Does Bad = Biased?

Just saw this older Matt Yglesias piece about a bomb threat that got less coverage than some other recent attacks. Matt’s implying that the media is racially or religiously biased, by underreporting this event.

Meanwhile, Instapundit nails David Gregory for his interview with Pennsylvania Senate candidate Joe Sestak. According to the candidate, the Obama administration offered Sestak a job to get him to drop out of the race with Arlan Spector. The offer itself could be a crime, and Gregory didn’t exactly demand answers.

Gregory instead took a hard ‘with us or against us‘ line with Sestak, trying to get him to publicly declare himself an “Obama Democrat”.

What I’m asking is whether you are an Obama Democrat who supported stimulus, who supported health care, who’s with him on all the major elements of his agenda. Are you or are you not an Obama Democrat?

And what about the possible White House crime?

MR. GREGORY:  What, what job were you offered to stay out of a primary race by the administration?

REP. SESTAK:  It’s interesting.  I was asked a question about something that happened months earlier, and I felt I should answer it honestly.  And that’s all I had to say about it because anything beyond that gets away from what we just spoke about.

MR. GREGORY:  Right.

Sestak dissembles for a minute before Gregory, to his credit, comes back on point.

MR. GREGORY:  Yes or no, straightforward question.  Were you, were you offered a job, and what was the job?

REP. SESTAK:  I was offered a job, and I answered that.

MR. GREGORY:  You said no, you wouldn’t take the job.  Was it the secretary of the Navy?

REP. SESTAK:  Right.  And I also said, “Look, I’m getting into this…

MR. GREGORY:  Was it the secretary of the Navy job?

REP. SESTAK:  Anything that go–goes beyond that is others–for others to talk about.

MR. GREGORY:  Let me just take the last couple minutes to talk about some elements of how you’ll campaign.

And that’s it. We’re talking about an administration possibly tampering with a Senate race, and a premier news show is content to let a state politicians out-talk the host. This must be such a proud moment for journalism.

Oh, and remember how Keith Olbermann shrieked his panties off about Bush-hitler’s domestic wiretapping initiative? Well when this administration says it has unilateral authority to murder Americans, the perpetually (and petulantly) indignant news-man has . . . nothing to say.

My thesis: objective journalism is a peculiar artifact of the mid-20th century. It’s death is long overdue, and misguided calls for more objectivity are not useful in a complex and global information system. Being bad journalists doesn’t mean your biased, it just shows the futility and failure of objective journalism as an institution.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Journalism, Psychology and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Does Bad = Biased?

  1. Prodigal Son says:

    I think you are right. Nothing is objective, especially journalism. Journalists in t his country need to admit their biases and embrace them, instead of pretending to be some sort of pure soul who separates their views from their job. The same people that believe politicians become saints when elected believe media personalities magically become objective when they start reporting the news. I saw we return to the days of admittedly bias media who endorse candidates and specific sides of an issue.

Comments are closed.