A recent McCain ad took some heat for leaving out the phrase "age appropriate" while correctly noting that Obama voted for a bill to promote sex education for kindergarteners. The omission caused some to label the ad a lie. Oddly enough, this "news shaping" happens in the media every day.
We expect ads to be slanted because the candidates pay for them, but I think casual observers have been shocked to see the lengths to which the mainstream media will go to shape opinion. For instance, The Atlantic magazine was embarrassed when the partisan photographer they hired to take the shot of McCain for their October 2008 cover bragged about haven selected the worst picture and then using Photoshop to make it even less flattering. Charlie Gibson of ABC presented the Bush Doctrine as if there was one standard definition in his a classic "gotcha" attempt, and also chopped off many parts of Palin's answers -- making what they did show seem superficial. Oprah is not in the news business, but at least she was transparent in her decision to ban Palin from her show until after the election.
Perhaps we need to define levels to grade the degree of all this "news shaping." I put the McCain ad at level two on this list:
1) Oprah level: Clearly denying inclusion to only the disliked candidates.
3) Atlantic level: Directly changing content based on party affiliation.
4) New York Times level: The relentless selection of only stories slanted to fit their cherished narrative.
5) Olbermann level: A constant, high-volume sales pitch so extreme even NBC had to cut him back.
Its almost funny... but how many News Professionals learned that The Surge had "succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams" from the single most unlikely source: Senator Obama?
Say, where can a citizen go to find "level zero" news, you know, just the facts? Because if I have to wait to hear about success in Iraq from Senator Obama, well, I just might look like somebody's fool.
No comments:
Post a Comment