"We make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy. We are
not garment workers measuring our product every day to fulfill somebody's quota. That means as editors we decide what we think is important, because that's what our readers look for us to do -- not to adhere to some arbitrary standard."The nomination of the first African American presidential nominee after a bitter primary campaign and his efforts to unite a party afterward were simply more newsworthy than a candidate whose nomination was already assured and who spent much of that time raising money. In the end, we can and should be judged on the fairness of our coverage, but that is a judgment that must be made over the course of the whole campaign, not a single period of time."
Bill Hamilton Assistant Political Editor of the Washington Post
Read the following article and discuss how this assumed bias fits into our country's firm belief in fairness and justice and also freedom of speech and press. Be sure to include comments on the article and include your thoughts and opinions on media bias. For full credit you must also include commentary on News War or one of the two articles we discussed in class dealing with media bias.
17 comments:
So the Post is being accused of giving Obama more coverage than McCain. So what, he didn't really have to fight for his nomination, and he wasn't "newsworthy" when compared to the fight that Obama had to go through to get his nomination. It may seem unfair but first off McCain is catching up to Obama in the media so stop whining. Second, America would rather watch, read or listen to something entertaining like the heated battle between Obama and Clinton compared to McCain raising money, which he just blew on attack ads instead of trying to build a good campaign. Bill Hamilton Assistant Political Editor of the Washington Post said, "The nomination of the first African American presidential nominee after a bitter primary campaign and his efforts to unite a party afterward were simply more newsworthy than a candidate whose nomination was already assured and who spent much of that time raising money. In the end, we can and should be judged on the fairness of our coverage, but that is a judgment that must be made over the course of the whole campaign, not a single period of time." Bill is saying that the Post isn't trying to give Obama more coverage; he’s just more of an entertaining topic at this point. He also says that they shouldn't be judged until the campaign is over, so since it’s not over no one should be pointing fingers yet. News wars explains what he’s trying to say because, in order for news media to make money they must show things that appeal to the "majority of people" aka Obama. They must show what is entertaining not what is "fair" to each side.
I really dont agree with the media being bias about McCain or Obama. I really dont see it as an issue. The people, me included since I vote this year, want to hear what is interesting. I dont care who gets the most coverage it doesn't make them a better candidate. Ya sure you'll get to know see or hear more about them on Tv but if your really that upset that your candidate isnt on flip to another channel or go surf the web for info. Dont be jealous dont get upset go do something about it instead of just complain. Beggars can't be choosers. In the article News Wars makes money from the most viewers so stop fussing. This whole article was pointless I tired of people complaining. It makes me not want to vote because people keep saying who is better and stuff like "Well Obama said this in the paper today so he is better" Blah Let people make their own choices alright if I want your opinion Ill ask!
As News War states, "anyone can make news" in this generation because of technology advances and changes in values/interests over time. Bill Hamilton stated that "we make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy." It is ultimately up to the people to see (or not see) whether a piece of news is important; further, it is also the people who who provide each other with news they consider important. I have always stood firm that a newspaper/news station should remain neutral--please just take away the personal opinions. Sure, I give some credit to the ones who want to make the news more personable for others to read; HOWEVER, despite our nation's belief in free speech, could this be considered a type of manipulation or even carelessness to deliver news? There needs to be equal amounts of coverage, no personalities, no bullshit, and even more importantly, NO BIAS.
The article on the Washington Post was intriging. Deborah Howell spotted the bias regarding equal coverage for the presidential election. For example, the difference of cover stories at the Post between Obama and McCain are unbalanced--and therefore, unequal. According to Howell, Obama has received far more front-page cover stories than McCain. She points out that the cover stories don't exactly "count" because of their unequal coverage between the two candidates, but more importantly cover stories are the MOST VISIBLE of the entire newspaper. It's the first thing people see when they pick it up. So basically, to have this unequal coverage between the two candidates is--despite freedom of press, speech, etc. etc. etc.--UNFAIR. Bill Hamilton stated that "as editors we decide what we think is important, because that is what our readers look for us to do." Howell's retort (which I agree with whole-heartedly)?--"readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates." This goes for any other type of news. PERIOD. Screw freedom of speech/press/etc.--just because you have the freedom to do that, doesn't mean that you can feel justified to provide the public with biased or unequal coverage. Think about it.
