Scott Turner's Jane Hall Response

These readings were very beneficial for me because it made me examine my opinions on media bias as an avid news consumer and student of journalism. Ultimately I had to decide both whether or not there is a media bias in the news and then if that is the case whether or not that is a bad thing. In the end I came to the conclusion there are many different types and cases of bias in the media. One thing is for sure: media love both access and the truth, and their reporting will reflect that. Sometimes, the less informed reader will interpret objectivity that reflects that as bias. Other times, there is legitimate skewing of information—which can be recognized by the writer/reader or not. I firmly believe though that as long as journalists recognize their own bias and their readers know it’s there, there is nothing wrong with biased news coverage, and it in fact may be better for us.

This can be seen in Janet Hall’s essay about Al Gore and coverage in the ’00 elections and the opinions reflected in the Fox News’ Obama segment. For example, even though Gore remained consistent on issues such as the Elian Gonzales case, he was portrayed in the media for that and other issues as a liar doing whatever it took to get elected. At the same time, Hall maintains that the media were in a love affair with George Bush. It’s hard to say for sure what the actual effect on the elections this alleged bias had, but the result is certain.

The rub is that candidates and their supporters have blamed the media for favoring one candidate over the other ever since George Washington. The difference back then is that the press didn’t always claim to be ‘objective.’ In fact, most publications were funded by the political parties and their writing reflected those viewpoints.

I must say I was originally taken aback by Hall’s lamenting the lack of journalists asking how will we do it next time in her essay “The Fire Next Time: Fighting the Next War.” Don’t we hope there won’t be a next time? I’m on Eason Jordan’s side when he says “So much depends on where, when, the host-country access, U.S. military involvement, the state of technology and many other factors. Since there’s no such thing as a generic war, it seems to me that pontificating about how we might cover the next big conflict would be wildly speculative and irresponsible.”

But on the whole, I did take away a lot from Janet Hall’s analysis and I liked the way Hall analyzes the reporting of the Iraq war and looks at the benefits and drawbacks of embedded reporting. I think these will be good lessons for the media to consider when it comes to both covering future wars and simply analyzing their own biases in general; something every journalist should be aware of. But this is a prime example of how journalists love access and it biases their coverage.

So how again is bias in the media a bad thing? It sounds to me like if journalists recognize their bias then they can say whatever they want as long as it’s grounded in fact and reason and readers understand that. Pew has shown that listeners to The Rush Limbaugh Show are politically smarter than watchers of The Daily Show and in general those that consume this type of news over other forms. When it comes to forming your own opinions nothing is more important than being informed—nobody ever said the spin you receive affects your opinion, just more likely you’ll pay attention to the ones you agree with.

What do you think are the biggest failures and/or successes of the reportage of the Iraq War?

In your opinion, what makes biased reporting so bad? Is it just that most news nowadays is
portrayed as being objective?

Did Obama get a free pass from the media during the election? Do you think that the fact-checking done on issues that he was constantly accused of were insufficient?