Media Bias

I'm sure it was terrifying for the Dems to consider a non-incumbent strategy, especially with Biden showing no intention of stepping aside. That fear, of course, was exacerbated by the increasing likelihood of a revenge-fueled Trump winning in November. Since many journalists share that fear, I have no doubt that many held back on the toughest questions about Biden's health --- though the concerns often seeped through. 

It required the filterless 90 minute full public view of the debate to shock the system, and force the Dems into a Plan B they hadn't really planned for. It's worth noting that everything unflattering we've learned about the Dem inner circles has come from the same mainstream media. 

Fortunately, the Dem response was fast, well-considered, and seamless, and as a result there's an increasing chance that Donald Trump's reign over the Republican Party will come to an end, fulfilling Archy's wishes. 

Now that there's only one incoherent elderly candidate embarrassing himself, will the rightwing media ask the hard questions about Donald Trump's fitness to lead? 

 
Weird that corporate-owned news was eager to publish all the Hillary stuff, but it's radio silence and pearl-clutching about Vance.


GU3CGoAWwAAc0YE


 
:yeah  Pretty outrageous that they would ignore, sit on vital information about the campaign.  Are they letting their powder dry until a more opportune time, playing cautious, fearful of MAGA, need to verify the info  :dunno   I don't understand why these 3 outlets, who are not pro-trump, would sit on the story.  If it were Newsmax, FoxNews, and Oann - then it is understandable.  

 
Well said. There are two very different coverages of these two campaigns.



David, I understand why journalists want to take this stance. But the fact is we have had no reflection, no willingness to think through how irresponsible and reckless so much of our mainstream press and so many of our journalists have bern and continue to be 1




Watch how often the White House press briefings end up as embarrassing zoos. Consider for example at O’Keefe’s shouting at and hectoring the press secretary. Far too many questions have little to do with what Americans care about, and more reflect the egos of the reporters. 2 
 
Watching the farce of a faux press conference with Trump, with not a single question about what should’ve been the big story of the day, an alleged $10 million bribe from Egypt, and few questions about what is most important, the stakes of the election and Trump’s approach to governance. 3 
 
I do think that sometime in the near future Harris should do not a press conference with campaign reporters who will not distinguish themselves with what is important but ask a flurry of gotcha and horse, race questions, but one or two in-depth one on one interviews. 4 
 
There are many good journalists who could do this really well.@yamiche @lawrence @GStephanopoulos @JohnJHarwood @AliVelshi @sbg1 to pick a few. But what I have seen over the past two weeks is a bunch of whining by self important narcissistic journalists who think it’s all about them. 5 
 
For Kamala Harris, this first period as the Democratic nominee is about defining herself and rallying the party and other voters sick about Trump, carrying through the convention. The Interviews should come after that. 6 
 
In the meantime, I watch with dismay as a press corps monomaniacally obsessed with Joe Biden’s mental condition almost completely ignoring the mental state of Donald Trump. His slurring, disjointed and embarrassing two hours with Elon Musk does not even get front page treatment. 7 
 
While there are stories and even some powerful editorials about Trump’s unfitness for office or plans for mass deportation, takeover of the civil service, promise of retribution, dictatorship on day one and invocation of the insurrection act, they are piecemeal at best, often relegated to less prominent places 8 
 
Which means most voters have no clue what a second Trump term would actually be like. The stakes of this election should be the core of coverage. Including of course, what a Harris presidency would be like and what it would do. I would be far more sympathetic to the push for more access by Harris if that were the case. 9 
 
Instead, we get the same insipid focus on the horse race and the polls, while normalizing abnormal behavior and treating this like a typical presidential election, not one that is an existential threat to democracy. The press does not have to side with Harris to do its job. It is falling so far short. 10 
 
What frustrates me as much as anything is that the centers of excellence I have so long admired and relied on, including the Post, the Times, the Journal, most news networks, the real opinion leaders that frame coverage for most of the other outlets, have failed so often and somehow refuse to even consider their shortcomings. End 
 

