First, allow me to confess my sins. For the last eleven years, I have made my living practicing the dark art of journalism, and while perhaps not a full-fledged member of that nefarious institution known as the msm, my byline has on occasion been spotted on the pages of such well-known offenders as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Slate. I’ve even been known to pal around with members of those organizations. To make matters worse, somewhere in my closet is a sheepskin from an Ivy League university, and while I do not patronize Starbucks, I did for some years own a Volvo and reside within the boundaries of the District of Columbia. In short, I could loosely be labeled a member of the liberal media elite. In mitigation, I can offer that I currently live south of the Mason-Dixon line and own a handgun—though it was made by a Communist government.
Nevertheless, many of you have no doubt already guessed the ugly truth: on the morning of Tuesday, November 4, 2008, I stepped behind a closed curtain and cast my vote for Barack Hussein Obama. While that may not seem like much of a transgression to some, in conservative political circles, the perceived widespread support for Obama among journalists was one of the defining aspects of the Illinois senator’s historic run for the White House. In part, this is nothing new. The right has been complaining about liberal bias in the media since at least the early 1960s, when Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater made press-bashing a central part of his campaign. These days, railing against the liberal media is a mandatory applause line at any conservative rally.
To be sure, liberal partisans have their own concerns about an increasingly corporate media, but surveys of journalists consistently...
Complete access to this article will soon be available for purchase. Subscribers will be able to access this article, and the rest of CJR’s magazine archive, for free. Select articles from the last 6 months will remain free for all visitors to CJR.org.
"Another point in the PEJ study worth chewing over was that, contrary to received wisdom, McCain’s attacks on Obama on issues like his association with former sixties radical Bill Ayers did succeed in driving up the negative coverage of Obama—they just drove up McCain’s negative coverage even more."
Hehheh....But don't chew over this too long or else you'll start wondering why McCain's complaints about Obama's association with racists and terrorists would drive up _McCain's_ negative coverage.
Posted by JR on Fri 23 Jan 2009 at 02:03 PM
Good take on this Mr McCollam. After all who could forget the NY Times going through slogging though Facebook looking for the mom’s of Sasha and Malia’s school chums so they could dish the dirt on Michelle Obama's. Or how about the time George Stephanopoulos cried during Bush’s second inauguration. Perhaps we could recall when Bush was greeted with thunderous cheers when he walked into the press room at the Washington Post.
Oh wait those things all happened in the complete opposite context I provided. Silly me.
Seriously, who the hell are you trying to kid with you straw man ridden argument that the press behaved themselves this election cycle. Poll after poll finds journalists increasingly less trusted and less respected and the work they do more partisan.
Face it, unless you are looking for a hunk of Obama’s platter of government cheese, you all are digging your own professional graves.
Posted by Hmmmm on Fri 23 Jan 2009 at 04:26 PM
Please...
Any negative news concerning his campaign was fleetingly mentioned once and never resurfaced again. How often did journalists point out his hypocrisy when speaking against wearing a US lapel flag and soon afterward wearing in a small town rally later. How often did journalists mention his basically same platform to Hillary Clinton's platform during the Democratic Primary? How often did journalists mention his "rock star" status when he showed up at any event? How often did journalists mention that he stayed in Rev. Wright's church for years in spite of the Reverend's vitriolic statements. How often did journalists talk of his vague references to amorphous ideas of "hope and change" but still pushed forward the same plans as his rival in the Dem. primary. How often did journalists talk about his lack of major legislative accomplishments in the Senate? How often did journalists speak about his campaign's talk of "post-partisanship" and being "post-racial" despite Obama never mentioning these terms before.
The press gave him a pass like no other candidate before him. They minimized any negative press that did occur.
So no, not everyone is quite as passive in their consumption of news as you would like them to be.
Posted by CvB on Sun 25 Jan 2009 at 11:48 AM
Along with changing technology, the perception of bias on the part of most journalists by large number of Americans will hasten the death of newspapers and periodicals that cover news stories.
Most of you will be not be unemployed as journalists ... or even as teachers of journalists. Journalism is (sadly) a dead-end career. Of course, if you are a comedian, you may have your very own news show on cable TV.
Posted by Louise on Tue 27 Jan 2009 at 09:10 PM
Douglas,
I think in your own misguided, fish in the tank way you are actually trying to be fair and open minded. It’s almost sad to see how utterly blind you are.
Can I make a simple suggestion? Perhaps referring to conservative talk as a “hostile precinct” or “the pie hole of a beefy Irish blowhard” might not be the best way to demonstrate your lack of bias, or put you in an open frame of mind. Just a thought…
Posted by JLD on Wed 28 Jan 2009 at 05:33 AM
To everyone but the first post I have a question.
Are you guys insulting all journalist having bias, or just those that don't have conservative bias? Conservative bias such as the one demonstrated on Fox News and say Rush Limbaugh.
Cause if we gonna bash on MSNBC and others for having incredible liberal bias... well I think it's only fair to point the finger at the networks and radio news shows you watch and listen too as well. Unless you are saying bias is ok, as long as it is conservative bias?
Now to go back to the article’s point that the media played a roll in electing Obama.
So?
You can disagree on the issue if he has the experience, or capability of running the country. Personally, I think he does, after all in the past 8 years it was shown that not a whole lot is required. However, what you can't argue against is that he was and still is the United States' PR solution.
Why?
1. This historical election boosted the American spirit and its belief that America is really an exceptional place. (how true that is, I leave that to historians) You know with the whole black president thing.
2. In the past 6-7 years the United States has been going down hill in the eyes of the world, due the cowboy attitude and phrases like "If you are not with us you are against us". The world did not see McCain as the solution to that attitude.
So what does that equal?
1. The people of America once again believe in how special they are. (Hope)
2. People all around the world saw that America has chosen another course that is more open to collaboration and negotiation. (Change)
And there ya go; we got ourselves hope and change. Did the media play a roll in that; maybe, but honestly America needed it. If nothing else, we just gave ourselves a very nice positive image change. Go USA!
Posted by David on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 01:28 PM
Please explain how it is ethical, competent journalism for a single article to cover events by both campaigns, but while the McCain event is presented without embellishment, the Obama crowd is described as "jaw-dropping" and Obama himself is described as "confident".
The overwhelming majority of the media was either (a) in the tank for Obama and malfeasant in its reporting, or (b) hideously incompetent.
Your choice.
Posted by malclave on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 07:49 PM
I've totally opposed the Bush policies throughout his administration. Fox is a conservative news organization that is benevolent to the conservative ideals, that's a given and already widely assumed.
I oppose the war in Iraq. I oppose tax cuts for the wealthy. I oppose restricting abortion.
"Hope and change" are terms whose meanings you filled in. "Hope and change" could be anything you imagine it to be. Look back in the elections of the past century, see how many times "change" was invoked in presidential campaigns. Don't say change like it is a new concept. Moreover, no, he does not have a monopoly on the word or idea.
Let me campaign here briefly myself, "I believe in better future for all Americans, where the shining light at the horizon of our shared journey shall be our destiny! We shall have no taxes for all and government employees will donate their work to American people because they are `hopeful people.`" Now please donate to campaign to the "American Shared Destiny for All Fund" PayPal account.
But seriously:
In the election of 2000, "change" did occur, but did you like it? Food prices are rising, that's "change" I would believe would happen, do you like that "change"? 1.9 million jobs are lost in the last 4 months of 2008, do you like that "change"? As senator, he voted for "changing" the status quo for REAUTHORIZING the Patriot Act, telecom immunity, and extending warrant-less wiretapping for up to 7 days.
Posted by CvB on Sun 1 Feb 2009 at 10:05 AM
Quote:
"1. The people of America once again believe in how special they are. (Hope)
2. People all around the world saw that America has chosen another course that is more open to collaboration and negotiation. (Change)"
Hope should not be peddled to people in difficult times. That's just pandering and demagoguery. Anyone could say "I hear your troubles and feel your pain" and then discard any of your concerns after he leaves. Voters should look at their track record and see if their views are similar to their own.
Any other Democratic candidate could have been a different face for the American government.
Quote:
"And there ya go; we got ourselves hope and change. Did the media play a roll in that; maybe, but honestly America needed it. If nothing else, we just gave ourselves a very nice positive image change. Go USA!"
