Quote:To do a study of how the press treated the election, you have to start with an assumption about how they should have treated the election. That makes it almost impossible to do a study of political bias without biasing the result.


From the article in the link (which is not the actual study, but an article about the study):


"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans. Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors, Their conclusion: "The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."


Maybe there were actually more positive things to say about democrats than there were about republicans. Does the media need to be neutral, or objective? Those are two different things. I want reporters to call things as they see them. I don't want them to "make sure" there are as many great things to say about republicans as there are about democrats, or vice versa. If the media tries to be even-handed, when the facts themselves are not even-handed, that would be bias. If you take what you see, and put it on the scales, and the scales tip one way or another, that is not evidence of bias. It's like saying the referee of a boxing match was biased because he awarded more points to one guy over another guy.


And lastly, there are so many ways for the political parties to reach the public, without the "interference" of "objective observers" (the media) that it is simply not credible to say the media swayed the election.

I think the media has a responsibility to be unbiased and neutral but a duty to deliver truth. Nothing pisses me off more than and a reporter interviewing any politician. Getting a canned response and then moving on and never challenging especially when its a lie or a mistruth purely so they can maintain access. This happens way to often

---