Media Bias?

We recently discussed media bias in class. In particular we discussed the Grosclose & Milyo article and what they observed about media bias. In their article they looked at scores given to Congress members by the ADA. The scores were also based on which sources (or rather think tanks) the congressional representatives used. They basically concluded that bias equals preference, and that there is a (mostly) liberal preference in the media.

There is an article by William Eveland and Dhavan Shah which also analyzes the existence of media bias. Within their article they include statistics, experiments, and meta-analyses on the subject. They come to slightly different conclusions that Grosclose & Milyo. Eveland and Shah essentially conclude that bias does exist, though to a minimal extent, and that it is the result of many factors, from social communications networks to ideological inclinations. However, they believe that there is actually a conservative bias in the media.

What I think we can all draw from this is that in a way, both articles are right. While a significant amount of media bias may be an exaggeration of the situation, there is indisputably a slight amount. This minimal bias is quite possible the result of preference (also known as ideological inclination) on the part of the individual as well as members of his/her social communications network.

Solutions such as the nationalization of the media or the establishment of a government run media outlet is extreme and not viable. Until the day that everyone realizes that they should try to be more partial and objective, I think that at least a minimal level of bias should be expected by viewers/consumers who should compensate for it.

PR Strategy

This week we discussed in class the Obama healthcare plan, compared it to the Clinton plan, and attempted to determine why the Obama plan worked and the Clinton plan did not. Many plausible reasons were suggested as to why Obama was able to get his plan passed and Clinton wasn't. Suggestions included differences between the two plans: Clinton's was intended for all Americans versus Obama's being intended for uninsured Americans, and Clinton's having significantly more effects on the insurance companies as a whole than Obama's, among other differences. Another aspect to the comparison that was one of the primary topics during the lecture was the Republican Party's strategy during both health care plan events.

The strategy used by Republicans during the Clinton health care plan situation was suggested by Republican strategist Frank Luntz. Luntz's advice called for Republicans to denounce the Clinton health care plan for the overbroad expansion of bureaucracy it would necessitate and its' growth of "big government". The chart showing in graphic terms this governmental expansion through committees and other means was used effectively by Republicans to prevent the Clinton plan from even coming up for a vote. Unfortunately for Republicans, similar tactics were of no use in preventing the passing of the Obama health care plan. We came up with many reasons in class, but I have considered a few other explanations.

The Republicans once again tried to deride the proposed health care plan for being a step toward big government. However, this time they went a step further and labeled the plan "socialist" and claimed that it would create "death panels". I suggest that one of the reasons that this strategy didn't work a second time is that it came across as being somewhat ridiculous, particularly the use of the term "death panels", which was an obvious exaggeration. It is my opinion that the use of such inflammatory vocabulary was unnecessary, and alienated many who therefore saw the attack on the plan as blatantly partisan and elitist in nature. Sarah Palin's involvement in the debate certainly didn't help, and might have reinforced the perception that the Republican attack was ridiculous and incorrect. I further suggest that the Republican strategy didn't work the second time because the American people and legislators were fed up with the previous policy and were willing to try something new, perhaps a sign of a short attention span amongst Americans when it comes to politics.

The Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal & Other Political Gossip

By now I realize the truth to the principle that "It's all about the cover-up". Many polticians involved in scandals wouldn't be news-worthy if they hadn't tried to cover up their actions, since many of those actions involve minimal (if any) possibility of criminal charges. Had Clinton not tried to cover up his affair, if he hadn't stated publicly that "I did not have sex with that woman", and if he hadn't tried to discourage Lewinsky and others from revealing the truth then it's very likely that the media coverage of that story wouldn't have lasted nearly as long as it did, and Clinton wouldn't have been in as much trouble toward the end of his final term. It seems to me as though politicians should realize that if they simply acknowledge what they did, apologize, and get on with their careers, then they have a chance of avoiding bad press and significant consequences. This conclusion is based on the growing trend over the last couple of decades among the media to report (perhaps over-report) scandals and similar political gossip much in the same manner that they report on celebrities. Take for example the recent Charlie Sheen situation. It began about a week or two ago, and it's only now starting to regress from front-page news status. The John Edwards scandal was in the headlines for at least that length of time. What has the media become, where scandals and similar stories receive more attention than news that's actually important such as, I don't know, maybe the collapse of Middle-Eastern governments? Rising food and fuel prices? Actual governmental business and legislation?

