After the 2008 US Presidential election, a number of senior editors and executives at major U.S. news organizations admitted that their coverage of Barack Obama was "soft": that there was little of the critical investigative reporting that they had directed towards George Bush from 2000 on. Some admitted (and a few bragged) that their campaign coverage was worth 5-10% swing in votes for Obama.
Have things changed this campaign? Probably - but not necessarily in a positive way. How many continuously weak economic reports can you honestly label as "unexpected"? (For the AP, the count's 3+ years and ongoing - but perhaps that's economic ignorance and not partisanship at work). But this was too funny and too sad not to share.
Both Pew and Gallup show that Americans are losing faith in mainstream news being able to report accurately, honestly, and fairly. The trend is consistent and long-term and threatens the viability of "news" in the traditional journalism sense. But when most major traditional news organizations don't deign to even talk about a top-5 storyline among the American public, it does more than continue that trend, it fundamentally challenges the notion and theory of Agenda-Setting.
Source:
Cartoon: Media Monkeys on Bengazi,
Independent Journal Review
h/t -
Instapundit
No comments:
Post a Comment