To be fair to Jon Stewart, I wanted to mention that this weekend he reported on Senator Obama's remarks in San Francisco, calling small town Americans 'bitter' and what not. He made those comments in early April, but even 6 months late is better than never.
I also wanted to post this link in case anyone wanted to reads someone else's opinion on media bias in this election.
I'm guessing you missed this back in April?
ReplyDeleteJon on Obama Gaffe
Touche.
ReplyDeleteI did miss that, but then again I only got Comedy Central recently due to a Comcast error (suckas!).
Stewart's reaction to those comments lends itself to my original point, that each journalists personal bias will affect which news they report on and how they will report on it. Notice with Palin his reaction was "F&%# you" and with Obama it was to re-enforce the comment itself by making a joke out of it. Young impressionables, sadly, pick up on that.
Check out that article I posted, it is interesting to read from a journalist how manipulation of words plays into bias.
Good call, thanks for looking that up and finding a clip. I appreciate you keeping me honest. Knowing the sway he holds over young 20-somethings, I would prefer a more balanced approach to each candidates moronic remarks than what he presented. I realize his show is satyrical by nature, but one could hope. ;)
P.S. Since we're on the topic of Stewart, he and Colbert made jokes about Republicans 211 times in September, compared to just 29 jokes about Democrats. That shows bias. And even if it is just a comedy show, what effect does it have on the audience when everywhere they look people are only making fun of one candidate? That shaped perception, and in today's day and age perception could be everything. Why does McCain use the slogan "Change is Coming"? He wants to be perceived a certain way. Why does Obama label himself a 'tax cutter' after voting to raise taxes over 50 times? Again, perception.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't just Comedy Central, as Leno and Letterman have made more jokes about Republicans than Democrats on a 7-1 margin as well.
Oh yeah, Stewart's/Colbert's bias is clear. I thought they played it pretty neutral in 2000, but have turned their shows into all-out attacks on Republicans for the previous 6 years or so.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't (and have never) considered them news or journalism, the same way you said in your other comment about Rush. They're comedy - or "opinion" if you want to be so generous. They're a foil to the 24-hour news networks. And I don't blame them - they're smart, funny, and tend to make me very happy.
The article you link to is great by the way. And the reasons Malone gives for why the bias exists are very compelling - editors trying to protect their jobs and positions, or "journalists" trying to make names for themselves.
Do you think this is a new phenomenon? Are we becoming more astute? I'm trying to think if Ben Franklin didn't let his opinions leak into his paper, or whether the Federalist Papers were considered journalism...?
You're probably right about Colbert/Stewart. I suppose the 'damage' they do in not being transparent in their intent is only really damaging to the person who doesn't bother thinking in their own right. Probably the same amount of people who are damaged by Rush Limbaugh's rampant partisanship. I suppose my beef is more with the mind easily swayed by slanted comedy than with the commentators themselves.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to decide if I think it is a new phenomenon. There is always the tendency of the current generation to think we are worse than the previous generation. I'd like to believe that Bernstein and Woodward operated on a higher level.
I don't think Franklin would consider himself a journalist, nor would Madison with his Federalist papers. Their papers were opinion in nature, and were clear in that intent from the onset. I believe the real danger comes from opinion leaking off the opinion page and masquerading as fact on the front page. I don't know if most people read varying enough sources to be able to discern the different tonality of each piece of 'journalism.'
There does exist some danger of opinions being based off the constantly negative perception the media gives of one candidate over another. Call it mob mentality, but there is a primal desire to join on the side with all the momentum, especially if you're going to be lampooned on the boob tube if you don't.