Embedded Journalism & War

I think that I speak for many of us when I say that the clip we watched last class with a British journalist was at certain points both amusing and surprising. The practice of embedding journalists among troops appears to have mixed results. On the one hand, it does provide an on-the-ground perspective on a war which makes the events being reported more dramatic, attention-grabbing, and likely to inspire empathy along with other emotions among viewers, all of which increases the likelihood of maintaining viewer interest (and network profits). The downside is that wars usually consist of more than just the few events and viewpoints that embedded journalism can provide, an example being the exaggerated effectiveness of the anti-scud missile STARS system which we learned in class can be attributed to not only the trend among CNN during the course of the war but to the limited perspective and information available to the journalists on site. In addition, the idiosyncratic reporting methods of journalists results in the surprising and occasionally amusing random transition between topics (as seen in the in-class video) which can be confusing. I suppose what I'm getting at is: How can viewers get a better picture of the full scope of a war than this somewhat inconclusive and unreliable (not to mention dangerous for reporters) method, and how should viewers perceive what they learn from embedded journalism?

The Legality of Leaks

The Pentagon Papers: a series of Department of Defense papers discussing the Vietnam War in negative terms. As we discussed this week they were leaked by Daniel Ellsberg to the media, eventually leading to a Supreme Court case and contributing to Nixon's downfall. The Watergate scandal: tapes and investigative findings leaked to Woodward and Bernstein by an FBI agent, an incident that led to Nixon's resignation. We also heard about the Supreme Court case involving Watergate which essentially reduced, if not ended, the ability of the White House to prevent the publication of controversial or secret material. These two examples of a leak are in a way positive examples of the practice. However, there are no doubt certain times when a leak could damage the reputation of an administration at a critical moment, leading to chaos and/or depriving the country of leadership. Another worst case scenario could be the release of classified information that informs our enemies what we are doing and how. Essentially, leaks are not always a good thing, and in my opinion they should be illegal under certain circumstances. After all, if someone steals something like a car for example, and then gives it to a dealer who is aware that it was stolen, both the dealer and the one who stole the car would be liable for criminal charges. I realize that information is not a physical object and is therefore different, but it seems to me that it isn't so different that people who leak government secrets shouldn't be liable in some way.

The Nature of Political Scandals

This week in class we discussed scandals. Some famous (and more often than not infamous) political scandals were mentioned, from Watergate to the more recent scandal involving a Congressman sending inappropriate pictures to a woman on Craigslist. We learned that in most cases it is the cover up that really matters, that the cover up can bring down any politician, even a president. It was also implied that politicians who admit their wrongdoings can avoid or at least mitigate the public backlash, negative press, and other attacks that generally occur in the aftermath of such situations. While this is all understandable, at the same time I can't help but wonder why we are so ready to forgive politicians who admit what they did and even re-elect them. I realize that the private lives of politicians are of no importance to citizens of other countries, the fact is that the American people do seem to care a great deal about such things. Given this higher than average concern, why is it that when a politician admits to doing something, no matter how immoral, he/she is able to maintain his/her reputation? If I recall correctly, admitting to doing something wrong is only the first step in the Jewish process of repentance. How are we to know if the politician has completed the other necessary steps? Perhaps we should be more like other countries and disregard what politicians do in their private lives, especially since I suspect that this relatively recent interest is a sign of the growing trend in journalism to pay more attention to sensationalist and celebrity news. If we instead choose to maintain our concern for the morals of our politicians then I suggest that we don't do it in a half-hearted manner, and remember their actions come election time.

Watchdog Journalism: A Necessary Evil? Or Just.... Evil?

As we discussed in class (and on the recent quiz) watchdog journalism refers to the independent scrutiny of government and business by the media. This type of journalism is based on the tenet that "the people have a right to know". I don't know about most people, but sometimes I don't think that "the people have a right to know". For example, the recent Wikileaks controversy. Something about a supposedly loyal government employee or soldier handing over secrets and classified information to the media and posting it online seems wrong to me. What if the release of such information causes the death of Americans or our allies? What if such information hampers the efforts of our government in apprehending terrorists or criminals? Whenever I watch a news story or read an article about classified information I worry that such information could be used by our enemies in the ways I just mentioned. In class we learned that the release by the media of information about an international government system of tracking and monitoring banks caused the complete shutdown of that program. That program was used to track the flow of money through terrorist networks, thereby aiding their capture or elimination. While this program had the potential to be used in immoral and illegal ways, it was an invaluable tool in the war on terror. In my opinion, sometimes the American media does a better job protecting our enemies than our enemies could otherwise do on their own.
I am in no way claiming that the people don't have at least some right to know what their government is up to, after all, some measure of transparency is needed if we are to remain a democratic nation. However, in some cases this may become a weakness our enemies could exploit. There has to be a better way of letting the people know, a way that reveals what we actually  need to know as opposed to everything. Information on the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, illegal governmental monitoring of citizen communications, and whether our government is acting in a moral manner in general is information that I feel we need to know, but more sensitive data such as how we track and kill terrorists should be and usually is kept classified and on a need to know basis. Until the day that war and hostility between nations and individuals no longer exists there will always be a need for secrecy and keeping certain information classified. Until that day, watchdog journalism should be more limited than it has been in recent years as the apparent decline of the practice has not been enough to prevent what some would call disloyal and unpatriotic releases of classified information.