--Amee Catalano, Block 2
I think bias in professional news sources in a presidential race is wrong, however, I don't see this assumed bias about Obama being a problem at this point. Sure he may have more coverage, but it hasn't all been good. And as Deborah Howell states, "Obama's dominance on Page 1 is partly due to stories about his winning the bruising primary battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton" McCain didn't have a big battle to cover, which meant there was less for the news sources to cover. Obama being less known at the start of the presidential campaign also meant there there was more for the news to cover about Obama than there was about McCain. It's like what Ted Koppel from News War said, "We're now judging journalism by the standards that we apply to entertainment, giving the public what it wants, not necessarily what it ought to hear, what it ought to see, what it needs." The media now reports on what the public wants to hear, and they can because of freedom of speech and freedom of press, whether that's the way it should be or not. So far the public has been more interested in Obama, his history, and his fight against Clinton. As we get closer to the election the coverage will probably start to even out since the battle is now between Obama and McCain. If the news continues to cover Obama more as we get close to elections, then I will be concerned.
so basically people today are more interested in whats out of the usual. which in turn makes us more interested in things like the whole obama campaign. just because he would be the first african american candidate we all turn our attention to him. personally i think its pretty dumb to be so focused on such a small detail of who a person really is and the fact that hes getting more attention isnt really that big of a deal. We all get to decide what we wanna watch or believe in so if your not happy with whats going on then dont watch the debates, dont complain about something when your not forced to be a part of it. i think the whole bias in the campaign is ridiculous and like they said in news wars"anyone can make news", which means that the news we hear and read is gonna be full of personal opinions and thats annoying cuz its not neccessarliy the facts its what other people think and thats not what were lookin for, i dont really know, to tell you the truth i get annoyed with the entire politics conversations and i hate talking about it.
So the article is about unequal coverage with Obama getting more coverage from the news media. As Deborah Howell states “Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party's presumptive nominee June 4”. In my opinion it dosn’t matter that Obama is getting more attention then McCain because in today’s world more and more people are turning to the internet to get their news information. As Steven Thomma states “…there is multiple outlets were political content can be found, and those outlets become identifiably liberal or conservative”. So if a person wants to read about McCain all they have to do is search him on the internet.
I agree with trevor. The article is being blamed for covering more of obamas issues than McCain. But thats just one article. One news post. There's plenty of other outlits to go to, to look at, to judge off. Mr. Bill Hamilton (Assistant Political Editor of the Washington Post) said, "The nomination of the first African American presidential nominee after a bitter primary campaign and his efforts to unite a party afterward were simply more newsworthy than a candidate whose nomination was already assured and who spent much of that time raising money. In the end, we can and should be judged on the fairness of our coverage, but that is a judgment that must be made over the course of the whole campaign, not a single period of time." Hamilton is saying that the article isn't necessarily trying to give Obama the majority of the coverage but like trevor said he is more entertaining and he is the buzz of today. We've never had a black president before and now that it is narrowed down to to primary candidates the media is going to be all over that story. It also doesnt necassarily bias towards him either, its just talking about him more, not leaning to his side more. In News Wars they tell the public they the standard has changed and they show the public what appeals or pleases them. Of course they give them facts and info but they wanna keep them on there news channels or papers so they do whatever they can (within reason) to keep the viewer watching.
About obama getting more coverage than mccain is very true i think we pay attention to the smallest things like that he is african american and also mccains vice presidents daughter is like 16 or something a pregnet seriously why do we need to no that and what does it have anything to do with the campiagn and why does it even matter that obama is african american like seriously! I think it is true that anyone one could just make news because i have seen it done but people have to relize that they choose what they want to listen to and who they want to believe i dont understand why people get angry at other news casters when they dont even have to watch that news! i think it makes no sense!
Alright so the article was basically showing Obamas coverage compared to McCains. And apparently Obama is quite a bit more popular than McCain in the front pages. But honestly, is it really that big a deal? Maybe, maybe not. Its up to the people of America to decide what is important to them and what isnt. I dont think the number of covers will matter when it comes election day. News war said, "anyone can make news." how very true this statement is. these days people need to choose on their own what to watch and what to believe since there are so many non mainstream sources for acquiring news. And due to the fact that Obama is the first African American nominee, he is getting more coverage, but it isnt always good. Mr. Bill Hamilton (Assistant Political Editor of the Washington Post) said, "The nomination of the first African American presidential nominee after a bitter primary campaign and his efforts to unite a party afterward were simply more newsworthy than a candidate whose nomination was already assured and who spent much of that time raising money. In the end, we can and should be judged on the fairness of our coverage, but that is a judgment that must be made over the course of the whole campaign, not a single period of time." i agree with this, the judgement SHOULD be made over the course of the campaign, not the single period of time. And the world isnt fair, so equal coverage wont always happen
Holy cow. People love to take this seriously. I had to take a step back from this article and think, "This is someone's job? To count how many times someone is on the front page?" I mean seriously, yes this is news. But to go as far in depth as Deborah Howell, " ...because editors have run almost the same number of photos -- 21 of Obama and 22 of McCain -- since they realized the disparity. McCain is almost even with Obama in Page 1 photos -- 10 to 9". I think that is a little too much. Furthermore, yes news is going to be biased. But to throw a tizzy fit over it? okay... now that my personal opinion is out of the way, lets go on. I believe that yes the news is going to be biased, but we cant help it. When someone thinks so strongly about a topic, as hard as they try to not be biased, it is going to happen. However i do believe with amee that "There needs to be equal amounts of coverage, no personalities, no bullshit, and even more importantly, NO BIAS". As much as we try though, we most likely will have that sour taste of bias in out articles. As Bill Hamilton wrote, "That means as editors we decide what we think is important, because that's what our readers look for us to do -- not to adhere to some arbitrary standard". So because of ideas like these, bias is almost certain to show up in political and other topics in news. But should we really be complaining this much? We do have this little thing called freedom of speech. If you don't like how one paper is reporting the events in their way, there are a thousand or so other newspapers. go find another. Then might i add we have those people out there who like to rip apart the other news. Such as online blogs or amateur video news. Come on. seriously? news is news. Like everyone who replied to this blog i am going to use the "famous" news war quote, "anyone can make news". Yes, i believe this is true. I think that anyone who reports something that is... you guessed it... new, is in a way a reporter to the news. Overall, i couldn't imagine people from the 1400's looking back on how we "examine" our news today. Come one, its only news.
