It's an article by John Harris and Jim VandeHei of Politico.com, who acknowledge McCain and Palin are "getting hosed i the press, and at Politico":
"Responsible editors would be foolish not to ask themselves the bias question, especially in the closing days of an election. But, having asked it, our sincere answer is that of the factors driving coverage of this election -- and making it less enjoyable for McCain to read his daily clip file than for Obama -- ideological favoritism ranks virtually nil ...Harris' and VandeHei's column is worth reading, too. It's the only time I've seen a lede quoting the journalists' mothers in an article on bias. I'm not sure they pull it off, but the idea of quoting someone who's supposed to be biased in that context is kind of cute.
"Reporters obsess about personalities and process, about whose staff are jerks or whether they seem like decent folks, about who has a great stump speech or is funnier in person than they come off in public, about whether Michigan is in play or off the table. This is the flip side of the fact of how much we care about the horse race -- we don't care that much about our own opinions of which candidate would do more for world peace or tax cuts."
No comments:
Post a Comment