As the 2008 elections come to the forefront of political reporting, it's shocking to observe the degree to which the American media has been polluted by bias. Much of what passes for analysis in newspapers, magazines and on television news actually consists of a regurgitation of "Beltway Wisdom," an amorphous collection of opinions formulated by Washington's class of elite pundits. Often these views have little basis in reality, and they tend to strongly favor Republican candidates and positions.
Here's a prime example: "Is America Ready?" screams a Newsweek cover story on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The meme being propagated is that Americans are hesitant to vote for either a black or female presidential candidate. In fact, according to a recent Gallup poll, 94 percent of Americans would vote for a black candidate and 88 percent of Americans would vote for a woman. A more accurate article would focus on the electability of Rudy Giuliani since 30 percent of Americans say that they would not vote for a candidate who has been married three times, as Giuliani has. You'll never see this on the cover of Newsweek, as it violates the Beltway's consensus opinion that Giuliani is "America's Mayor."
Newsweek's actual cover story could be quickly answered with a resounding "Yes!" A poll conducted by Newsweek pitting likely nominees against each other shows Clinton beating every Republican candidate, and it places Obama within the poll's margin of error in head-to-head matchups against Giuliani and John McCain. Yet, Newsweek failed to mention the results of its own election poll in an article focusing on the electability of Clinton and Obama. Why? I can't think of a single good reason — besides the fact that it directly undermines the media's narrative that Clinton and Obama are unelectable.
Similarly, what's the first thing you think of when you hear the name John McCain? Probably something like "courageous" or "straight talker." Many ostensibly objective news stories on McCain are filled with unctuous praise for his character and his record. Last week, he was lauded in major newspapers across the country for giving a speech in which he lambasted President Bush's leadership and called the Iraq War a "train wreck." What the articles failed to include are his frequent flip-flops on the question of Iraq — in 2006, for instance, McCain said that Iraq was "on the right track," and that he "[had] confidence in the President" and in the President's ability to lead the war.
Additionally, McCain has undergone little-publicized flip-flops on other prominent issues. While his new rhetoric indicates a move toward the center on Iraq, he now embraces conservative positions that he once shunned as he tries to win the support of the evangelical wing of the Republican Party. In 2000, he called Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance" and an "evil influence." In 2006, however, he disavowed his old comments, accepted an invitation to give the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University and even hired Falwell's own debate coach to work on his campaign. Once, McCain defended Roe v. Wade as necessary for the safety of America's women. In 2006, he changed positions and declared that the Supreme Court should overturn Roe. Yet, no matter how many of these flip-flops McCain has, the media refuses to give him the same scrutiny that it gave Kerry in 2004 for his waffling on issues. He's been declared a maverick, and seemingly nothing that he does will change this Beltway consensus.
Sense a pattern? Without a doubt, press coverage of the 2008 elections has largely propagated memes that are detrimental to the Democratic Party while ignoring similar flaws in Republican candidates.
"Hold on," the astute reader might wish to interject, "What about the fawning coverage of Obama?" Aside from some doubts on his electability, he's been well-received by the media, and Slate has even started an "Obama Messiah Watch" to document instances in which "gratuitously adoring biographical details" about Obama appear in print. While some early portrayals of Obama have been flattering, it's clearly an aberration. The Beltway consensus on his candidacy remains that people are wary of him because he's inexperienced, he's black and (gasp) he has Muslim roots. Consider, for instance, the speed with which the media spread the false story accusing Obama of attending a Muslim madrassa as a child, where he was "raised by radical imams." What originated as a poorly sourced story on a far-right website was reported on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and in newspapers across America in the 11 days before it was discredited. These attacks on Obama will only intensify. Even as they are discredited, some will be repeated by the media ad nauseum, until they permeate the public's conscious and influence the election.
Despite these biases, I'm slightly optimistic for 2008. Newspaper and current events magazine circulations have been falling for years as people turn elsewhere for information. Hopefully, the bigwigs at The New York Times and Newsweek will one day realize that the best way to get their readers back is to return to an objective, bias-free format. Jason Sheltzer is a molecular biology major from St. Davids, Pa. He can be reached at sheltzer@princeton.edu.
Read More
Keep academic authority in human hands
Lily Halbert-AlexanderThe Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
The Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
What do we owe society for a Princeton education?
Jia Cheng ShenThe social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
The social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
Notes from a so-called enemy’s classroom
Jennifer JenningsIt wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.
It wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.