Liberal Media Bias?

It is often lamented that the mainstream media (MSM) has a liberal bias. Recently, examples from the coverage of the presidential campaigns were cited as proof: the generous (in amount and tone) coverage of Obama, and the less abundant and less favorable coverage of McCain and Palin. Some believers have put their suspicions into cartoon form:

While individual anchors and correspondants have their own opinions--whether overt or tacit--they are subjugated to the corporate beliefs. Here's a third cartoon to end with:

CNN thinks Palin spoof is funny

Wolf Blitzer appreciates Tina Fey's spoof of Sarah Palin:



This is not the only time that SNL lifted exact phrases from the politicians for the comedians' dialog. Other Sarah Palin lines from the VP debate were quoted exactly, as well as lines from the presidential candidates themselves.

What does it mean that the comedy shows are so closely aligned with the world of politics (including people getting their news from the Daily Show)? The ratings for the SNL episodes about the election were huge- on tv and on the internet. What does it mean that CNN and other cable news channels were covering--and apparently supporting--this type of comedic politics? Is comedy a legitimate source of political insights, or is it an insufficient or biased form of agenda-setting?

It's one thing for a comedy show to openly skewer the politicians, and another thing when the strait-laced cable news takes a side- even if done tacitly. Or is it all just done in fun?

"The greatest show TV has seen in years"

James Poniewozik writing about new election night technologies:
"Election night captured in miniature the brilliance and ridiculousness of election 2008 in the media. NBC painted an electoral map on New York City's Rockefeller Center skating rink and stood its hosts in front of enough virtual Greek columns to stage a hundred Obama rallies; 3-D graphics sprouted out of studio floors and hung in the air; and CNN unveiled the most amazing and goofy innovation, 3-D projections of studio guests speaking to the network's anchors like Princess Leia asking Obi-Wan for help in Star Wars."

SNL spoofs the giant digital election maps:


Entertained yet? Kind of makes you long for the simple days of Tim Russert and his whiteboard.

"Awash in data, if not necessarily in knowledge"

Much has been written about the 24-hour news cycle, and how it dilutes pertinent stories with less important but flashier stories. James Poniewozik, a writer for Time Magazine, recently wrote about the 24 minute news cycle. In other words, he believes that with cable and online outlets, any little thing can be made into news, to help fill the time and to satiate the the voracious appetites of some news consumers.

The phenomenon he describes is that the coverage we see is actually "fixations and miniscandals whipped up in the unsleeping" media. He believes that potential stories "percolate" in blogs and tabloids until the mainstream press finally pick them up to join in the conversation and in the process "soil" their white gloves.

Poniewozik illustrated his point with the recent election coverage as an example. He believes it was just a succession of these miniscandals, hyped because "the media run so fast while politics moves so slow."

Example 1: "While Hillary Clinton and Obama won their expected states with the precision of a German train schedule, the 24-minute news cycle played each victory as: Comeback! Counter-comeback! Counter-counter-comeback!"

Example 2: "The campaigns, meanwhile, also learned to use new media to keep the news monster appeased. Web ads were quick, cheap and explosive--the more outrageous, the more likely to get embedded on blogs and played for free on the news."

In the end, Poniewozik believes that the mainstream press has more competition for scoops and thus for audiences (from blogs, YouTube, etc), so they learned how to "put on a show," turning the 2008 election into the "biggest pop culture event of the year."

Unfair and Unbalanced

Some news stations are unbiased. Some profess to be unbiased and are not. Some however, cannot even claim to be unbiased. This interview would suggest that WFTV in Florida falls into the third category. See for yourself.

Interview with Prof Annerio

I recently had the opportunity to talk about media literacy with Maggie Annerino, professor of communications at Grand Valley State University. Her insights into the effects of the 24 hour television news on our society as a whole were enlightening and eye-opening.

One of the topics we discussed was the role of the around-the-clock cable news channels. Professor Annerino believes they talk too much. Although they do perform the important function of informing us, they often over-inform, or inform us of things that are not actually important. Thus when there is not enough news, they have to stretch for material to fill the time. An example she provided is that in the days leading up to each of the presidential debates, the commentators quickly exhausted any relevant topic, which inevitably leads into abundant speculation. Theorizing and analyzing superficial or unimportant topics takes over when legitimate subjects get tired. While the news does perform a vital role in our society by informing us, they do not do so perfectly when they present irrelevant issues on the same level as a genuinely important subject.

The news media serve many crucial functions in our society, but they are not without their drawbacks. As Professor Annerino pointed out, when there is nothing important enough to report, it's not necessarily good to just fill the time for the sake of filling it; in other words, sometimes no news is good news.

The Daily Show: a good source of news?

According to a 2004 Pew Foundation study, from 2000 to 2004, the percentage of people under age 30 who received much of their information from comedy news shows rose from 9% to 21%.

Being on a college campus, I often hear people say that they get their news from shows like The Daily Show. The students seem to feel that information from the entertainment world better reflects their views and tastes than the traditional journalism. In response, I also hear a lot of dismissive comments about the show’s legitimacy or reliability.


So what’s wrong with getting information from The Daily Show? Obviously no one source should be the sole provider of a person’s information, but why exactly is the The Daily Show seen as inferior to other news sources? Should it be used by information-seekers?

Food for thought: In 2004, Comedy Central had more hours of coverage of both party’s conventions than ABC, CBS, and NBC combined.

Thought # 2: All media sources have some degree of bias, but the difference is that most tout themselves as neutral; The Daily Show is open about their motivations. The viewer has to engage her mind to separate the facts from the farce. The network news is presented as serious and unbiased, so the viewer merely has to sit back and absorb. If anything, The Daily Show encourages greater engagement in the information gathering process because the viewer has to be actively filtering and evaluating what’s presented.

Final thought: According to Henry Jenkins, author of Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, The Daily Show consistently focuses attention on issues badly covered through the mainstream media, ensuring that they register on the radar…” (p226). So the network news decides what’s news-worthy based on what’s dramatic enough to grab attention; The Daily Show can report on anything—including things that are important but not sensational—and get viewers by satirizing it. Comedy shows are not bound by finding dramatic stories because they can take any important-but-boring story and make it interesting.

A lot of people feel comfortable talking with others about popular culture and the entertainment world, but not as many people feel qualified to talk about politics. The Daily Show frames political issues in a way that encourages greater participation, and that’s something that can only bolster a democratic society.