Krugman: TV Media bias and trivialization (plus inside information)

[fiorello]

Even by Krugman standards, this is a "must read". It is a great, concise summary of TV media bias.... with lots of examples. Including:

Repeated labeling of Kerry (but not Bush) as a "millionaire".

Refusing to report specifics of Kerry's proposals... while at the same time criticizing Kerry for not providing specifics.

The details about the reporter who Teresa told to "shove it" (a vicious right-wing goon).

And the PS"s at the end!
Bush officials telling Pakistan to stage an al-Qaeda capture during the Democratic convention.

Jeb Bush telling Florida Republicans to vote by absentee because voting machines are unreliable.

Quotes:

There are two issues here, trivialization and bias, but they're related.

Somewhere along the line, TV news stopped reporting on candidates' policies, and turned instead to trivia that supposedly reveal their personalities. We hear about Mr. Kerry's haircuts, not his health care proposals. We hear about George Bush's brush-cutting, not his environmental policies.

Even on its own terms, such reporting often gets it wrong, because journalists aren't especially good at judging character.... And since campaign coverage as celebrity profiling has no rules, it offers ample scope for biased reporting.

The failure of TV news to inform the public about the policy proposals of this year's presidential candidates is, in its own way, as serious a journalistic betrayal as the failure to raise questions about the rush to invade Iraq.


Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/30/opinion/30krugman.html?hp

[mhollis]

1. Aargh!

sanfo's posting is informative and the article is a very good one. Krugman is correct.

I was standing in one of the news production areas some months ago and I burst out in a fit of -- well I'd have to call it whining. I asked why we weren't asking Bush any hard questions, why we weren't covering the real facts (this is before the Primaries). One old salt told me that we were, they just weren't being answered. A non-answer doesn't make air.

Additionally, Bush kicks out (or removes the White House credentials of) those who embarrass him. Our priority has changed from covering the President to "being in the room." Frankly, the press should have walked out as soon as the first reporter lost his credentials. That should have been a story. It wasn't because the press sees it as too "inside baseball."

I believe the public has a right to know when the President takes a step like that.

We're falling down on the job here -- all to just remain in the room.

[Soaring_Eagle]

2. Media Bias

It's no secret that policy rarely enters into the equation when TV media talk about candidates.

I've noticed that these people get caught up in the game of politics and fail to offer viewers what they really need: facts on the issues.

Of course, if you go to the Bush Web site or to the Kerry Web site, there are plans for various policy areas. In reality, I haven't delved deep into these because they are, as Kerry pointed out, quite complex. Just as I don't have time to learn every detail of Kerry's plan for health care, the TV news media don't have the time to pore over the details of these policies.

That is where newspapers have a distinct advantage. They have the space and time to look into various policies. Whether they do so or not is what separates the best newspapers from the worst.

[ixion]

3. I don't think the particular media (newsprint vs broadcast)

is applicable in this instance, although I do agree with your point about newspapers being able to go more in depth.

The truth is that the major 'news' outlets no longer broadcast news, but info-tainment, geared not towards the cognitive, but the emotive.

[Soaring_Eagle]

5. Quite true

that it has become entertainment that fuels coverage.

Being a print reporter, I would fiercely argue that newspaper coverage tends to be better.

But that's a can of worms that we don't need to open in this discussion.

[ixion]

6. having been a reporter in the past...

I would whole-heartedly agree with you. I guess my point was that just because a newspaper can go more in depth, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will. 40 lines of fluffy pseudo journalism is bad whether it's read or printed. :-)

Think USA Today, one of the worst excuses for a newspaper in history. All those words there, and they don't say anything.


Welcome to DU, by the way... you're among friends. :hi:

[sandnsea]

9. Oh now wait a minute

My 18 year old son can tell you John Kerry's policies and I guarantee you he's never been to johnkerry.com or read anything at all on Kerry. He knows his policies because of watching his speeches. So if he knows, it would certainly seem to me the media who are traveling with Kerry know, whether they read anything or not. Could they touch on one policy, just once a week?? Is that too much to ask?

[MISSDem]

4. The last paragraph in the article is the most

worrysome.

[tom_paine]

7. Krugman is awesome!

[Miss Authoritiva]

8. We're not voters anymore,we're consumers of political process.

Whether we want to be or not -- it's the only option major media are giving us. So it's not surprising that niche publications and blogs are cropping up to fill the void, becoming "consumer unions" in a sense.

Sometimes the basic information that I have to google around to find on pending legislation or on candidate policies is astonishing... astonishing because in their haste, sloppiness, or bias, the media failed to cover it.

But the cookie recipes of the candidates' wives get covered, as if we're back in the days of Ike and Mamie. What a multi-level insult to the American people.