Yay, More Media Bias

Looks like the MSM is starting to mirror blogtopia more and more.

About the AP:

Ron Fournier says he regards Sandy Johnson, his predecessor as head of The Associated Press’s Washington bureau, as “a mentor.”

Johnson, though, regards Fournier, who replaced her in a hard-feelings shake-up in May, as a threat to one of the most influential institutions in American journalism.

“I loved the Washington bureau,” said Johnson, who left the AP after losing the prestigious position. “I just hope he doesn’t destroy it.”

There’s more to her vinegary remark than just the aftertaste of a sour parting. Fournier is a main engine in a high-stakes experiment at the 162-year old wire to move from its signature neutral and detached tone to an aggressive, plain-spoken style of writing that Fournier often describes as “cutting through the clutter.”

In the stories the new boss is encouraging, first-person writing and emotive language are okay.

So is scrapping the stonefaced approach to journalism that accepts politicians’ statements at face value and offers equal treatment to all sides of an argument. Instead, reporters are encouraged to throw away the weasel words and call it like they see it when they think public officials have revealed themselves as phonies or flip-floppers.

The new approach was on display in a Liz Sidoti news analysis written earlier this month with the lead, “John McCain calls himself an underdog. That may be an understatement.”
...
Fournier and other critics of the conventional press model, especially those on the left, have said that being released from the tired conventions of news writing is exactly what journalism needs.

By these lights, the mentality that presumes both sides of an argument are entitled to equal weight is what prevented the media from challenging the Bush administration more aggressively on the Iraq war and other issues.

Others warn that what Fournier and other proponents see as truth-telling can easily bleed into opinionizing — exactly the opposite of the AP’s mission of “delivering fast, unbiased news.”

“The problem,” says James Taranto, the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web columnist and a frequent critic of what he sees as the AP’s liberal bias, “is that while you can do opinion journalism and incorporate reporting into it, you can’t say you’re doing straight reporting, and then add opinion to that.”

And Mr. Taranto is right in my opinion. Once a news agency abandons objectivity they cease to be a credible news source. By allowing opinion to be presented amongst fact even a little they create a slippery slope and risk becoming nothing more than a well funded investigative blog. And while I wouldn't mind seeing a few more of those around the need for truly objective journalism is even greater. Does this mean I won't be quoting the AP anymore? Nope. But it does mean that I will be scanning the articles that I link to for obvious bias.

Related Posts:
This Liberal Media Bias

This Liberal Media Bias

A couple of months ago I read a post over on Buck Naked Politics titled What Liberal Media?
in which WMD attempted to use the lack of Ron Paul coverage after he won various networks online and text polls (post debate) to try to prove a lack of a liberal media bias stating,"If we really had a "liberal media" wouldn't you expect them to be shining the spotlight on the dark-horse underdog who is upsetting the Rudy McRomney apple cart?" Unfortunately I read it at work didn't email it to myself and forgot about it until now. (I'll get to what reminded me in a bit)

As for WMD's examples, at the time Ron Paul was considered by all outlets of the media to essentially be some libertarian longshot kook with a snowball's chance of being in the race a month later. Secondly, online/text polls are in no way shape or form an indicator of actual public opinion. They are an indicator of how motivated and engaged the candidates' supporters are. Nothing else. Therefore the media doesn't cover their results.

So I check Memeorandum today and find an article in the Investor's Business Daily that Harvard University found a highly significant difference in the amount of coverage of Dem candidates and GOP candidates as well as a major difference in the tone in which they are covered (which reminded me of WMD's post)

Reviewing 154 stories on evening network newscasts over the course of 109 weeknights, the survey found that Democrats were presented in a positive light more than twice as often as they were portrayed as negative. Positive tones for Republicans were detected in less than a fifth of stories while a negative tone was twice as common.

There have been other studies that reached the same conclusion however this is the first to come from a highly reputable college that many would label as "liberal elite". Additionally the study reflects my own opinions on the media. I watch/listen to CNN when getting ready for work, I liosten to Morning Edition on the way to work, and if I watch news in the evening I watch PBS. The study confirms my personal opinions of the networks/media in question.

However unlike many that see a sinister cabal of journalists I opt for a simpler explanation. Simply put the personality type that is most likely to stay in journalism tends to lean to the left. Much in the same way that not everyone is cut out to be a police officer, nurse, or mortician not everyone is cut out to be a journalist. WMD while I may find fault in both your evidence and your conclusion I do agree with you on your closing."What we do want is for the news media to return to the ethics of journalistic professionalism. No more editorializing disguised as reporting. Just give us the truth, report the facts and let each and every American decide for ourselves." However, whether you want admit to it or not, the bias exists. You may not, however, recognize it because it's biases may mirror your own.