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.