There is a good deal of media bias in this presidential race, and it is having an effect on who will be elected. This ought not to be so.

In televison and radio, each member of the media is taking firmly to one side in this election, and regardless of the facts, or even the origin of information, viciously and purposefully are influencing the race.

It would be nice to think that the media people are actually interested in a real contest of ideas, but it is obvious from the way the candidates are being treated that equality is not part of the equation. The recent entry of Sarah Palin to the race has triggered something I hate to see...bias in all directions. It not's just black versus white versus yellow, or red, or brown, but also male against female, and the young against the old.

Consequently, people are climbing onto bandwagons for emotional reasons, not because of their political beliefs, or even a reasoned assessment of the candidates, and it doesn't even appear to be an attempt to garner better ratings for the shows involved, but a real disconnect between the media and journalistic ethics.

What could have been a great moment in journalism and politics, the running of both a black and a woman for the supreme office of the nation degenerated during the primary to race-baiting (from both sides), and the worst characteristics of male chauvism and feminism, and has gone so far as to raise the real question of bias against the aged, as if age quantifies ability!

Now that Sarah Palin has been entered as a VP candidate, it has become painfully obvious that neither civil rights, nor gender neutrality is part of the media's journalistic ethic any longer. The hope for an end to discrimination against race or gender has been transformed into a display of the worst of human nature...tearing down the other side in order to win at any cost.

Lack of coverage was used against Hillary Clinton by Obama supporters, and personal attacks in the media are being used against Sarah Palin, while all those reporting have trodden on the race card. It is bad enough when the candidates throw out slurs against each other...do the media have to join in?

And the effect is that all the progress in women's rights has been tossed away by Obama supporters in the attempt to discredit McCain by attacking Palin, while the right-wing demagogues use what is happening to prevent Obama from being elected the first black President of the Unitied States.

What is even sadder is the attacks of Palin by feminist reporters, to their own detriment, both in regards to their gender, and to their journalistic standing because Palin is not a liberal.

Disagreeing with Palin's views should not prompt an attack on her ability to take the job of VP, or even to be President because she is a woman, and a mother, any more than being black should be a consideration in Obama's qualification for the same position, nor McCain's age on his qualifications (hardly unusual in world leaders of other countries), while Biden scarce gets a mention for all that is going on in the media circus, yet Obama would also be at risk as president.

The media are using race, gender and age to attempt to derail the candidacies for the presidental slot, and although some discussion of issues is being pretended, the media seems to be more interested in vilification of which ever side of the race they dislike, stirring voters to the polls only to vote on their gut instincts, while reason goes by the board.

The question now becomes whether we should put into place affirmative action for gender and age as well as race, so that we can get past the flashpoint of these qualities being questioned at all for any position, or devise regulation of the media forbidding the use of personal attacks, including race, sex, and age as civil rights issues.

The right of free speech should not interfere with the promotion of civil rights, and the media should not be taking sides at all.

---

removed 'all caps' in title


[edit on 13/9/08 by masqua]

I think that avoiding bias is impossible. It is human nature.

Given that, I wish we could get all interviewees to begin by asking their interrogator: "which candidate do you support?" or "which side of the issue are you on?"

It would put a lot of reporting into perspective if you knew the journalist's perspective beforehand.

That said, it is obvious that establishment journalism is controlled by academia, where regularly scheduled liberal professions of faith are required to advance your career.

NPR is the most laughable of the lot. Their response to the announcement of McCain's pick of Palin for VP was to . . . ask the Obama campaign for his response!

I had also collected a series of articles "about" Palin from the SF Chronicle, every one of which carried a positive headline regarding palin, but switched to talking about Obama within two paragraphs. They were LA times, SF Chronicle, and NY Times (all in blue states . . . )

Journalism; the only business where the customer is always wrong.

.

They are all in bed with Obama.

Case in point, last nights Hurricane Ike coverage by CNN.
Right aroun 10:30pm est while FoxNews had complete coverage of the hurricane, CNN had political commentary with a few breaks ins for Ike news. They knew people were tuned in higher than normal because Ike so they used it to push their political idealogy down their viewers throats, all skewed in Obama's favor. Very distasteful journalism.

