Unsurprisingly, our thoughts on which way the press is biased tend to correlate with our own perspective. The media is essentially a messenger—and when the message doesn’t line up with our ideology, we need to decide whether the messenger is biased or whether we are or whether we’re not the person the message is intended for. Before we revile the media, we should decide what we can reasonably expect.
First, we need to accept that different publications will have different audiences. Al-Jazeera will select its stories differently than the Jerusalem post.
Secondly, we should remember that the press is made up of humans. If you abuse a reporter enough, that reporter’s dislike for you is likely to shine through, even if that reporter strives for neutrality.
Thirdly, we should remember that not every story is balanced. If the media reports on a corruption investigation, there might not be a redeeming side of the story for the official being investigated.
Fourthly, we should remember that most media organizations are for profit organizations. If one story is pushed over another, it could be because the story will sell papers or draw viewers.
Keeping all this in mind, I think we can ask a few things.
- We should ask that the media separate fact from opinion. Editorials are fine—so long as they are clearly marked.
- We can also ask that the press try to use balanced language. “McCain consults adviser” is a much more neutral headline than “McCain connives with Rovian protogee.”
- We can ask for roughly balanced coverage. This doesn’t mean that all perspectives have to be treated equally—but it does mean that the press should strive for some amount of balance. If an expert criticizes McCain’s economy plan and another equally impressive expert praises it, both or neither should be covered. However, balanced coverage does not require sacrificing the integrity of the story. There may be a case (like McCain’s economic plan) where there simply aren’t independent experts who are impressed by it. It’s not reasonable to blame the press for that.
- We should also ask that the press not report on things that are too speculative. Did Sarah Palin have an affair with her husband’s business partner? Is Obama a secret Muslim? There are rumors of both—but the press should keep its reporting to facts. Reporting rumors is irresponsible, even if they are designated as rumors.
- We should ask that the press not bury stories people would want to hear.
- We can ask that the press strive to tell a story rather than create a story. Questions in interviews or debates should be designed to allow participants to tell or clarify their own positions rather than to embarass candidates. “Is Reverend Wright as patriotic as you are?” is not a question designed for an open-ended answer. Couric’s questions when she interviewed Palin were quite reasonable.
- Finally, the press should not blindly repeat press releases if these releases do not meet these standards.
So McCain is gradually losing the (non-Fox) media. This does not (necessarily) mean the media is impermissibly biased. Part of it may be that McCain’s campaign is losing the country. Part of it is that the campaign is trying to scapegoat the press. I think most of it is that the McCain campaign has been trying to focus on muck and distractions and hasn’t offered the press anything real to go on. I think the press would happily tell both sides of the story—but in return, the McCain campaign needs to offer a side of the story a self-respecting press can tell.
