Should there be full disclosure by Journalists covering election politics? Gwen Awful controversy.


Journalists are always careful to disclose certain information IF the
subject they are covering coincide with their personal interests. So,
if a business journalist is covering a news about a certain company in
which he's an investor, he's ethically bound to disclose that
information.
Or, suppose a journalist is covering a news about a trial of a certain
official. If that official happens to be related to the journalist,
the journalist is ethically required to mention the the nature of the
relation.  Or, if a journalist is covering a news story of about a
judge or school administrator who's come under suspicion, and if the
subject of the news happens to be close friend of the journalist, the
journalist is required to 'fully disclose' this information. This is
to make us aware of possible conflict of interests.  Journalists may
try to be fair and objective, but they are human after all with human
feelings. So, we expect them to disclose certain information when the
news story they are covering are personally related to them somehow.

Shouldn't that be true with political news as well?  We are facing a
major election. A handful of people control much of mainstream TV
news. They may claim to be fair and objective, but they are only
human.  And, they potentially have great influence on how we see the
issues. And, there are many subtle and not-so-subtle ways they can
shape our opinion of the news. For instance, they may give more
coverage to one candidate over another. They may smile more and use
rosier langauge for candidate A while looking a bit hostile when
covering candidate B. They may ask tougher questions for candidate A
than for candidate B.  They may probe deeper into the background of
candidate A than for candidate B. (Like how the media sent an army of
reporters to Alaska to check up on Palin while they never much
bothered to look into Obama's past.)  The media may present more
positive photos and images of one candidate than for another. The
media may cover news stories that favor candidate A over candidate B.
There are so many ways to manipulate 'objective news'.  This isn't to
denigrate the ideal of objective news reporting but merely to point
out that the ideal is corrupted and distorted all too often.  Obama's
success thus far has been largely orchestrated, aided, and abetted by
the media.

If McCain had close ties to some extreme rightwing radical for 20 yrs,
would the media have let the issue drop and fade away? Or, would there
have been such a firestorm and 24/7 coverage that McCain would have
had to drop out?   But, was there such media coverage of Obama's ties
with Wright and Ayers.
The mainstream media act as though they are only reflecting and
gauging popular opinion, but they are the makers of popular opinion.
For instance, the bogus term 'homophobia' was spread far and wide by
the media. No one in the media questioned what it really meant.
"Phobia" is an extreme, irrational, and panicky fear/dread of
something harmless". I suppose there are genuine homophobes who flip
out when they see gay people walk by, but such people are very rare.
But, 'homophobia' was used to mean any criticism of gay culture or gay
agenda. So, if you oppose 'gay marriage', you're 'homophobic'. The
media--and the academia--ran with this and spread this notion so far
and wide--under the veil of rational objective news and education--
that many people have come to swallow whole hog the ludicrous notion
of 'homophobia'.  Even cracking a gay joke is said to be 'homophobic'.
So, is telling a Polish joke "Polophobic"? Ludicrous.

Anyway, journalists exert tremendous influence on us. The real
dangerous ones are not the partisan ones like Bill O'Reilly or Keith
Olbermann. We know where they stand. We also know where people like
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, and Bill Maher stand. They
are conservative or liberal, and they don't hide the fact.  We don't
expect 'objective' news from them. We know they are openly and nakedly
partisan.  They don't need to fully disclose anything since they
disclose their biases every second.

Far more dangerous are the so-called objective reporters who slyly use
their power to slip in their political biases.  And, there are so many
ways to do this.  (1) Choice and frequency of news stories; certain
news stories, no matter how fairly covered, favor one candidate over
another. (2) Failure to cover certain stories. For example, suppose
the media cover a story about a corrupt Republican congressman but
bury a story about a Democratic Congressman. No matter how fairly and
objectively they cover the story of the corrupt Republican, the fact
that they ignored Democratic corruption makes viewers think that
Republicans are MORE corrupt than Democrats. Or, consider the coverage
of Dan Quayle misspelling 'potato' but almost no coverage of all the
gaffs by Obama and Biden. Come to think of it, entertainment is almost
part of the news media. Many people get their news from late night
talk shows and stuff like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.  And, we
know that most comedy writers are liberals or leftist.  (3) Choice of
words(terminology) and facial expressions.  Suppose Obama says
something really stupid, and the journalist uses a mild word like
'regrettable' to characterize what he said.  But, suppose McCain said
something similarly stupid, but the journalist calls it 'outrageous'
or 'embarassing'. And, notice that people like Couric and Gibson put
on a much more friendly face when covering Democrats than Republicans.
When the Repubilcans won both the House and Senate in 1994, there were
so many LOOOONG faces among journalists. But, when the Dems won back
both houses in 2006, there were so many happy chirpy faces. And, terms
like 'racism' and 'homophobia' have been disseminated far and wide to
make us not only more sensitive but afraid of challenging orthodoxy.
This mind control starts from a young age, so we have so many kids who
sound like pc parrots.   (4) Political correctness, taboos, and
lopsided outrage. Certain ideas and views are simply not allowed in
the media. Certain news stories are not covered because covering it
may be 'racist'. So, while the media will cover any number of stories
about white-on-black violence, it will suppress stories on black-on-
white crime. The media will excuse themselves of this by saying they
don't want to stir up racial stereotypes and fear, but doesn't
focusing on white-on-black violence do the same thing?
Also, notice the lopsided nature of media outrage.  Al Sharpton is
accepted as a major figure though he's said outrageous things on just
about every day of his life, but when Don Imus cracked a bad joke, he
was hounded off the media. When Trent Lott praised Thurmond at the
latter's birthday party, he was roundly attacked by the outraged
media--which also showed clips of old civil rights movement--, but
there has been almost no coverage of Obama's very close ties with Bill
Ayers. There was no mention of Ayer's rabid and virulent hatred for
the US, his record of terrorism, his ongoing radicalism. The news
media didn't show old images of 60s radicals burning US flags,
spitting on US soldiers, chanting 'Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, FMLN's gonna
win!'. It didn't show images of what communism did to the world--
famines in Ukraine, etc.

So, we know that objective news isn't very objective, and that people
in the news have their personal favors and interests in every
election. Many journalists entered the profession to 'make a
difference', to push an agenda, to be an activist reporter, etc.
So, wouldn't it be more honest if all journalists covering election
news were required to fully disclose their political affiliation,
voting records, and whom they'll vote for in this election. Wouldn't
it much more honest if Katie Couric started her interview with Palin
with the statement, "For interests of full disclosure, I've been a
lifelong Democrat, I voted for Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and intend
to vote for Obama and other Democrats in 2008."  This way, we'll know
where she's really coming from.
Suppose all 'objective' journalists were required to do such--at least
when they cover electoral politics.
After all, isn't there a conflict of interests we should know about?
After all, news anchorman have tens of millions of viewers. They have
great power over all of us. And, they have personal-political stakes
in the elections. But, unlike most of us, they not only have the power
to vote but to report on the crucial news that will influence how
millions of us will vote.
So, wouldn't it be fair and sensible to require all journalists
covering electoral news to, at the very least, fully disclose what
they are about?
Stephanopolous should say, "I served in the Clinton adminstration and
have been a lifelong Democrat and will vote for Barack Obama this
november" before he covers any news story on the election. It's only
fair.  Or, Gibson should have prefaced his interview with Palin with
the words, "For the interest of full disclosure, I've been a braindead
liberal Democratic toadie since childhood, I hate Republicans and
conservatives, I wish McCain would drop dead, I worship Obama, and I
really want to spit in Palin's eye. Okay, now let's start the
interview.'
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]