You've Got to See It To Believe It-Media Bias

Bias, like beauty, is, to a large part, in the eye of the beholder. If you will accept the fact that this is conceptually a matter of opinion, you might beg the question of objectivity. However, even conceptually, it is not completely beyond the scope of at least quasi objectivity.

To illustrate my point let's take the Saturday (8/16/08) discussion with the two major candidates, put on by pastor Rick Warren. I watched the two hour production in its entirety. It was divided into two, one hour segments. A coin was tossed to see who would be first. The other participant was placed in a sound proof room, per Rev Warren where he could not hear his opponent's comments. After questioning the first candidate and taking a short break, the same questions were asked to the second candidate.

This morning with my first cup of coffee, I read the AP write up of the event. I began to wonder if we were talking about the same event. The AP writer gave Obama approximately two thirds of the print. On the question of abortion, he went to lengths to soften Obama's pro-choice position emphasizing his objection to late term abortions unless the health of the mother is threatened. This in itself is contradictory to previous Obama positions. McCain, in my opinion, did an excellent job. His answers were succinct, addressed the issue, seemed well thought out - and more important to me - seemed to be what he really believed or how he felt about the issue. The AP writer used the succinct answers out of context to give the reader a different understanding than if they had heard the complete dissertation on the subject. Omitted completely was McCain's statement of faith involving his captivity and torture in Viet Nam. One hallmark technique of many biased writer is what I'd call the one step forward, two backward approach. This was a much used disinformation strategy during the cold war. You make a positive statement and then you follow it with two (or more) remarks that would refute or indicate as disingenuous the positive remark. For example, "The man pleaded innocent, though he has twice been charged with a similar crime and unnamed sources were doubtful of his sincerity." One such statement concerned the confinement of the second candidate to a room where he could not hear the answers of the other. To quote the AP writer, " Warren asked both men the same questions. McCain said he did not see or hear Obama's session, which might have given an advantage." McCain didn't say that Rev Warren did and McCain responded to the pastor's statement of fact.

I did find the format interesting. The questions were taken from thousands of emails from Rev Warrens listeners and church members. Both candidates were asked identical questions. The questions were not "got you" type questions or were not slanted to gain a particular response. The respondents were given adequate time to give their views but falling back on a "stump speech", per Rev Warren, was not tolerated. It was a civil discourse involving pertinent issues to the listeners. I would like to see at least a half dozen more of the same thing prior to our having to go to the polls and vote.