Is someone up there listening?

Is it me or have the mainstream media actually been doing a marginally better job calling the candidates out on false claims and inaccuracies, lately?  Ever since John McCain released a string a of ridiculous attack ads a few weeks ago, some members the mainstream media have (at least for the time being) abandoned this virtue of false balance and pointed out the untruths in ads coming from both candidates.  I'm not saying it has been perfect, but I feel like the press is playing a bit more of a referee function than they had been playing previously.  Perhaps its the level of ridiculousness some these ads have risen to (i.e. Sex-ed for kindegartners).  Or perhaps the media has learned its lesson from last election's swift boat fiasco.  Maybe the presidents of the major news networks, and the editors of the top dailies have been reading my blog (yeah right).  

My point is I can't always point out the negative.  I have to give credit when I see improvement.  In last week's issue of Time there was a useful grid dissecting a number of ads from both sides and rating them based on their factuality and seriousness.  It also corrects any fallacies stated in the ads.  This, however, is not what I found particularly shocking about this grid.  I expected that in an effort to maintain some sort of balance, Time would have had an equal number of true/false ads from either side ... this was not the case.  The count? In the truthful ads department Obama held the lead 6 to 4.  The lying champion?  That dubious distinction fell to Senator McCain with 6 false ads to Obama's 4.   Perhaps the bells and whistles of a graph were not necessary when a well reported story would have sufficed, but one still has to appreciate the effort.  Not to mention, as a magazine, Time does have to be concerned with graphics/layout more than a newspaper might.

Another example of good whistle-blowing came on the front-page of Friday's New York Times.  This article by Jim Ruttenberg and Julie Bosman does a good job debunking many falsehoods put forth by the Obama campaign in a string of ads launched against Senator McCain over the weekend.  The article breaks the mold of unbiased stenographic reporting when it comes to dubious ads.  It deconstructs myths about McCain put forth in the ads ranging from his supposed opposition to stem-cell research, to a non-existent connection between him and racist radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh (this claim coming from a particularly vicious spanish-language ad.)  It is a good piece of reporting.

If the media is actually reading this blog, I do want to point out some issues before they start patting themselves on the back.  The same Jim Ruttenberg  that did such extensive reporting on Friday produced this piece of garbage only three days earlier.  The headline "Pinpoint Attacks Focus Obama" is the complete opposite of the hard stance Ruttenberg took in Friday's article.  The piece deals with a series of ads (funded by a PAC) linking Obama to Rev. Wright and former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.  Ruttenberg does not make mention of the authenticity of either of these connections until this statement appears in the 13th paragraph:

"... the group's intention was to show Mr. Obama's affiliations - although Mr. Obama and Mr. Kilpatrick were never known to be close."

Are you kidding me??? You don't mention this until the 13th paragraph???  To compound this Ruttenberg buries this under a laundry list of other underhanded tactics used by Republican PAC's to brand Obama as a foreigner, without calling out these tactics as underhanded or unfair.  Jim does a good job in the article showing what kinds of groups these ads are coming from, but does little to nothing in contesting their accuracy.  Hopefully as the election enters its final month we will see more reporting similar to the first two examples and less of the latter, but I'm not holding my breath, unless the powers at be are actually reading this.

Workin' em

Came across this piece on TPM, its a perfect example of a campaign "working the refs."  The article points out that after months of pandering to the New York Times for positive coverage John McCain, the McCain camp has unleashed a swarm of attacks saying the NYT isn't a real news organization.  Now I criticize the Times a good deal, but that is my job, and as hard as I am on the Grey Lady, I still do for the most part think it does a decent job, and I still rather enjoy reading it.  That being said, is it hypocritical for me to criticize NYT's election coverage, and then criticize the McCain camp for doing the same?  Maybe, but then again I'm not running for President of the United States.

Poll Dancing

Sorry this is slightly outdated.  The article I want to discuss comes from the front page of last Thursday's (Sept. 18) New York Times.  It is a rather long piece by Robin Toner and Adam Nagourney discussing the results of the latest NYT/CBS poll.

I didn't get around to discussing it this past weekend, but I still think it important to bring up because it allows me to examine the idea of polls, and how the media, at least in my opinion, grossly misuses them.

Polls are useful.  I believe it is important to try and measure public opinion and attempt to gather a general sentiment of how the country is feeling.  I believe polls are wonderful things to supplement news.  Somewhere along the line, unfortunately, the media began to think the polls themselves are news.

This is problematic for a number of reasons.  Polls are notoriously unreliable.  If a poll shows an obvious trend (say, 80% of the country disapproving of the President) then it is probably applicable.  When it comes to elections, however, polls should not be the end-all be-all.  We need not remember past the fiasco of the New Hampshire Democratic Primary to se evidence of this.  In sports, the saying goes "that's why they play the games."  Well, that's why they have the elections.  Yet every elections the pundits would rather discuss who is leading in the polls than any sort of substantive policy issues.  Obviously, this is because they do not understand complex isssues, and must rely on such horserace-type coverage.  Media critics have labored on this point for some time, and I need not harp on it much more.  Let us discuss the article at hand...

Let's start with the headline.  'McCain Seen as Less Likely to Bring Change, Poll Finds."  While it is relieving that America believes the candidate of the incumbent party is less likely to bring change, it is certainly not news.  If this were the other way around it might be worht reporting.  

