I was watching Charlie Gibson on ABC News tonight seemingly tear up for a moment at the news that Sen. Barack Obama would be the next president of the United States — and had a flashback to 2000.
Working my first presidential election night at the Los Angeles Times, I was surprised to see an instant message go out to my colleagues working in the Orange County edition.
“Gore takes Florida!!!!!!”
As the words appeared simultaneously on the newsroom’s computer screens, a cheer went up.
WTF?
I had thought there was no cheering in the press box. Some time later, another message was sent out that went something like this:
“Oh, no! They’re saying Bush won Florida.”
A collective groan could be heard.
I know it’s a fantasy, but couldn’t my newsroom at least maintain the illusion of objectivity? What did it say about diversity within daily journalism that a colleague would feel comfortable sending out that message? Or that the response was so uniformed and unquestioned?
It didn’t occur to anyone — to the sender of the message or her recipients — that there might be a Republican in the room who voted for Bush. Or better yet, that it simply wasn’t appropriate to be cheering for Gore on election night.
A few weeks later, I had some meetings at the mothership in LA. Afterward, I ended up sitting in a cubicle next to one of the Times’ political reporters. Above her desk, I spotted a faux Time magazine cover with a goofy shot of George W. Bush and the headline that started in small type with something like, “George Bush elected President.” In a huge font size, the headline announced: “We’re Fucked!”
Hasn’t the time come for American journalism to get back to its roots and wear its bias on its sleeve? I’m much more comfortable knowing where a reporter or publication is coming from as opposed to being asked to suspend belief and have faith that the reporter or publication is objective.
The illusion isn’t working anymore. Most readers wouldn’t be surprised by the open cheering in The Times’ newsroom for Al Gore (or, I imagine, John Kerry or now, Barack Obama). So why not drop the facade? Today’s readers are sophisticated, and the biases within the mainstream media are rooted out with ruthless efficiency by watchdog bloggers and websites.
Wouldn’t it be more interesting and intellectually honest if reporters and/or publications state their bias upfront? For instance, next to very byline put a little disclaimer like: William Lobdell is a self-described centrist Republican who voted for Bush in 2000, no one in 2004 (though he did vote) and Obama in 2008. Or if I were writing about an environmental issue: William Lobdell is a self-described environmentalist whose views are closely aligned to the Sierra Club?
Doesn’t that kind of disclosure arm readers with essential information to weigh the biases of report they are reading?
I hope that’s where American journalism is heading. Anything else is just dishonest.
In the meantime, go, Obama!
The Latest on Faith and Doubt
8 responses so far ↓
1 Jenny // Nov 5, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I agree! It’s not like we did’t notice the bias anyway. I am all for being up front about it.
Well, my choice lost yesterday, but Obama will be my president and I respect that. I hope those who voted for change like what the “change” is.
2 Fifty-One-Fifty // Nov 5, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I am watching the Today show, and it’s very clear that they are definite Bush-haters.
3 Tim Stroud // Nov 6, 2008 at 3:05 am
Does describing your past actions describe your current biases?
That is, does saying that you voted for Bush in 2000 say that you cannot now be fair to a Democratic candidate? Or vice-versa?
Obviously not.
Or if your views are closely aligned with the Sierra Club does that mean that you cannot be fair in your reporting on automobile manufacturers?
Or does it mean that under no circumstances would you be fair in your reporting on automobile manufacturers?
Don’t you want to be fair?
Can’t we choose to be fair? Or not fair? Or are we locked into some subconscious drive that lets our biases leak out whether we want them to or not?
I say the the media has copped out and made the easy choice to not even try to be fair and objective. A fine example to set for our future.
4 Alexander // Nov 8, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Bill, I was in that newsroom that night with you. You forgot to add that there was more than a collective groan in that newsroom, there was several F-bombs dropped…and heard throughout the room. I remember thinking that well, out of the approximately 50 staffers, there was me and, uh….you that voted Bush and almost certainly no one else.
I guess, looking back, even if we did a touchdown dance, we would have been penalized for no celebrations for voting for Bush. We would have been flagged with more than 15 yards…it would have been a verbal flogging!
Am I bitter? Certainly not! I remain conservative in the biblical sense, and liberal in acceptance! Wish I could say that at least the “acceptance” was part of more liberals actions.
5 Alexander // Nov 9, 2008 at 12:19 am
BTW…I submitted this post to Digg…anyone wanting to Digg this great post can go to
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Newsrooms_must_be_cheering
6 Becca // Nov 9, 2008 at 2:33 pm
William, the media and their love for Obama was, of course, very obvious. My favorite guy is Chris Matthews. I am consistently amazed at him, and his latest about his “new job” is the topper.
To go a little further with this, I also am amazed at your bias on this blog. I understand this has been a journey that has taken you years, and I haven’t seen all of it, nor do I know your every thought.
My issue is that it seems you have also taken the easy way out in regards to religion, and on this blog, I have only seen anti-religion/God posts. Where’s the balance? Have you totally given up on the search for ANYTHING? There are a lot of good men and women out there blogging some interesting thoughts AND they believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and are probably proud of the label “pre-millenialist, dispensationalist.” But beyond that, they love God and they love the creatures that God created - man and woman - and are great at sharing that love.
Again, I wonder if the Catholic priests you wrote about ever truly had a real relationhip with God? I think it is safe to come to that conclusion. So what about doing a search for those that do and seeing what they’re about?
Sincerely,
Becca
7 Tim Stroud // Nov 9, 2008 at 11:29 pm
For Becca,
You have some good questions for him, but from what I have seen William has complimented some religious people (Rick Warren, Shawn McEvoy, and others if I recall correctly) and has mentioned getreligion.org as a favorite website.
Everyone has had their own experiences that shape their attitudes. From what I have read he has seen heinous crimes commited in the name of religion, done to people that he has personally met. This must cause soul-searching for every caring individual.
In my view there are some outstanding, intelligent, deeply caring religious people. (We will always have questions as to their reasoning toward religion) And, somewhere out there, you will find outstanding, intelligent, deeply caring atheists (if our society will ever let them come out of the closet).
But I think it would be naive to think that, by definition, truly religious people never commit horrendous acts
And those that continue to get away with it need some light cast upon them.
8 Jenny // Nov 12, 2008 at 3:31 am
Becca - my two cents is that Bill has a problem with the Catholic Church, not Christianity as a whole. Hang out a while and you will find some interesting reading. Some you’ll agree with, and some you won’t, sometimes you’ll take a lambasting (I’m one of the Christian commenters, so I know this firsthand!), sometimes you may re-think your views; other times reading here will make you solidify your views. Many here know each other in real life, so it’s USUALLY pretty polite when we disagree.
Either way, welcome! It’s fun discussing these subjects that in most circles are pretty much taboo.
Leave a Comment