committee would have nine members who serve five-year terms; however, their tenures would be set so that every year, two of the members will be replaced- except for one year in a five-year cycle when only one is.
-The panel would have the power to grant "certification" to blogs that applied, provided that they met several conditions.
*They must set and keep to a certain schedule of posts for six months.
*They must not display any openly biased reporting that a reasonable journalist would find unbalanced, for example, publishing an attack against a candidate without contacting the candidate.
*They must agree to follow the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics, and in the case of blogs with multiple reporters, make sure that anyone who joined be instructed to do the same.
-Blogs must submit their work to the panel, as well as a mission statement, in order to be considered for approval. A two-thirds majority is required to approve a blog.
-The approval is to be shown on the blog's website, and is intended to show that the blog is recognized as journalistically sound, which is intended to help citizen journalists be recognized as "real" journalists.
-The panel should give the approved blogs advice if they have an area that needs improvement, and should answer any questions that the bloggers e-mail them.
-If the blog commits an ethical violation, the panel's members can cite it for the violation by plurality. If the blog's offense is repeated, the blog's approval will be revoked if the panel votes to do so with a two thirds majority.
-Blogs can regain their approval by following the same steps for gaining approval. However, the blog must mention when it lost its approval and why, as well as when it regained approval.
-Any blog having committed a serious offense, like plagiarism or malicious libel, will have its approval permanently revoked.
-Every year, the panel will grant awards for specific pieces (such as Best News Story or Most Influential) and for blogs (such as Most Timely Reporting or Most In-Depth Coverage).
-The panel's website will contain records of all past decisions by the panel, who voted, by what margin they were approved or disapproved, and for what reasons, in order to help journalists and the rest of the public understand how the panel operates.

The panel would thus provide the guidance, judgment and support to citizen jouranlists that good editors provide to reporters. The rules would serve as a check on those who would otherwise go out of bounds, and citizen journalists who understand and sincerely pursue ethical journalism would be in no danger of being cited or having their approval revoked. They would, however, have the guidance they need to report fairly and accurately, and the approval to be recognized as journalists and treated as such by those they report on.

Cliff Kincaid

I was somewhat disappointed by the talk that Cliff Kincaid gave in class today. While I had hoped that he would have a substantial media analysis that would give us more to think about, he generally repeated the overused "liberal media" charge, and made attacks on liberal politicians and media figures.

Some of Kincaid's conclusions were based on sparse evidence. He was only able to cite one inaccuracy in textbooks, and that was concerning his own website, which was not substantial evidence for any trend. He was only able to tie the rise of liberal media to liberal college students being taught "interpretive journalism," and did not adequately explain how interpretive journalism lended itself to political biases.

Kincaid focused too much on the perceived liberal bias without discussing the conservative biases enough. Whenever conservative politicians or media figures were being critiqued, they were often done alongside the liberal media groups, seemingly as an afterthought. This was seen when he mentioned two examples of "liberal" newspapers being unable to estimate their sustainability footprint, then mentioning one example of Fox censoring its describing the French Riots as "Muslim" under pressure. He seemed largely unwilling to consider corporate influences in the news when answering my question. Reporters should not artificially put equal blame or praise on both sides, but they should make a good faith effort to fairly evaluate both of them, which was lacking in this part of the presentation.

Attacking the media as liberally biased and insisting that it is the foremost problem is problematic for several reasons. It creates a chilling effect, causing editors and managers to censor reports that would seem to have a liberal tilt, potentially doing so to such a degree that they become almost conservatively biased. It legitimates more conservative media outlets like FOX, and by deeming the rest of the media liberally biased, makes them seem "fair and balanced" by comparison. It also draws attention from reporters' professional failings and their editors' and owners' decisions, which have a considerably greater influence on the news than liberal or conservative bias. The problems the media face are too complex to be blamed on liberal bias and too pervasive to be identified on such meager evidence, and as such, Kincaid's theory about the media is ill-suited to help journalists understand and address the problems their industry faces.

News and Opinion: Not to Be Blended

While all journalists have their biases, they must acknowledge that there are times when they can view their opinion and times when they must put their opinion aside to do their job. Journalists that fail to do so when reporting on the news are at best, failing to exercise appropriate care and professionalism, and at worst, attempting to use their reporting to influence people toward their personal views.

Bill O'Reilly of Fox News's "Obama Chronicles" is one such example. The series is pitched as a way of revealing more about Obama for both those who will vote for him and those who will not, but at several points shows O'Reilly's personal bias.

-In the first segment, talking about Obama's parents, O'Reilly characterized Obama's mother as a "hippie" who took "decades" to get a Ph.D and characterized his father as "irresponsible." While this is a less egregious example of his bias compared with other incidents, it establishes his judgmental tone.

