Soccer Dad

There's a perception that water is wet

Deborah Howell writes about Remedying the Bias Perception (via memeorandum)

But some of the conservatives' complaints about a liberal tilt are valid. Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like to change the world. I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo.

Talk about a hostile work environment! In any other context this kind of bias wouldn't be countenanced by an organization like the Post, but here it's just a "perception." Kind of like the perception that water is wet.

I really enjoy Tom Rosentiel's non-sequitir:

Tom Rosenstiel, a former political reporter who directs the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said, "The perception of liberal bias is a problem by itself for the news media. It's not okay to dismiss it. Conservatives who think the press is deliberately trying to help Democrats are wrong. But conservatives are right that journalism has too many liberals and not enough conservatives. It's inconceivable that that is irrelevant."

If the perception of bias is not irrelevant, then it is real and then it is obvious that the media is deliberately helping Democrats. Howell doesn't mention one of the more egregious examples. In the week before the election the Post reported on the Obama campaign's acceptance of undocumented donations on page A2. If it had been the McCain campaign, it would have run on page A1 above the fold with an accompanying editorial about the corrupting influence of money on campaigns.

And here's another corrosive aspect of media bias: the much vaunted "wall" between the editorial staff and the reporting staff does not exist. Assignments are doled out on the basis of what supports the editorial positions of the newspaper (with few exceptions) not what's news.

Howell adds:

Combine these with the drumbeat of polling stories saying Obama and the Democrats were likely to win, a few Tom Toles cartoons and TV critic Tom Shales's debate reviews -- both are liberals who are paid to offer opinions -- and conservatives decided that The Post was cheerleading -- especially since they felt the paper hadn't sufficiently scrutinized Obama.

The opinion pages have strong conservative voices; the editorial board includes centrists and conservatives; and there were editorials critical of Obama. Yet opinion was still weighted toward Obama. It's not hard to see why conservatives feel disrespected.

As I noted in my critique of the Post's endorsement of Sen. Obama, the Post's editors listed a number of hesitations about Sen. Obama the candidate. Some of them, from the paper's perspective, should have been substantive. Instead the editors waved off those concerned and expressed hope that a President Obama would act differently from the pronouncements of the candidate and the record of the politician. So yes, the Post did record some criticisms of Sen. Obama, but they have to be considered ritual rather than substantive, as they didn't seem to cause the Post's editors any second thoughts.

Finally, Howell's "feel disrespected" is as meaningful as if I'd fallen into a swimming pool and she wrote that I "felt wet." The bias isn't a perception; it is very real. For all of her apologetics, it's clear that Howell still doesn't get that.

James Lileks (via Ed Driscoll)

The first question in any J-school application ought to be "do you want to change the world?" And anyone who answers yes gets kindly turned away. Your job is to describe the way the world changes. Not pretend you're there to nudge it along towards utopia.

More background at Newsbusters and Town Hall.