Discussion Item of the Week
Politicos –
Deb Howell is the ombudsman for The Washington Post. She wrote this column on the election. So far, the column has received more than 1,300 comments. Read the column and skim the comments and weigh in with your thoughts here.
Steve
Advertisement
I had heard this same type of complaint from some of my friends during the election, especially towards the end (that’s when a LOT of horse race stuff comes out.) I think this was sort of a lame article. I had a hard time reading through it because it was mostly statistics. It was a nice reference, but I felt like I already had these inclinations about the media coverage of the election, and, as one reader said, this analysis came a little late. Its an interesting thing to think about, but I don’t think this is a new concern.
Hollis
November 13, 2008
“ekim53 wrote:
Journalism is…………DEAD!
11/11/2008 12:47:31 PM
Recommend (6)”
Ouch.
Sean Sullivan
November 13, 2008
I definitely agree that this article doesn’t hold the reader’s attention well, since it just continues listing stats and reiterating points. Also, there’s nothing wrong with having more stories about one candidate than the other if one has much more going on. People seemed more interested in hearing about Obama anyway. The nation was asking for change and the media conveyed that message.
Julianne Vaccaro
November 13, 2008
After reading the article and skimming through the comments, I got the feeling that many people are angry with the Washington Post. It seems evident that people want the facts and the mainstream media today isn’t giving it to them. Instead they report on the horse-race which everyone seems really fed up with. As for the article, I guess it’s good for the Post to see how un-balanced their stories are on each candidate and possibly fix that problem, since Obama did have the most coverage. But I think by writing an article on it defeats the purpose of trying to make the people believe in journalists again. Basically what was said with figures is that the Post is biased. Not such a good move. But the comments do make good points, newspapers have to get back to the, “just give em’ facts.”
Alexandra DiPace
November 14, 2008
The article basically sums up what many people were already aware of. It was clear that Obama was getting more media attention because of his “rawness” in politics. McCain has been around for quite a while and his stories have been re-told. Obama is the new candidate that people wanted to learn about, therefore he had the more stories.
In terms of having more positive stories written about him, that is the Post’s fault. They can report more on Obama but remain unbiased at the same time.
As many of the comments pointed out, the Post did a poor job of remaining unbiased. The op-ed’s had supported Obama, and the stories seemed to reflect it.
However, most were aware that the mainstream media was supporting one candidate over the other so it should come as no surprise.
Kevin Clerkin
November 14, 2008
In reading the article, it is refreshing that at least some newspapers and journalists are admitting that they were biased, because as we have seen, it was not just the Post who was so heavily weighed in Obama’s favor. I think it’s great that Deb Howell and her colleague began this a year ago, consciously interested in how the coverage would map out.
I thought it weird that for most of the article, especially towards the end she seemed to be giving everyone at the Post a good pat on the back for certain articles they had done throughout the election.
As for the comments, it is startling to me how bitter people are about the election and at the media in general. I did not read all the comments, but I can bet someone said something along the lines of “you liberal media I am sick of you and going to Fox News whom I can trust!” (because they’re not biased at all.)
Jackie Binkoski
November 15, 2008
I had a teacher that in regards to the administration of the high school, and lots of other things… “sometimes it’s easier to do what you want and apologize then to ask permission.”
At the time my teenage self agreed… but I feel like that is what Howell is doing and its totally inappropriate. Great, you’re apologizing, but it doesn’t change that fact that that’s what happened.
Most of the comments are pretty harsh, and there seem to be a lot of angry republicans, but it would be just the opposite if the media had been in the tank for McCain..
The quote from Bill Hamilton is perhaps the most ridiculous, “There are a lot of things I wish we’d been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don’t at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose…”
are you kidding me!? a larger purpose than giving the public an overview of the issues… I can’t argue that the historical context of the election was news, but more important then a solid analysis of issues?? I don’t think so.
Shelby Landeck
November 15, 2008
I thought the study done by Ms. Howell and the post was very interesting. I don’t doubt that there was more coverage of Obama than McCain but I think that there were more stories for the right reasons. One Obama was the first African-American to get a major party nod for President so I think that stories would naturally pop up because it’s history. Second, I think the papers went with the country in terms of who we wanted to know more about. Obama promised a change from the past 8 years, which I htink people were desperate to separate themselves from.
