Too Little; Too Late

Many consider journalists to be an integral part of democracy.  I agree with those who believe this.  Knowledge is power, and the more accurate information we have, the better our citizenry can judge how best to select those who will represent us in government.

But what happens when journalists are derelict in their duty?  What happens when too many in the profession allow their own perspective and their own goals to overshadow what their responsibilities truly are?

Well - this.

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors -- like most of the national news media -- found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

As is so often the case, Ed Morrissey's analysis of what went wrong is spot on.

Howell never answers the real issue here — why did the Post, and the rest of the national media, go on the attack with Sarah Palin and not with Barack Obama?  The two candidates had a similar amount of time in politics, and Palin had more executive experience than Obama.  Obama ran for the top job, while Palin ran for VP.  And yet the national media parachuted dozens of reporters into Wasilla and Juneau looking for dirt and scandal, coming up with a tanning bed in the governor’s mansion (which Palin bought herself) and the Troopergate story that turned out to be a nothingburger and was already known prior to her nomination.

Where were the Post reporters doing the same thing in Chicago?  Why didn’t the Post want to look at the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama’s only executive experience prior to his run for the presidency?  The media never bothered to make a hundredth of the effort on Obama that they did with Palin, and they had two years to do it.

That’s the issue Howell should have addressed in her column.  We already know that the Post gave imbalanced coverage of Obama and McCain, as did most of the rest of the media.  And now Howell gives the mea culpa in her first column after Election Day, when it’s far too late to do anything about it.  Where was Howell during the last three months?  Why wait until the election is over to speak up?  That’s an answer in itself.

I am happy that Howell is highlighting this issue and admitting that her paper (like almost all) was at fault.  Still, we can wonder:  what will be done in the future?  Will editors make certain that there is enough ideological balance to equitably and fairly report the news?  Or, will we be seeing future "mea culpas" after the fact, when it is too late for citizens and voters to be truly well and accurately informed?

That the newspaper industry is suffering mightily is in large part a function of technological changes and a sea change in how news can be delivered.  I, however, believe that the failure to deliver a quality product also is a factor in that decline.

Comments

[Greg]

Here is a different take on this issue.

Media continue to uncritically report McCain campaign attacks on their coverage, but case studies still show disparate coverage in McCain's favor
http://mediamatters.org/items/200811050005?f=h_latest

Throughout the 2008 general election campaign, the media uncritically reported complaints by Sen. John McCain's campaign that they favored his opponent in their coverage of the presidential race, while making little attempt to assess the accuracy of those complaints or to confirm or refute them. In September, Media Matters for America undertook a review of the media's coverage of two stories negatively affecting or reflecting on Sen. Barack Obama and two stories negatively affecting or reflecting on McCain and compared the extent of media attention to each. Media Matters has since updated that review through Election Day, November 4. Specifically, Media Matters compared the media's coverage of Obama's association with Chicago developer Antoin Rezko to the media's coverage of McCain's associations with donors for whom McCain reportedly facilitated land deals. Media Matters also compared coverage of Obama's association with former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers to coverage of McCain's association with G. Gordon Liddy, whom Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman has described as McCain's "own Bill Ayers."

Media Matters found that while the five major newspapers -- the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post -- frequently mentioned Obama's ties to Ayers and Rezko, they rarely mentioned McCain's reported facilitation of land deals that benefited donors, and they almost completely ignored McCain's association with Liddy. In addition, the three evening network news broadcasts mentioned Obama's ties to Ayers and Rezko several times, but never reported on McCain's reported facilitation of land deals that benefited donors or his association with Liddy.

[Peg]

Greg - try citing an organization not funded by staunch Democrat billionaire supporter George Soros.

I know it's tough to read this from a fine journalist at the Washington Post. But - sometimes you just have to accept that things are not as you wish they were.

Then again - perhaps you're happy as a clam as they were. We'll never know how the election (not to mention our financial crisis) might have played out had the MSM been practicing what it ought to have been: honesty and equity.