Have You Noticed How Bad News Is Spun As "How Will This Affect Bush"

[Yavin4]

and not "how will this affect the people"? For instance, as casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan mount, the media doesn't cover it from the perspective of the families that have lost a loved one. No, the media says things like, "Four more Americans were beheaded in Iraq today. How does this affect the president's re-election chances?"

On the economy, there's been virtually no jobs growth in this country for the past four years, but instead of really analyzing the labor problems like looking into the effects of outsourcing and globalization, analyzing how long-term unemployment affects the economy, etc. No, it's always boiled down into whether or not this fact or that fact helps or hurts Bush.

It's like Bush is the center of the media universe, and all events and facts have to be looked at through the prism of his re-election campaign. Instead, the media should look at the actual policies of the Bush administration and how it's affecting the people.

[Demit]

1. You are right (and not in the bad sense). It's shameful.

They are so caught up in the horserace aspect that they have lost all sense of proportion. There might be an old-time editor or two who tries to make this point in meetings, but they are probably shouted down by the "this sells newspapers" or "this gets viewership" crowd as hopelessly behind the times.

Hey--your post would make a good "shame on you" letter to the editor...

[pacalo]

2. Excellent call. The media has become ethically-challenged.

What I wouldn't give for some of the higher-profile talking heads to make that point on-camera.