There is bias to both sides of the political spectrum. Oofcourse some here will accuse the media of being bias to the otherside, only suit the arguement, which is pritty pathetic.

I remember at a time during 2003-2004 when the lies were high in Washington, many rightwingers here kept quiet about the propaganda because it suited them. When the media was a buzz about Obama and sided to liberals towards the end of last year, beginning of this year, liberals kept quiet, now its roughly level, for now. The truth is that the only time people will speak out against the media is when it doesnt suit their political ideology.

Also Im getting of people automatically labelling the media as bias the minute their candidates gets criticism, I mean honestly now, people should move on from that now.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by southern_Guardian]

I don't feel influenced by the mass media at all...disgusted is more like it.
Since when were people not responsible for their own thoughts and actions?
Since when have people allowed the television dictate their behavior?
If the media wins and people simply follow, they deserve the leadership they get.
The problem is, it's all just a big circus to keep the masses occupied and out of their business.
It doesn't matter who gets elected because most politicians are owned by their largest donors and generally owe so many people favors for getting them to where they are in their career that their once sought after ideology becomes so diluted it is of little use anymore.
If a genuine free radical starts looking like they might shake things up on capitol hill, all the criminals band together to protect their enterprise.

And yet, here we are squabbling with eachother over differing opinions on which way the media leans.
THE MEDIA IS EVIL!

You are a pawn. You are simply another donor to the International Monetary Fund.

I swear, this is like reading about a buncha vegans and meat-eaters bicker about Paris Hilton's menu choices. Do you think she even cares about the losers and their use of her decisions as cannon fodder? Puh-leaze.

Meanwhile, some people have learned that moderation is the key. Step away from the TV. If you're so hard up for hurricane coverage, why not drive down to the gulf?

...sorry for the rant...

Idioligy and not experience is really the issue in these elections and thats what the media doesn't report. The President doesn't make the decision on his/her own.

Obama has less experience than Palin but he is running for the number one spot. Is he going to make decisions on his own? No, his advisors are going to give him the best information they can and he will make a decision based on that.

As far as Palin is concerned she will get them same if McCain dies in office. The president doesn't make decisions alone and Palin will have plenty of help if McCain dies.

In the end its idioligy that is going to makeup my mind and Obama has the world wanting him to be President. Every terrorist, dictator and anti American government wants him to be President and that is not what the media is reporting.

The media does have a bias and its bad for this country. I hope, no I pray that Obama doesn't get elected. If he does I think America is finished as far as the Republic goes.

I am a firm believer that a lot of people have made up their mind one way or the other in regards to the election at this point and most if not all voters knew from the beginning which color, red or blue, they were voting for.

What you see in the media is a media frenzy to be the ones with the most controversial stories, hence the most viewers. I doubt it's a political agenda as much as a financial opportunity.

People can only swallow so much and frankly if people are like me they literally switch channels when the commercials and outrageous stories are being shown. You control the remote, they don't control you.

Yes, there are interviewers and representatives from both sides of the table in every show. Your responsibility is to filter things and be informed.

Obama and Palin may be getting a lot of positive/negative coverage, but I have to admit if I was a media mogul and wanted ratings I would appeal to the masses, and frankly they are what a lot of people want to see and hear about. Once again, about the money, no political agenda.

Whomever you vote for is still your personal decision. Don't be afraid to change the channel and laugh it off like so many do

The media is just another entity with a horse in this race. Some support one side, some support the other. They are NOT to be trusted to make this all-important decision for us.

I agree the vast majority of media is biased one way or the other. And if we looked at a timeline, we'd see that who they are biased towards depends on what's popular.

They're going to report on what gets them viewers, listeners and readers. That's all they care about today. The media is not what it once was or what it claims to be. So don't depend on them. Take it all in, go in search of unbiased media and make an informed choice.

Not that I'm disagreeing with what you are saying but....

I believe the way it works here at ATS was that you can create an original post pointing people to a "story", or piece of seldom-known info. Then people can "comment" on that content.

Where are the links or excerpts to substantiate your theory?

Otherwise, this is just your opinion, and quite frankly, no-one has asked for it.

It IS a well thought out and written piece, but still, only an opinion. If I want to read editorial pieces, there are plenty of other places I can go.

[edit on 9/14/2008 by Kaiser Sohse]