I don't believe in any sort of institutional liberal media bias. If one existed, I and just about everyone I know in this profession would have to be in on it, and we're all just way too stubborn and mule-headed to be herded together for any sort of ideological conspiracy. (Actually, that's not really my reason for not believing in the whole "liberal media" idea. That would take a lot longer to explain, but this is a blog, and I'm lazy.)
Still, I was a little taken aback at Slate's voluntary internal poll of its staff. Of the 57 people who chose to respond, 55 are voting for Obama. (McCain ties with Bob Barr--yes, Bob Barr--for second.) Granted, Slate is not part of the mainstream media, but...wow.
Slate's editor, David Plotz, tries to explain why. Its media critic, lone Barr voter Jack Shafer, tries to offer some better explanations. Both of them have some good thoughts, too, on the reality of what's often perceived as the "liberal media" (though Plotz's thoughts are actually Michael Kinsley's).
Though it's absurd for any publication--liberal-leaning or not--to have this kind of political uniformity among its staffers, I have to give Slate some credit: as Shafer notes, it has been a remarkably open forum for conservative, libertarian and utilitarian thought in addition to liberal ideas. Anything counterintuitive but worth consideration has a place in the marketplace of ideas, and Slate seems to be the internet's headquarters for those kinds of ideas, regardless of their political stripe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Our local Fox morning news did have an interesting fact a week or so back (I caught the end of what they were saying and read what was written on the screen, so I can't go into too much detail). But they said that of all the media coverage of McCain and Obama 57% of the media coverage of McCain was negative, compared to only 22% of the coverage on Obama was negative. Like I said, I can't go into much detail (like, does media coverage include newspapers as well as television?), but that's what they said. Of course, Mom heartily agreed!
So, this isn't necessarily about media bias, but it's related. Kyle brought up the point. He doesn't think that they should start calling who won which state until all of the polling places are closed. I agree. He feels that by hearing about what has already happened on the East Coast could affect how people on the West Coast/Hawaii/Alaska would choose to vote. We are by no means saying that this has happened, but the potential is there. Just a thought.
Post a Comment