Jane Hall — Jason Andrews

Media bias is a term used to describe a real or perceived bias of journalists and news producers within the mass media, in the selection of which events will be reported and how they are covered. The term has become synonymous with a perceived pervasive or widespread bias contravening the standards of journalism, —extremely common in political reporting—rather than the perspective of an individual journalist or article. Jane Hall as a specialist in media ethics and media and politics, addresses these concern in her various articles. The relevance and intrigue created by these would not have been so strong had the presidential election not just concluded. Hall’s writing in these articles, examines neither solely the politician nor the reporter, instead the basis on which news is produced and trends that may impede or promote a bias within various editorials.

In Halls article Gore Media Coverage: Playing Hardball she examines the bias developed in the 2000 presidential campaign between Al Gore and George W. Bush.
Hall begins, “Gore's motives are frequently questioned, frequently framed in the most negative light,” a statement that would normally prelude a long diatribe about the injustice of media bias and the harmful effects the reporting holds for Gore’s campaign. However Hall continues the article analyzing the effects of demeanor and interaction candidates may have on the reporting that is done on their campaign. Bush’s likable buddy buddy approach to the media has granted him a faithful audience within the media. Allowing for poise and humor to distract from rhetoric and experience, while Gore’s “stiff style and lack of access,” fail to create a connect with the press. It is interesting how Hall’s examination of this trend lends itself to the most recent presidential race.

In both transcripts from the Fox news channels Jane Hall continues her assessment of political reporting. For Sen. Hillary Clinton, Hall argues that the media’s subtle sexism—“the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around… She didn't win there on her merit.”—only helped Clinton gain momentum in such a highly scrutinized and covered primary While the rock star image and media love affair of Sen. Barack Obama, gave the candidate a multitude of avenues within media and news coverage for face time and campaigning. President elect 2.0, Barack Obama used the media frenzy to his advantage. So much so that many feel that the media never forced a true examination of the Senator from Illinois, “We don't know this guy,” Cal Thomas pointed out. And because of this Hall presented the inevitable… the media will turn on Barack, just as they always do. A fact that I personally, had yet to consider. I was more wrapped up in the You Tube fireside chats, and the obvious historical implications of a black president to anticipate the upcoming years. Barack will be ridiculed and challenged if only for the so-called Liberal media to claim non-bias reporting.

Overall I feel as though bias will exist—though some news organizations are attempting litmus style testing for potential employees—and blame should fall solely on the consumer to not believe everything they hear.

Questions:

In your 2000 article about media bias in the presidential campaign you attribute Bush’s connection with reporters to a McCain approach to the media. Why then with the success Bush achieved in his initial campaign do you think McCain himself faltered to gain the media following Barack Obama achieved?

As a professor of media ethics what is your take on the emergence of online medium as a form of reporting politics and other current events. In your opinion do media such as Twitter have a legitimate lifespan as a means of reporting?

What do you perceive as a logical solution to embedding journalist within troops? Would military trained reporters or emerging technologies help lessen the repercussions these journalists are creating?