Tip of the Hat: Charting the Real Bias of Reporters

[struggle4progress]

August 01, 2004

<snip>
Tierney .. buttonholed 153 journalists, about 50 of whom work in Washington, and sure enough, when asked who would be a better president, the scribes came down about 4 to 1 in favor of Kerry over Bush.

Next, however, Tierney drags into the spotlight an issue seldom discussed in such polls. Journalists, he notes, have a workaday bias that often overrides any political leanings: More than they need a president who thinks like they do, "hey need good stories to make the front page and get on the air." So he asks his respondents another question: "hich administration they'd prefer to cover for the next four years strictly from a journalist standpoint?" And he gets an entirely different answer. After tossing out those with no opinion, he finds 77 reporters want four more years of Bush, while only 67 would rather cover a President Kerry.
<snip>

As anyone who has been a journalist for longer than about six minutes knows, it's the prospect of four years of boredom, not the prospect of a president they would never vote for, that strikes terror into the hearts of news hounds. This is hard for non-journalists to understand. But the Tierney poll calls to mind a long history of politicians for whom reporters would never vote, but for whom they fervently prayed to win -- from Huey Long in Louisiana, to Frank Rizzo in Philadelphia, to Arnold Schwarzenegger in California.

Professional bias trumps political bias every time. Understand that, and you begin to understand the political press.
<snip>

http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000785.asp

[peacetalksforall]

1. How could pulling out of this hole be boring?

[struggle4progress]

2. The point of the CJR piece is that reporters, interested in front page ...

placement of their taglines, would rather submit stories like "Having Conquered Iran, Bush Eyes China" than "Kerry's Envoy Brokers Treaty."

Current media culture values sensational stories: and such stories call attention to the reporter, providing a career boost. This explains (in part) why an anonymous third-hand rumor about Berger's socks obtained wider coverage than Kerry explaining the details of a Senate vote.

I don't consider this a complete explanation of media bias ... but it may be a useful "piece o' th' puzzle."

[KC21304]

3. So in other words they like reporting about bomb

blasts in Bagdhad, terra alerts, a President who gives them a laugh a minute etc. Well goody for them. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF US !

[depakid]

4. I'm just certain that reporters enjoy how they've been treated

by the Bush administration. I just know they enjoy being duped and played for fools- fearing ostracism for breaking honest stories that in previous administrations might have won them professional acclaim, greater recognition and pay raises.

This Steve Loveday is an obvious shill- just another panderer selling misinformation.

[struggle4progress]

5. I think CJR generally provides good mainstream criticism of the media ...

... and that what we have here is a (rather circumscribed) effort to discuss the distorting effects of reporters' self-interest.

It is possible to read this article is as a challenge: how do we make our stories "sexy enough" to obtain coverage. That may simply be a reality that we must acknowledge at present, even if we disapprove.

If "idealism" is needed to cultivate enough vision for political change, "realism" is nevertheless required to win political fights.