Media Unbiased? -Boycott
Posted 38 weeks 4 days ago byLast week after the New Hampshire primary, Chris Matthews concluded that poll results showing a 13% advantage for Barrack Obama prior to the actual vote were the result of dishonesty on the part of "white man speak with forked tongue". In other words, white men lie when they say they would vote for a black man. Are media figures like Chris Matthews, and Tim Russert really fair and unbiased? They seem to be quite aggitated when actual results differ from their own personal preferences. Matthews and Russert are trying to effect the outcome of the election, not report it in a fair and unbiased fashion. I suggest a boycott of Meet the Press, Hardball, and other NBC broadcasts that seek to impose their will on the American voter. It was obvious last night, that both Matthews and Russert were praising Mrs. Clinton's performance in the debate to see what the feedback would be today. Few people say what is really in their hearts. I believe this is true with many MSNBC reporters.
Thoughts
Media boycott or healthy skepticism?
Submitted on January 16th, 2008 by BenGreat post. Chris Matthews is essentially a commentator. His politics are well known -- the guy used to work for Tip O'Neill! No pretense of objectivity. Russert isn't quite as blatant, but his employment history with Pat Moynihan is well known.
I'm not a great believer in the sacred doctrine of objectivity. I've worked in newsrooms long enough to know that it's little more than a facade. Traditional journalists bristle at the idea that they're biased. But they know what they know, and much of what they know is informed by conventional wisdom, and a lot of conventional wisdom tilts one way or the other politically. Usually left.
That's fine. I don't have a great problem with that. I just wish we'd stop pretending, be a little more forthright about our biases and let readers/viewers decide for themselves.