-In a segment talking about Obama's connection with a controversial Catholic priest, whom O'Reilly said argues that America is a racist nation, O'Reilly frequently interrupted the guest when he attempted to explain the priest's position, disputing his arguments. This raises the possibility that O'Reilly did not want the guest challenging this negative characterization of the priest, which would make Obama look bad through his association with him.

-In the segment about Obama's connection with MoveOn, Obama's questions for the guest were significantly less critical and he did not interrupt as often. While he voiced some skepticism about the extent of Obama's connection with MoveOn.org, he did not show active disagreement.

These are not the only times when Obama has taken a highly judgmental attitude. One of the better known incidents is his interview with Jeremy Glick, whose father had died in the attack on the World Trade Center, in which he repeatedly told Glick to "shut up", accused him of sympathy with the terrorists, and cut off his interview and forced him to leave the building. Banderas' interview with Shirley Phelps is another example of blatantly opinionated coverage with no regard for delivering the news.

The Huffington Post is guilty of similar faults.

-This article about McCain supporters calling Obama a terrorist quotes a blog article that features biased language.

“McCain was speaking today in New Mexico, doing his usual personal attack on Barack Obama, as the stock market plummeted (you can see the ticker next to McCain on the screen, an apt reminder of what McCain and his fellow Republicans represent)” contains two thinly-veiled attacks on McCain, one on his campaigning style and one on his economic policy. It then makes a snide remark that "McCain does say in the next sentence that he's upset about all the 'angry barrage of insults.'" while contributing nothing that the other quotes did not.

-This article takes a highly presumptive tone with "There appears to be little doubt" about the ad being express advocacy, which indicates a reporter's agreement. However, because it is a wording choice, I am more willing to believe that it was due to carelessness, rather than active bias.

In a time when the media are being criticized for being biased and scrutinized by the rising movement of citizen journalists who write in blogs, it is up to individual journalists to take more care in reporting and writing to ensure that their reports adequately cover the issue without any hint of favoritism or spin. Not only do readers depend on the reporters for news, but media critics are watching them, and have the potential to see one incident as a symptom of systematic bias. Fox News and Huffington Report's lack of care is thus problematic, and it is up to media consumers and producers to do what they can to try to guide them toward more professional reporting.

The Washington Post: A Step in the Right Direction

Election journalism's most persistent problem is its practitioners losing sight of their purpose in their drive to scoop the competition. Stories about candidates' personal scandals or gaffes tend to gain precedence over pieces attempting to explain why the candidates think as they do, and stories about which candidate is ahead run in favor of those attempting to explain why one candidate has favor with a certain group, or why another does not. This tendency can be exacerbated by the Internet, in which deadlines come more quickly than in print or television, and the competition is even more intense. The Washington Post does a significantly better job of this than many other news outlets.

-This story effectively explains Obama's appeals to blacks and to what degree they find him appealing. Unfortunately, this story was printed on A7, and should have received more prominent placement.
-This story effectively describes voters' thoughts in the current economy. While it may be somewhat obvious that an issue as large as the financial crisis plays a significant part in the election, this article effectively explores why, particularly in mentioning how resentment toward Bush's policies influences voters, and to what degree voters find each candidate well-suited to deal with the situation.
-The Washington Post occasionally prints stories that only serve to update on the current state of the "horse race," and sometimes gets bogged down in "gotcha" journalism and the private life of Sarah Palin. However, some scandal stories, like this one take on more substantive issues than her personal life, as this revelation may become important in the ongoing discussion over Palin's governorship of Alaska.

Such pieces of journalism are refreshing, as they help to inform the viewers of the issues that are truly important, helping them to make informed choices and understand the electoral process. Internet journalists should take note of it, and should, while still working diligently and quickly to produce news, never forget that Internet news should be comprehensive, useful and informative as well as fast.

The Huffington Post: Independent from What?

"Objectivity" can often be a difficult concept to put into practice in the news media, particularly with regards to negative reports about the candidates. While good and bad news does not come equally for all candidates, and pretending that it does is a violation of the spirit of objectivity, bad news for unfavored candidates should not be overemphasized. The Huffington Post is guilty emphasizing McCain and Palin's mistakes and flaws,

