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.