Most who know me know that I’m not really a traditional “right winger.” True, I’m as economically conservative as they come. I think the government should protect the border, pave the roads and deliver the mail. Well, maybe we could outsource the mail…
Nonetheless, when it comes to other issues, I should probably become a Libertarian. I really have little interest in most “social” issues. Honestly, I have no interest in how you conduct your life so long as you don’t break any laws — and are polite in traffic.
I really don’t subscribe to the whole idea of the “media bias” that so many conservatives lament. Does it exist? Sure it does! Is it inherently evil or surprising? No.
I’m not a fan of stereotyping, but come on! Think about the writers, actors and musicians that you know. You can probably count on one hand how many are dyed in the wool conservatives. It’s just not the way the such people are wired.
I do have every expectation that journalists will be objective, though. Generally they are. Just ask Bill Clinton, who was taken completely aback in 1993. The election was over and so was the honeymoon with the media. The Clinton White House was astonished that they would be challenged on anything. It became obvious that the “bias” is more anti-establishment than it is conspiratorially liberal.
I think that this explains much of what we see with the idol worship of Sen. Obama. He truly has achieved rock star status and makes a great story. Think about it. What’s more interesting? “Young, dynamic, well-spoken black male seeks the highest office in the land” or “old white guy secures Republican nomination”?
So while I intellectually understand the motivation for much of the coverage we see, I completely do not understand the absence of other coverage.
Today I read another article about John Edwards’ trouble with the National Enquirer. Seems that he still hasn’t offered a strong denial about an affair with a staffer in which he allegedly fathered a child. So troubling is the lack of response that the DNC is considering dropping him as a speaker at their convention.
Think about this. A former vice-presidential candidate and recent presidential candidate should be a shoe-in.
I loved a quote by Gary Pearce, Edwards’ campaign manager from his 1998 Senate race. He appreciated that “big media” had handled the issue with “kid gloves” thus far, but was worried if Edwards speaks to the convention without first offering a stronger denial that the story would become “news”.
Either there is or there is not a bias in the media. As mentioned above, I’m not convinced that there is. But in politics we have a saying — “perception is reality.”
I perceive that Edwards’ story hasn’t gotten much coverage. I perceived recently that Rudy Giuliani got the Bejesus kicked out of him in the press regarding marital issues — and the accusations weren’t nearly as strong.
How do you perceive media coverage?