Deborah Howell, Washington Post ombudsman, admits that the news outlet did not provide fair and balanced coverage of the presidential race, but she makes no apologies.
In fact, she's quite proud of The Post's accomplishments.
An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage
The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.
My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4. Numbers don't tell you everything, but they give you a sense of The Post's priorities.
The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.
...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. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.
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. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.
The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that.
McCain clinched the GOP nomination on March 4, and Obama won his on June 4. From then to Election Day, the tally was Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both.
...Counting from June 4, Obama was in 311 Post photos and McCain in 282. Obama led in most categories. Obama led 133 to 121 in pictures more than three columns wide, 178 to 161 in smaller pictures, and 164 to 133 in color photos. In black and white photos, the nominees were about even, with McCain at 149 and Obama at 147. On Page 1, they were even at 26 each. Post photo and news editors were surprised by my first count on Aug. 3, which showed a much wider disparity, and made a more conscious effort at balance afterward.
Howell goes on to praise the "hard-working team on the campaign" and lauds the political reporters.
Then, in a brief paragraph buried in the praise, she notes where they could have done better.
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.
Howell passes over that in a rather matter-of-fact manner. That's inexcusable.
She also admits that Biden was given a pass.
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. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.
Again, inexcusable. The lack of scrutiny of Biden wasn't just a "serious omission." It was journalistic incompetence, an utter failure.
The Post's coverage didn't have "an Obama tilt." "Tilt" is far too mild of a word.
The Post was a source of pro-Obama and anti-McCain propaganda.
The Washington Post is a Leftist rag, not a hard news source.
There is very little for Howell to be proud of regarding The Post's overall coverage of the presidential election. I guess her "Obama tilt" prevents her from seeing that.
_______________
Reading Larry Elder's take.
2 comments:
I also noticed there was no apology.
One word that comes to mind with regard to the journalistic malpractice committed by the Washington Post (and media outlets nationwide) and the “So what?” attitude exhibited in this article:
Arrogance.
http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
The Jewish Republican's Web Sanctuary
That sums it up.
Post a Comment