Now I can see one making the argument, that this is pertinent insofar as John McCain has attempted to take up the mantle of change in recent weeks, but even still, the results of the New York Times poll, and Adam Nagourney's overblown interpretation of these results need not be the only front page headline regarding the election.  

Now I understand NYT probably paid plenty of money to have this poll conducted, and I'm sure it was done very scientifically and does glean some incite into the current opinion of Americans.  However, when one considers the problematic nature of polling we have just discussed, should one be inclined to believe this is the most important election coverage on this particular day?  The rest of the front page was dominated by news of the financial crisis befalling our globe.  Perhaps these front page inches could have better spent discussing the candidate's ideas for fixing the mess that our economy is in?  No, apparently the public is better served by finding out that the 47 percent of McCain supporters are energized by the Republican ticket.

I always laugh when the media puts so much effort into scrutinizing these polls.  Supposedly they are a measure of what the public is thinking.  So why is it so important for the media to tell the public what they are thinking, and even better why they are thinking it.  Does anybody else see this as condescending.  If I approached a young white woman on the street and flat out told her that she was voting for Barack Obama because she is a white woman under 45, I don't think I would get a particularly warm reception, but apparently this is how one becomes the top political reporter at the New York Times, go figure.

Sexism in the Election

This is a funny little spot from the latest Saturday Night Live, showing a mock press conference with Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton.  It actually does bring up some interesting points about the way the media has handled both women.

While both women have assuredly faced some sexist comments in the media, its interesting to see how pundits' positions on this matter has shifted with the selection of Gov. Palin for the Republican ticket, especially the pundits on the right.  Nevertheless, this clip was too funny not to post.  Be sure to listen for Hillary's words of wisdom to the media at the very end.  personally I think it is good advice.

All Aboard

This is an interesting op-ed by Richard Cohen of the Washington Post.  There is a link to it on the Talking Points memo (that's where I found it.)

It's interesting because it touches on a couple of important issues surrounding the media's coverage of the election, specifically their treatment of John McCain.

Firstly, it deals with the derailment of the "Straight Talk Express" in this election.  The past two weeks have been some of the worst, with the most deceitful ads to date coming out the McCain camp (i.e. Kindergarten-Sex Ed, Pig in Lipstick).  More specifically, the piece deals with the media's refusal to acknowledge the derailment of  the STE, because it doesn't fit the John McCain-Maverick narrative.

Cohen then gives praise to the members of the mainstream media that have finally stood up against the lies, one guess who these virtuous journalists are.  Anderson Cooper? Nope.  Brian Williams? Guess again.  Charlie Gibson?  That's laughable.  All out of guesses?  How about those saucy ladies on every housewife's favorite round table discussion show?  That's right!  It was "The View" that finally took the McCain camp to task for its shameful attack ads.  The clip is is right here. 

It's sad that "The Daily Show," "The Colbert Report" and "The View" are the TV outlets playing a referee function in this election.  The rest of the media just sits on the sideline and watches.  Imagine a basketball game.  Down in the post one player takes a cheap shot and elbows an opposing player in the face.  Now, instead of the referee blowing his whistle and calling a foul, he says, "Oooh! That must have hurt, I wonder if the other player is gonna retaliate and how hard will he retaliate?"  Or what's worse imagine the referee saying, "Wow that guy who just threw that elbow, he's really tough and gritty - such a maverick."  This is where we have arrived in this election.

The other point that Cohen touches on, albeit briefly, in the article is something one rarely hears in the mainstream press - that of John McCain's cushy relationship with the media.

Cohen says, "I am one of the journalists accused over the years of being in the tank for McCain. Guilty."  Cohen then goes on to talk about how this is a result of the respect he had for the old McCain.  He says that respect is gone now, and he is no longer in the tank for him.  However, he neglects to mention that so many in the media fail to recognize that there is even a "new" McCain.  I guess its just easier for the pundits to ride the Straight Talk Express all the way to the election.

Let the Games Begin

In less than two months, the people of the United States of America will elect their 44th president.  As has been the case for some time now, the mainstream media have managed to turn what could be a remarkably democratic process into an absolute circus.  Unfortunately, that circus will play a major role in deciding who becomes our next commander-in-chief.

Despite the fact that mainstream media will only become more superficial, and even more self-forgiving in the next two months, there is some hope for decent journalism to arise like smoke from the flames of mainstream hell.  I'm sorry if that was overly poetic, my point is this blog will not be completely devoted to covering the idiocy, posturing and inanity of the mainstream media (although there will be plenty of that.)  This blog will also seek to illuminate the good pieces of election coverage, whether it be in the independent media (which is more often the case) or the rare piece of enlightening mainstream press (yes those do exist).

One might notice that this blog will be overly concerned with the coverage of the New York Times and the Talking Points Memo.  It is these two outlets that I will be monitoring most closely over the next two months.  This will be done essentially for comparison sake.  This will illuminate the pros and cons of mainstream media and independent media.

Finally, and most importantly, rather than making this a strict criticism of the media, I will try to offer advice on how this could be done better in the future.  I'm probably naive, but I believe that there is the possibility to bring the media back to the referee function the public so desperately needs, if we examine its shortcomings an aim to fix them.  I know corporate influence has a lot to do with this, and this can be very difficult to change, but I think it is still worth examining.