Dirk Smillie’s Forbes interview (6/18/09) with veteran news analyst Andrew Tyndall includes the observation that “mainstream press–network newscasts in particular–have been criticized for overly favorable coverage of the Obama administration.” Tyndall takes the opportunity to make some important distinctions about this common allegation:
There may be a personality bias, not a liberal bias. Since the inauguration, Obama has completely dominated the news agenda. He’s a ratings getter. Compare that with George W. Bush’s early days in the White House. There was very little news until September 11. It’s certainly true that there has been favoritism toward Obama, but only in the sense that the networks want to cover him.
The crucial point usually missed in this conversation: “That’s not the same thing as reporting with a bias toward his policies.” See FAIR’s take on this trend from even before Obama won the presidency–Media Advisory: “Pro-Obama Media?: What Talk About Media Favoritism Really Means” (11/4/08).
Well now, hold on here a minute.
I take the point, but the corpress *does* have a policy bias – towards those Obama policies (the great bulk, despite what MoveOn would have you believe) that favor its agenda of perpetual war abroad and inequality at home, doesn’t it?
They pissed all over Slippery William – but cheered NAFTA and the murder of Iraqi and Bosnian civilians, didn’t they?
What you should say is that there’s no bias in favor of the half-measures Democrats occasionally propose (such as this horseshit “public option” for health care) to keep up their “good cop” image, don’t you think?
We certainly do believe that the corporate press has policy preferences. As we note in the media advisory linked to in the post:
Much of the media enthusiasm for Obama…has demonstrated less of a liberal bias than a centrist bias. Early in the campaign, pundits were enthralled by the idea of a “post-racial” America, with Obama embodying a literal transcendence of divisiveness and racism (Extra!, 3-4/07). While the campaigns were occasionally criticized in the press for various flip-flops, the press were often more forgiving if they believed Obama’s were part of a move away from the left and towards the media-preferred “center”–though on some issues, such as the Iraq War, the position the media favored for Obama would put him well to the right of the public (FAIR Media Advisory, 7/15/08).
For many in the press, Obama’s appeal is based on the notion that liberal “interest groups” will be sidelined; a New York Times editorial approvingly noted (8/29/08) that the Democratic convention saw “little displayâ┚¬Ã‚¦of the placards of the teachers’ and service workers’ unions, of the National Abortion Rights Action League and the Sierra Club,” a sign of the “Obama campaign’s sound analysis that American voters mistrust interest groups.” The Washington Post’s endorsement of Obama (10/17/08) ran through several areas where the candidate is perceived to be a refreshing break from Democratic orthodoxy, saying that he “has surrounded himself with top-notch, experienced, centrist economic advisers,” the paper noted–though they still would like him to move further to the right.
Wow … a response. -g-
But Jim, I wasn’t saying that you didn’t think the corpress had policy biases – there’d be no reason for FAIR if they didn’t, would there? I was responding to this comment:
‘The crucial point usually missed in this conversation: “That’s not the same thing as reporting with a bias toward his policies.”‘
Isn’t the implication that Obama’s policies are all liberal (whatever that term means), and since the corpress doesn’t have a liberal bias, they don’t show favoritism towards those policies?
That’s what I took from it.