Posted by Matt Purdue
Thirty-six hours later, I'm still bleary-eyed from watching late-night cable coverage of Barack Obama
clinching the Democratic nomination for president. No matter how the
media slice it, this is a historic occasion, one that our children will read about in history books.
Unfortunately, how the media slice it is becoming curiouser and curiouser. At the risk of getting drummed out of the Journalists Alumni Association and Social Club, I will admit that reporters and their editors have always been biased. Journalists are human beings, after all, and work for for-profit companies; it is nearly impossible to remove all bias from that equation. But what journalists need to forever be is balanced. The media must present as many sides of an issue as possible. That's job No. 1.
It's become a running joke just how unbalanced the cable news networks have become. Conservatives still refer to CNN as the Clinton News Network. And Fox News Channel hardly even tries to serve up anything but the far-right perspective. MSNBC, which I happened to watch Tuesday night, has been bashing the Administration openly for so long that VP Dick Cheney even joked about MSNBC host Keith Olbermann in a recent bit of stand up. MSNBC is practically Obama TV now. The network interrupted John McCain's speech Tuesday night to announce that Obama had mathematically clinched the nomination. That was bizarre because media such as the AP had reported hours before that Obama's clinch was a foregone conclusion. Interesting timing. At one point, Olbermann likened Obama’s clinch to NASA landing a man on the moon in 1969. A few minutes later, Tim Russert compared McCain to an “old shoe.”
The major newspapers have their leanings, too, although they're more subtle. Wednesday's New York Times painted Obama as a tough guy, noting his clinch following a "grueling battle." The paper trumpeted that he "inspired millions of voters from every corner of America to demand change." Funny how they ignored the fact that Hillary Clinton actually collected more votes (if you count her votes in Michigan, where Obama was not on the ballot), but instead described Obama as "prevailing through an epic battle." For the Times, it's all about establishing the Democratic nominee as the embodiment of the American dream.
Now check out the Wall Street Journal, the bastion of free-markets. The WSJ headline called the Democratic primaries "bitter" and reminded us that Clinton refused to concede, two obvious digs at a party that often seems to be unable to run itself, let alone the country. Instead of prevailing, Obama simply "captured enough convention delegates." Then, in the third graf, the paper twisted the knife, reminding readers that Clinton’s “surprise win” in South Dakota “underscored some of Sen. Obama’s weaknesses.” Ouch. The guy becomes the first African-American to head a major-party ticket, and the Journal rips him for losing a flyover state with three electoral votes. His loss there, by the way, was hardly a surprise.
The lesson here is that the media is made up of many individuals and organizations, all with their own points of view. For any type of strategic media plan to work, PR professionals have to study their target audiences with a microscope and know what makes them tick. It’s always been that way, and always will be.
Comments