 
All of that was in response to a response to this:
 




 

What "press"? The broken and vindictive Times? The newly Murdochian Post? Hedge-fund newspaper husks? Rudderless CNN or NPR? Murdoch's fascist media? No. She can choose many ways to communicate her stands with others outside the old press and with the public directly. The old press can and should be bypassed.
Kamala Harris must speak to the press
Margaret Sullivan








Kamala Harris must speak to the press | Margaret SullivanEven if you very much hope Harris prevails over Trump, that’s not a good enough reason to cheer on her press avoidancehttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/13/kamala-harris-must-speak-to-press






Look at the press' behavior. When given a chance to ask questions, they sound like they're in a lockerroom, seeking quotes, not policy. This does nothing to inform the electorate. I know the argument about testing a candidate: but the press as currently configured aims for game & gotcha. 
 
Job 1 is to inform the electorate about policy & stakes. That is up to the candidate to communicate and voters to judge. The press is unnecessary in that process. It can still analyze all it wants. But its questions will do nothing more to inform.... 
 
If Harris preempts interviews with the hostile press--which includes not just Fox but now The Times & Post--and goes for an interview on MSNBC she'll be accused of seeking softballs. (Not that Trump didn't just get a BJ from Elon Musk...).... 
 
The next question is one of character. There we would learn more from seeing Harris and Walz sit down with Howard Stern (his interview with Biden was stellar and revealing) or late-night hosts (Colbert, not for God's sake Fallon) or podcasters.... 
 
What I most want to see Harris & Walz do is bypass old, white mass media (run by people who look like me) and enter into conversations--scarce time allowing--with Black & Latino press, podcasters, community press, thereby validating their role over the priviledged & powerful incumbents in political discourse.... 
 
I'll say this again: The press needs Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris doesn't need the press. Their motive in whining for what they take as their birthright (hello, A.G.) is to salve their editorial egos and earn them attention (and money). They have not earned this role; they have forfeited the privilege by their behavior. 
 
As I said elsewhere in a thread, I agree with @sulliview almost always. But here, not. It is time that we as media critics face head on how broken the press is. It does not perform a constructive and productive role. To the contrary, it has been damaging to democracy. Facing the press is not a proper test. The press fails its tests. 
 
It is also critical that we as journalism educators enable our students to break free of the failures of incumbent, white, mass media and build a different future for journalism, paying reparations for the sins of media past & present, listening--truly listening--to the public they serve. 

 
Did the right-leaning media obsess too much over Biden's age? Did the left-leaning media not address it well enough? 

Given subsequent events it's hard to say Biden's age was an over-hyped non-issue. Post-debate, Democrats freaked out that the lead story was no longer Trump's well-established litany of awfulness, but Biden's suddenly glaring liabilities. But that was the news. No apologies necessary. 

The notion that the same press ignores Donald Trump's lies and literal slurs is absurd. Prior to the debate, the wall to wall media coverage concerned Trump's legal trials and that went on for months. One could argue there were Biden policy initiatives that were more important to more Americans than vintage charges against Trump for falsifying business documents, but these same people weren't complaining about the media's priorities. The media may be addicted to Donald Trump, but they have never given him a pass. Any time Trump is allowed his own forum -- like the Musk interview -- the media fact-checks the s#!t out of him. 

Do you know where you can read about or watch reports on critical policy issues, with balanced analysis from experts? Everywhere. Newspapers. Podcasts. Magazines. Videos. Use your search engine. It's all there. Just like broccoli is at every supermarket.  

And seriously, does anyone believe this is the first election that's more about the "vibe" than the substance? 

I kinda get the Harris strategy, especially given that everything is working right now. But Harris actually has the better substance story, and she can absolutely control the tenor of any interview. You could make a better case that Kamala should give an interview to Sean Hannity, armed with point by point rebuttal the many lies Fox has been spreading, and succinct deflections of the predictable gotcha questions. 

After all, her vibe is "fearless" and I think a lot of folks would dig it. 

 
Back
Top