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.