-This story shows Palin unable to name any Supreme Court cases except Roe v. Wade. While this is a troubling development, albeit so extreme as to be nearly unbelievable, the Huffington Post reported this story with clear bias.
*The headline, "Latest Palin Gaffe" emphasizes that this is one of many mistakes Palin has made.
*The Palin aide, who was not named, was only given a brief opportunity to comment and said nothing substantial.
-This article about McCain complaining of "gotcha journalism" against Palin in reports over her announcing plans to attack Pakistan shows several incidents of taking issue with McCain's comments in an opinionated way without providing sufficient analysis.
*The article characterizes McCain's defense as "flimsy" and mentions Palin talking about attacking Pakistan without mentioning the exact quote or date.
*The article criticizes McCain for a "double standard" in similarly attacking Obama when it was not directly related to the issue at hand, which most likely served as a way for the author to criticize the McCain campaign.
*The article then goes on to complain about another incident of attacking Biden over supposedly suggesting Obama's opposition to clean coal plants.
-This article is critical of McCain from the very headline: "McCain: Now Is Not the Time to Blame, But I blame Obama," which is especially troubling because the headline serves to summarize the story- and essentially serves as the reporter's conclusion. The writer did not attempt to contact either McCain nor Eakin for an explanation of the remarks, showing that he put very little effort into delving deeper into the story beyond the apparent contradiction.

Despite being "independent" media, and supposedly disassociated from the shallow reporting, self-censorship for corporate parents, the Huffington Post still allows biases to influence the tone of its reporting. While no one can be completely "objective", all journalists must do what they can to ensure that they do not allow their biases to interfere with their reporting. If the Huffington Post's biases show this plainly, it raises doubt about their writers' personal restraint, their managers' enforcing ethics and the organization's credibility as a news source.

Fox News: We Decide, You Report

After watching the documentary OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, I realized that the most disturbing part about Fox News' journalism is not the open right wing bias, but the degree to which managers enforce the bias by regulating the news coverage, and the degree to which viewers support it.

The memos circulated by Fox indicate the clear right-wing views of the management, and their influencing the tone of the coverage, especially with regards to the campaign, further serves to prove the station's right-wing bias. The memos telling reporters to focus on certain things and not on others is especially troubling, as it inhibits any ability to change Fox's coverage. Not only is the news department's ability to decide what it does or does not cover limited in comparison to the management's power, but individual reporters have very little ability to report according to their conscience, as shown in the case of the reporter who was berated for not making Reagan's sparsely attended birthday party look more festive.

The failure of people like Bill O'Reilly to separate news and opinion is especially troubling. While all news should be considered for biases, omissions, distortions and other flaws, and even opinion should not be digested uncritically, the failure to distinguish between both may lead people to accept the Fox reporters' potentially unfounded opinions as truth. It also shows their lack of regard for journalistic professionalism in forgetting that they are not supposed to let their opinions influence their reporting. This video is one such example, as Banderas clearly gives sympathetic coverage to Snyder and his lawyer, while viciously berating Shirley Phelps. While I personally find Westboro Baptist Church's protesting tone and choice of venue abhorrent, Banderas should instead have asked Phelps to justify her beliefs and tactics, and explain her remarks on Snyder's son. The show served no other purpose than an attack on WBC, and is in no way a piece of journalism. Jeremy Glick receiving similar treatment from O'Reilly shows

Fox News' power is also especially disturbing, given the extremely biased nature of the coverage. While the Florida election had too many problems to conclude that Bush being prematurely declared the winner ultimately precipitated him becoming the winner, Fox News announcing his victory prematurely was journalisticaly iresponsible. The degree of trust viewers have in Fox is troubling, especially given its lack of critical reporting on the Bush Administration. The people who view it and believe in the overly simplistic "liberal media" myth may refuse to believe any other news source, thus preventing them from hearing any alternate angles on the news that might discredit Fox News. Unfortunately, as long as they can do so, not only will Fox News continue to be able to do reporting, but its style of journalism will be legitimized in the eyes of the public and the eyes of other media organizations who seek to attain Fox's success.

Fox News is one of the more troubling players in the current mediascape. Its biased and corporate-driven coverage cannot be changed without changing its owners' views on reporting, it is difficult to convince its viewers to accept that it is not delivering the kind of journalism they need, and its reporting and success doing so set a potentially troubling example for others to follow, as well as degrading journalism's image. The only way journalists can counter this is by producing news reports more quickly, accurately, fairly and comprehensively than Fox does in the hopes that people will abandon Fox for their superior alternative. While Fox News' management drives the news, its viewers are able to decide what type of journalism to support, and for their sakes and those of all media viewers, they should turn away from Fox's partisan and unprofessional reporting.

Reflections on Josh Marshall's Talk

Josh Marshall's talk was an important one for young journalists in an era when the news media have begun to redefine themselves and refocus. In talking about how he formed his own approach to a rapidly growing new medium of journalism, he helped set an example that others should follow

Marshall effectively showed how he was willing to keep his site's news and opinion separate, and to make sure that the opinion never interfered with the reporting. This stands in a pleasant contrast to sites like Daily Kos, which allow their bias to influence their reporting, unchecked by any editor or other supervisor.

Marshall showed that he could make appropriate ethical decisions with regards to advertising, not turning away advertisers without good reason. He also did not let his reporting be influenced by their funding his site, and was willing to sacrifice larger contracts if it were necessary to continue reporting on something they opposed. While newspapers and other media derive a large portion of their revenue from advertising, and may censor some reporting in order to keep it, they should not only consider the ethical dimensions of doing so, but realize that if they deny access to important stories, their readers may abandon them.

Marshall's response to my question gave a good solution to a quandary I had- whether I should remain in the corporate media and try to do the best reporting I could or try to somehow break into the independent media. With his advice, I am now certain that pursuing a career at a local newspaper after graduation and staying there for a few years will be my best first move, and that I can see how I should enter the independent media later. While I often wonder whether I should try to change the corporate media from the inside, the knowledge that I have a route to enter the independent media is comforting.

The advent and growth of Internet journalism may not replace traditional media, just as the television and radio news did not replace newspapers and news magazines. However, it most likely will force them to reconsider their roles and practices in a time when the Internet has the potential to offer news immediately and allow nearly anyone with access to it to report on the news. By maintaining traditional news values and using new technologies to the fullest, Marshall sets an example that should be followed by everyone- from the media giants like CNN and the New York Times to the literally pajama-clad bloggers- who consider themselves and report as journalists should follow.

Journal Entry for 09/16/08

Fox News: Hardly Fair or Balanced

While Fox News’s significant and noticeable conservative tilt is not new to me, I still found myself surprised by the level of bias in reports about the election. In Part 1 of The Obama Chronicles, a series that purports to show a fair picture of Obama to better inform people regardless of whether they will vote for him, Bill O’Reilly shows his opinion on the issue, referring to Obama’s mother as a “hippie” who frequently traveled and left Obama alone, and stated that Obama’s father was “irresponsible,” showing his willingness to share his opinion even in a news report.

In Talking Points for September 15, O’Reilly states that -“Guns, babies and bibles are the last things the New York Times wants to see endorsed in America”, in response to Maureen Dowd noting that Palin promotes the image of a woman with all three- his tone implying that he considers the New York Times’ priorities offensive. Toward the end of the segment, O’Reilly tells the viewers not to succumb to “left-wing hysteria,” but to scrutinize all the candidates. The degree of bias in his tone raises doubt on whether he will give both Republicans and Democrats adequate but not excessive scrutiny.

Huffington Post Problematic

During my investigation of the Huffington Post’s coverage of the 2008 election, I found much of the coverage to be superficial and partially biased. Several articles featured implicit favoritism of the Democratic candidates, sometimes by not giving the Republican candidates an adequate chance to respond to charges leveled against them. This is seen in this story, where Reid and Pelosi criticize McCain without any chance for McCain to defend his views, causing this story to serve no other purpose than to echo a candidate’s message.

This article is openly critical of McCain, characterizing him as out of touch with the economic situation, and openly states in the beginning that John McCain may want to refine his economic message a bit more during this potentially disastrous week for the financial sector,” openly indicating disagreement with him.” The lack of response may be a result of tight deadlines, as the story about Pelosi indicated that it had been updated. However, even if the Post struggles in the fast pace of internet news, it should not forget the principles of good journalism, as efficient reporting will offset any time spent on inevestigative reporting. The Huffington Post may fall behind the competition if it posts news after its rivals, but if it continues treating campaign pronouncements as important news and offering one-sided commentary, it fails to give its readers fair and informative coverage of the race.

The Washington Post: Good So Far, but Not Perfect

The Washington Post is best at providing in-depth investigative and analytical coverage of the race, possibly because its deadlines are daily, not hourly, but it still plays up stories that do not deserve as much attention.

This story about Sarah Palin’s husband warranted the coverage, as it is a legitimate news story even without the ties to Palin herself, due to the potentially problematic implications of Palin’s decision to dismiss her ex-brother-in-law. Even stories regarding the tactics and campaign statements sometimes analyze what the candidates are saying, as this story about Palin’s not knowing what the “Bush Doctrine” is explains that it is often difficult to define it.

However, there are some flaws with The Post’s reporting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090801825.html This article almost completely focused on the demographics of the race and the statistics behind it, and was essentially horse race journalism. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091201259.html This article featured an attack by Obama, and while they made the sound decision of calling the McCain campaign for comment, excessive use of stories like these renders the media tools for campaigns to send out their message, rather than investigating and regulating the debate. Stories like that should be avoided unless they are especially noteworthy, prominent, or relate to issues that are prevalent in the race. While the Washington Post’s coverage is imperfect, it strives at helping voters understand the race, and goes farther than the Huffington Post or Fox News do.