kelly connor block 3
i think that the main reason that mccain is getting less coverage is that there wasnt much to report in the first couple of months. both the republicans and the democrats are findign something new to report on obama, but the democrats werent really interested in reporting about maccain at first, good or bad. i think that now that all this bad publicity has come out about him, there will be more equal coverage since the democrats have finally found something of interest to report. i dont think that anyone should complain about the coverage because it wont really change anyones views. republicans will read newspapers that write what they want to hear and so will democrats. it seems the smart thing for a newspaper to do would be to report on all things republican because they could make more money. since there are less stories on mccain, and his supporters are going to seek out the paper writing stories about him, they would sell more newspapers than that of a Liberal newspaper reporting on obama, which are a dime-a-dozen. i like that deborah howell is informing people that there is a slight bias, but really, this is just the beginning. as more mud is dug up, more will be slung. i say dont worry about it and dont let dumb statistics affect your opinions unless it changes the candidate themselves
kiri sanchez
The news will always be biased, this is no exception. But Trevor is right, today's people want to be entertained, and biases help the entertainment factor. All is fair in love and war...and this is a "war" so to say, for the presidency of the united states. Simply put, the gloves are off.
Bob Noble, 2nd Block
I think as a reporter (and explained by "News War") any report needs to appear important to the public and this is how the media makes money, but i also dont think it has to be important to one person, but a biased statement (like this of Obama) takes a somewhat political view in a way, and even though it is not important to a reader that does not support Obama, It still is read and consumed because there is an argument going on. The actual writing that is being stated about Obama and the report on it doesnt have to be important, because the article will be read even though it is not necessarily important to that person, but because it is political and takes a view/side. So in conclusion i dont think reporters need to strive to write about something important to a reader, because something totally random can be important just because it takes a side. So maybe as long as a report is appealing in more ways then important to one individual, it will still be successful....if that made any sense at all haha.
Lara Abelar
blk 2
I think that today there is quite a bit of news bias. Some newspapers/shows/magazines do a good job of providing fair and equal coverage to both sides of an argument, but many are leaning toward one side and only providing half of the argument. I think it would be a good idea to, as stated by the media matters column, "restore the Fairness Doctrine, which once ordered radio and television o give equal time to opposing political views." The Fairness Doctrine was taken out because an equal balance was present within the media, but it seems to me most of the TV news shows are biased.The average news consumer will take whatever is presented to him as fact and won't bother to cross examine sources. If all that news consumer constantly sees is one side of an argument repetition will burn that idea into their brain as fact. The other problem with an imbalance of media coverage is that instead of a voter making an educated choice between two equally represented ideas, they only have one option to choose.
I understand that McCain and his supporters might find it frustrating that Obama is getting more coverage. But unlike Obama, McCain is no different than any of the other previous presidental candidates. The Post attributed Obamas front page success to "partly due to stories about his winning the bruising primary battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton." Never before has an African American or Female run for President. Of course these two people will generate more news than McCain. And I believe that it is completely fair that Obama is receiving more media then McCain. Every journalist is entitled to their own opinion and allowed to write about whom ever they like. Just because one candidate it written about more does not show a bias in the newspaper. Like many people in the News War said,"News is what people find interesting." Many people will find the battle between Obama and Clinton much more interesting that what McCain has to say.
- Kristie Cosbie, Block 3
The Post is being accused of not being fair... honestly its hard to find reporters that are willing to be completely fair these days and i think people need to get over that. Reporters are going to report what they think their readers want to read and apparently The Post's they want to read about Obama. You can blame the reporters all you want but if the majority of there readers want to hear about Obama more then McCain, thats what there gonna write about. There are plenty other, more conservative, papers that only talk about McCain, so theirs no reason to just attack The Post.
The article is about bias in the media. The media is going to be biased, and the government should not regulate. You as an individual possess a brain, and should utilize it when reading articles that deal with real issues. If you watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh, understand that they are going to put a Conservative point of view on the issues. If you watch Katie Couric or most TV news stations, they will tend to be more liberal. So be intelligent, and understand that bias is part of everything, especially the media.
Post a Comment