The topic of the over-night thread on the Dean blog was bias in news reporting. While many contributors seem to have a hard time staying on topic (OT), I didn't have much trouble with this one.
Look, journalists or media people can be just as power hungry as anyone else. Maybe more so, since they get into the business in order to influence other people, to direct their actions, and "help" them make choices.
What many of you may not be aware of is that the process of formulating an editorial endorsement is in no way objective. Candidates for political office have to be "interviewed." That means they have to ask for an appointment with always busy editors who only have time for the most important, influential or "viable" in any race.
The failure to seek such an appointment is itself seen as a negative, even if the lowly candidate rightly anticipates that he/she will be refused.
Candidates who do not prostrate themselves and beg for support--not to mention those who don't have enough money to take out ads--don't get interviewed, don't get endorsed, and stand a good chance of getting dissed.
Since it's early in the morning and there are probably not too many bloggers trying to post, let me just add that what's happening now is actually not new. When I was trying to research some community leaders in the South after the Civil War--people whose names I had found in municipal records--I discovered that the newspapers of the time (those that are still extant) didn't report on the doings of those leaders if they were black (which a good number were).
The only thing the newspapers reported about black people back then was when one happened to be a perpetrator of crime.
The consequence of this "selectivity" is that the historical record as recorded in the history books used in our schools does not accurately reflect what actually happened. That's because the "resources" historians rely on to write their tomes are news reports. If there's nothing in the paper, it didn't happen.
Posted by Monica Smith at January 17, 2004 05:09 AM
Response to Peter Canellos in the Globe:
Mr. Canellos:
The credibility of your report from the fields of Iowa is undercut by your concluding paragraphs. While you find that the supporters of Howard Dean perceive "thievery" in the behavior of his oponents taking over his issues, you characterize his reaction as "child"ish and his verbal objections as "clamoring for attention" and "shooting rhetorical spitballs," drawing a decidedly unpleasant picture of a measured response. After that you define a verbal response as an "attack," again playing into the "official line" that the Governor is angry and aggressive.
Taking something that doesn't belong to you is aggressive. Objecting to the thievery is, if anything, a moderate response. Perhaps you should pay more attention to who's actually doing what.
Posted by Monica Smith at January 17, 2004 06:12 AM
Mr. Canellos' response:
"I've seen the governor and he's been quite aggressive. I don't know if you're
out there, but he's been very fiery at his events. But i thought by pointing out
their "thievery" it would make clear why he's been so aggressive.