We American citizens are paying his $400,000 salary. I expect him to do work (direct troops out of Iraq, have a working plan to help the economy), not pose as an international PR figure. We should not lower our standards for the Presidency
Posted by CvB on Sun 1 Feb 2009 at 10:21 AM
What I remember is the INCESSANT harping on everything from the "terrorist fist bump" to Obama's half-aunt's voting record. John Stewart's got a mash-up of innate cable "news" pre-election clips, and it's hilarious and frightening. They all but said Obama was a terrorist. And what about the lack of coverage regard Palin and McCain's crazy pastor problems? I think McCain created his own negative coverage by being so down and dirty. Really, check out Fox, CNN, and the other cable stuff a lot of people watch and believe -- the coverage was disgraceful.
Posted by birdy figgis on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 05:10 PM
As someone who initially backed Obama before switching to backing Hillary in the primaries, I had a unique vantage point and saw the clear bias in favor of Obama.
But let's separate "press" from "media" - our SF Chronicle political reporter was actually pretty fair, did not fawn over Obama and even fairly printed a local town-hall by McCain which wasn't covered by cable news.
Conflating cable news with the "press" is hastening the newspaper's demise. (Though Hendrick Hertzberg of the New Yorker has yet to sober up from his koolaide high.)
But take it from a Democrat who favors equal opportunity and integration - the media was totally in the tank for Obama.
Posted by AJFish on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 03:12 AM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Mark A. Anderson
markandersonwrites@gmail.com
mark.anthony.anderson1@att.blackberry.net
Controversial book questions the impact of the news media on the outcome of the 2008 elections.
Little Rock, AR—November 15, 2009—On the anniversary of the 2008 General Election, Mark A. Anderson releases a controversial and thought provoking book titled, In the Tank—A Bound Blog: How the Media Political Machine Used Conveyance of Toxic Information to Become the Latest Political Force to be Reckoned With. In his premier title, Anderson takes a critical and in- depth look at the questionable tactics used by the most prominent of the American news media to both openly support as well as hinder candidates involved in the race to become the nation’s 44th President.
Political junkies, pundits, and scholars alike will enjoy the compelling arguments and points of discussion raised as Mark shares his personal blog posts, citing brazen bias and extreme irregularities in the manner of media coverage administered to candidates during the height of the 2008 primaries and leading up to the general election.
Anderson declares, “By actively engaging in a clandestine campaign to put a drag on and derail the campaigns of several of the ’08 election season’s top candidates…..the news media freely exercised a power and authority over the election process never before witnessed by the nation’s citizens.” Anderson provides numerous indisputable cases of blatant bias against some presidential candidates, and unabashed favor for others to the point that a significant effect on outcome of several primary elections and perhaps even the general election itself cannot be denied.
In the Tank—A Bound Blog, confronts the reality of a rogue media that has traveled far from its original and charted course and threatens the very foundation of a government of and for the people. “The uninhibited audacity that the most prominent agents and organizations within the news media community displayed while openly campaigning for and against candidates and their campaigns….reflected the determination of a once trustworthy pillar of this society to wrestle the reins from the hands of the people and exercise supreme authority over our country’s national election process,” Anderson contends. The book is written like a running blog with thoughtful essays throughout that expound upon the most critical points of this contribution to the analysis of the democratic election process. The purpose of the book is to promote the sustainment of independent thought and freedom as well as to expose the dishonorable actions of the nation’s news media during the most recent presidential election.
MARK A. ANDERSON is a native of Central Arkansas, and currently resides in Oklahoma. He earned both a Bachelors and Masters Degree in history and political science respectively. He is a commissioned officer in the United States Armed Forces who served faithfully in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is the recipient of both the Bronze Star Service and Joint Service Commendation Medals for his wartime service.
In the Tank—A Bound Blog is currently available for sale in perfect bound soft cover format for $16.95 at http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000125499 . The book is also available with worldwide distribution through Barnes and Noble.com (www.bn.com) and Amazon.com.
For more information, contact Mark Anderson at markandersonwrites@gmail.com, mark.anthony.anderson1@att.blackberry.net .
# # #
Posted by Mark A. Anderson on Wed 18 Nov 2009 at 08:10 AM