THERE
Ask most people to name the candidates who are running as Democrats for President, and the answer would usually be limited to Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. If the person is from Connecticut, then they’ll mention Dodd. Fewer seem to know about Kucinich (even if this is not his first bid for the White House), Gravel (not pronounced like what you’d put in your driveway), Richardson, Biden, or that even more Democrats than that have announced their campaigns. There are more Republicans than Giuliani to contend with for the spot, and an even longer list of third party candidates.
Realistically, the news media can’t equally cover each and every one of the candidates without having to do something drastic, like respect the intelligence of readers and viewers. Rather than compromise their reputations for lacking integrity, the media ignores all but the most electable (read: sexiest) candidates.
Bias is not just how the news is presented, but what is determined to be news at all. Delivering an item that exposes dirt on Obama, while not running similar pieces on Clinton is overt bias; refusing to acknowledge in any meaningful way the other candidates is just as unethical.
HERE
On the local level, media bias looks like the Courant announcing Perez has all but bagged the election because he was slated to get the Dems’ nod. The bias is there when the mayor’s challengers are written about in a way that belittles their campaigns– Gonzalez is written out to be only capable of splitting the Latino/a vote. It’s as if the reporter has had no running knowledge of who Gonzalez is, whether or not she bothers to prepare for candidate forums, or what she is concerned with. Pardon, there’s a blurb of overview information that lacks useful detail.
News coverage of third parties? Forget it! Do a Google News search for Working Families Party and Hartford City Council. As of this morning, the only find was something totally unrelated.
I am writing this because, with fascination or disdain, I regularly hear Baby Boomers (people I know, as well as people on tv/in print) talk about how the “youth” are only getting their news from comedy shows (Daily Show, Colbert Report, Olbermann’s Countdown), watching that dang YouTube, or reading blogs. But the mainstream commercial news media has done nothing to earn the public’s trust. Meanwhile, these alternatives offer useful information (softened with a spoonful of sugar, instead of O’Reilly’s vinegar/poison). If we have news media claiming to be objective, but offering nothing but bias, what choice do consumers have but to seek out info on candidates on blogs where the authors give people more than soundbites?