Howell makes a case for an Obama bias at the Washington Post by counting the number of articles written and photos taken of each candidate. Since Obama had more, the Washington Post is deemed to have had a bias. I'm pretty tired of people make the case that if you write something positive or negative about candidate A you have to do the same thing for candidate B. There aren't a lot of articles out there in praise of the Detroit Lions. On the other hand, there is a small forest worth of articles devoted to the New England Patriots. This doesn't mean there is a sports journalist bias against the Detriot Lions. It just means that they suck and are boring, which kinda explains McCain's campaign.
Some of Howell's complaints about the Post's coverage of Obama are...
But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledge drug use as a teenager.
Seriously Debby? The Post's coverage would have been better had it focused on Obama's drug use as a teen, his undergrad years and Rezko? Personally, I think the Post would have better coverage if they didn't have such a stupid Ombudsman who sounds like she just got back from reading Red State.
I really liked this part though.
One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.
So apparently to Howell, more press coverage means there is a bias except when the opposite is true.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment