« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Washington Post admits Obama bias

As unrepentant as Bill Ayers

By: Dan Spencer (Diary)  |  November 9th, 2008 at 10:40 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Now that the election is over the Deborah Howell, the Washington Post
Ombudsman, admits that the Post’s election coverage was biased toward
Obama.

Howell reports readers complained consistently criticized the Post’s
“lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward
Democrat Barack Obama.” She conducted a survey of the Post’s election
coverage since November 11, 2007 on issues, voters, fundraising,
the candidates’ backgrounds, horse-race stories on tactics, strategy
and consultants, and photos and Page 1 stories since
Obama captured the nomination June 4.

The survey, which conveniently ended on Election Day, found that the readers’ criticisms are “right on both counts:”

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than
on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about
McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial
board’s endorsement.

[. . .]

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those
devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors — like
most of the national news media — found the candidacy of Obama, the
first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and
historic.

Howell also admits, now that it is too late to make a difference, that Obama and Biden should have been scrutinized more:

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his
undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with
Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling
in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama’s acknowledged drug use as a
teenager.

[. . .]

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate.
When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were
booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went
over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right;
it was a serious omission.

It doesn’t make me feel any better that the Post admits its election coverage was biased toward Obama. Like Bill Ayers, the Post remains unrepentant about the fact the coverage was biased. I’m sure we can look forward to a continued biased coverage of President-elect Obama.

Tags: ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Rod_Patrick

    I read the said WAPO article through the DR link. It’s nothing but a false apology. The Ombudsman writer is not really an ombudsman but a false trumpeteer of fairness in Journalism, something that WAPO has forgotten a long long time ago.

    WAPO and the rest of the MSM have lost 57+ million conservatives and anti-Obama Americans as potential market.

    Many of us have discontinued our subscriptions. WAPO, NYT, LAT, etal. need to address their current financial losses. To survive, they need us, 57+ million Americans who voted for McCain/Palin ticket. The article is just an attempt to lure us back! It’s nothing but hypocritical pandering. No way!

    Let us be clear on this:

    The FIGHT AGAINST MSM must be sustained, with earnest passion, and must be non-stop until all these liberal-biased media organizations will go bankrupt!

    My suggestion to the MSM:

    If you want to survive the crisis, why don’t you ask a special bailout money from Obama Administration. Surely, you deserve money too from Obama due to your sterling services to his successful campaign.

    MSM sins to the Republican party are unforgivable. Legacy media must die.

    We demand new media outfits that will restore professionalism in Journalism!

    • ClassicConservative

      All I hear is complaining. RS complains when liberals consider invoking the Fairness Doctorine to reduce bias, and RS complains when liberal bias exists because its allowed.

      If you don’t want it to be allowed, support the stupid Fairness Doctorine. Otherwise watch Fox News and get over it.

      • leppard

        The fairness doctrine and journalism are completely unrelated.

        A journalist is expected to use facts to describe events, ideas, or issues that are relevant to the public.

        A conservative talk show talks about conservative view points like a Sports talk show talks about sports. The fairness doctrine aims to change that.

        • bs

          the “Fairness Doctrine” did not apply to print media.

          Oh, and something tells me Moe needs to change your ID. “ClassicConservative” you ain’t.

        • smagar

          By “us,” I mean conservatives and Republicans.

          If they do, if they need us for financial viability—then they are stupid, stupid, stupid.

          I have to admit—I took the overt pro-Obama bias of this election as proof that the traditonal media had written us off.

          I mean—they can’t seriously think we’ll come flocking back to them after just a few “hard-hitting” ombundsman mea culpas and Howard Kurtz criticisms…can they?

          No, I refuse to believe it. They simply cannot be that stupid. They must have known what they are doing.

          Now, I hope WE are not stupid in our response.

          Paul Mirengoff and Victor Davis Hanson have it right: the MSM is hopelessly corrupt, and has sacrificed its credibility in its desire to help elect Obama.

          Now, to be clear, the MSM itself did not elect Obama.

          But they certainly didn’t behave like a profession dedicated to fully informing the public.

          I hope we don’t fall for their blandishments.

          As Mirengoff said in today’s DC Examiner, it’s time for conservatives to secede from the MSM.

          If we have any self-respect, after what the MSM did in this election, we must.

          Otherwise, we de facto sanction what they did.

  • itrytobenice

    too bad the cows are already out.

    Besides, she understates the bias in a remarkable way. Namely: BO has about a 100:1 advantage over McCain in terms of the quantity of negative stories.

    With McCain, you could hit him with Keating 5 (but you’d have to be a little dishonest to make it really sound bad) and how he campaigned. Other than that, there’s not much. With Barack, you’d just have to draw a name out of a hat. You could have a new series every day for a month and not run out.

  • Rod_Patrick

    I mean that each media outfit must arrest its own rank by:

    1. Using proven facts, whenever possible.

    2. Using reliable and credible sources.

    3. Using resource person who can defend their accusations and are willing to rectify their mistakes, if proven wrong.

    4. Giving the side of the other party… on a voluntary basis.

    Fairness Doctrine is different. The media will act like a court hearing the sides of both theaccuser and defendant at the same time. Said process will more dangerous that outright censorship. It will discourage people to speak out and air their viewpoints.

    I accuse WAPO of being unprofessional for its blatant attempt NOT TO:

    1) Use well-meaning facts,

    2) Do its own unbiased news reporting using fair investigation/analysis;

    3) Give McCain campaign an equal opportunity to volunteer its facts and counterfacts; and,

    4) Rectify its errors in reporting on time.

    Many readers have been hoodwinked by WAPO that it was a balanced paper and not siding with any candidate/party. Now the Americans know that I was supporting Obama from the very beginning.

    In summary:

    WAPO is a liberal propaganda paper all along. That’s why I will never patronize it again… because I am a conservative, not a liberal reader.

    I read NYPost and, and some of the times, Washington Times.

  • Jaded

    they went all in on supporting a candidate for President and in doing so left any hint of actual journalism behind and as I understand it they folded and went out of business within 2 years of that?

    That my friends is what we will be saying about a lot of papers in a short period of time!

  • rstreu

    God forbid people find out the media are a bunch of irresponsible hacks.