Aaron Fears
November 17, 2008
I found in reading most of the comments following Howell’s article that most readers interpreted her piece a lot differently than I had. She was making an observation about the bias the Post has had for Obama and she backs it up entirely with a year’s worth of statistics. She’s not confessing anything, she’s not appologizing for the Post. It is just an observation, and it’s an important thing to pay attention to.
I agree that there are going to be some reasons for one candidate to get more coverage than another, like Obama and Clinton racing for the Democratic seat for far longer than McCain had, and Obama being a new politician on the scene with less information about him on the surface. I don’t think, however, that this is entirely the reason there is such a difference in coverage. I agree that there was very obviously a favorite candidate played up in this years election and that those opinions should always be kept separate from reporting the news, not just with the Post but with all media outlets.
Loraine Burger
November 17, 2008
Articles like this one always kind of annoy me – just comparing numbers and percentages, it definitely did not hold my attention well, as many before me have commented. I feel like it’s not a very compelling argument either? Sure, the numbers are there but there doesn’t seem to be a HUGE discrepancy- yes, Obama was always covered more and in a more positive light but can anyone deny that he WAS the celebrity of this presidential election? The same way that Sarah Palin was when she was announced as McCain’s running mate.
People want to hear about celebrities, and now more than ever the category of celebrities has expanded to include politicians- we want to hear about their personal lives, their sex scandals, their secrets and what they eat for breakfast. Obama was the first African American to run for United States president, that was a story in itself and many journalists were eager to cover it.
Where were all the stories and coverage on Joe Biden? I seem to have read a lot more about Palin than I ever did on Biden. It’s all about the story that sells. Sure, there should be more balance, definitely. I just think there wasn’t a need for this article to clarify that.
Solmaaz Yazdiha
November 18, 2008
The reasoning for the tilt in media coverage toward Obama can best be summed up by a quote drawn from Howell’s article: “Journalists love the new.” As she mentions, McCain has been on the political map for 25 years and his story as a war vet has been told. Obama is relatively new on the political scene and people are interested in learning more about him. We also must remember that while the Post would ideally like to remain fair in their amount of coverage to each candidate, their main focus is still on selling newspapers. They were aware that people were more interested in learning about Obama and acted accordingly by focusing more stories on him.
The comments on the article are expected. Most of the people leaving the comments clearly have some affiliation to the Republican Party and they are bound to latch onto some excuse as to why they failed in this election, just as Democrats tried to rationalize their losses in 2000 and 2004 with voter fraud and similar reasoning. It is only human nature for the loser to attempt to place the blame on someone else and in this case, unfortunate as it may be for us, it happens to be the journalists that covered the race.
Michael Walsh
November 18, 2008
I wouldn’t charge the Post with deliberately leaning toward the left or as overtly attempting to influence the election as some of the more rabid commenters have made it seem. The difference between the coverage of the two candidates is a low percentage. They also don’t compare the coverage to the New York Times or another dailies of that ilk. I would attribute the difference going to more Obama coverage as one having to do with his nautral showmanship and unique character compared with McCain’s more established media persona and two that it is almost impossible to go exactly fifty fifty in coverage.
wes
November 18, 2008
I agree that there should have been more articles that were issue related regarding the candidates positions on key issues, especially when there were conflicting plans of action between the two. It was unnecessary for Deb Howell to have whole paragraphs full of numbers, but on the whole she makes several good points regarding how the candidates were covered, or in Joe Biden’s case, not covered. I again agree that there should have been more stories on Biden. He was by far the most overlooked candidate by a long shot.
Jamaal Bollinger
November 18, 2008
I feel like Deborah Howell did a great job of pointing out the fairly obvious in this campaign. The way she presented the article made it a tough read, way to many numbers all over the page.
Of course theres going to be more stories on horse races than issues, that’s just the nature of the beast when it comes down to a Presidential Election. And pertaining to Obama and the coverage he got throughout the campaign, the man was making a historic run to the white house, unlike any the countries ever seen, is it really a surprise he was getting more coverage?
Robert McLeod
November 20, 2008
I thought this was a great article. The Washington Post has a lot of courage to engage in this public self-critique.
Howell also wrote an intersting follow-up to this article where she discussed ways to remedy media bias. She beleives that there needs to be more conservatives in the newsrooms:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403057.html
Alana
November 25, 2008
I also disagree with those who say Obama’s popularity with the media was due solely to his “newness” in politics. Sarah Palin was an unknown name before McCain tapped her as his VP, and while she and Obama received a similar amount of press coverage, the stories about her were not nearly as flattering.
Alana
November 25, 2008