After the election, bitter right-wingers like Mark Erbacher were quick to blame everyone for their loss except the obvious: the legacy of their own failed policies. The most obvious target would be manipulation from liberal coastal media elites. Right? Right.

The 2008 election clearly showed that the media lean heavily to the left. Even liberals must admit the mainstream media and its journalists threw objectivity and fairness aside and blatantly took the side of now President-elect Barack Obama.

According to www.telegraph.co.uk, the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs reported John McCain received substantially more negative news coverage during the campaign. The same article said the Pew Research Center, examining coverage of the last presidential debate, showed Obama’s coverage to be 36 percent positive and 29 percent negative.

Compare this to the staggering numbers of McCain: 57 percent negative to only 14 percent positive. There is some disparity between the parties; 82 percent of Republicans think journalists try to be advocates rather than neutral observers. This coincides with 56 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of unaffiliated voters concurring with their conservative counterparts.

Perhaps Obama’s positive coverage reflected a kind of campaign to which the Right was not accustomed? Perhaps McCain’s negative stories reflected the negativity of his campaign? Perhaps McCain really is the two-faced, hot-tempered scoundrel he seems to be? If you’d like to contemplate a double standard, consider how the media would have handled coverage of a candidate with a known temper problem, a candidate who talked out of both sides of his mouth and constantly went back on his pledges, a candidate that had cheated on his wife and then married into his fortune; now consider how the media would have handled such a candidate if he were black.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs studied 979 election news stories from 33 hours and 40 minutes of airtime from evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX stations and found stories concerning Obama and Joe Biden recieved 65 percent positive versus 35 percent negative. This was more than double that of John McCain and Sarah Palin, whose numbers were 69 percent negative and only 31 percent positive.

Journalists must remain unbiased in their coverage of the issues. Their job is to objectively report facts so individuals can decide for themselves what they choose to believe

Heh, pretty surprised that he mentioned Fox News. Anyway, it’s about time for a concern near and dear to me: a basic journalism lesson.

According to right-wing gasbags, "objective" journalism occurs when the reporter writes down what one person says, then writes down what another person says, then prints that. By this logic, the substance of a claim does not matter, and it’s not your job to actually go verify the claim; if someone simply makes the claim, you print it. Reporters who actually care about the truth, however, know the difference between journalism and stenography.

Look at what Erbacher reports. Look at the level of doublethink involved in his reasoning. His contention is not specifically with whether any story was biased, but whether a bunch of people believe stories are biased. But how do the people polled even judge bias? What’s their criteria? Just because a story is "favorable" or "unfavorable" doesn’t make bias. It may turn out that historical "facts," or material reportable conditions actually favor one over the other. That’s what a journalist is supposed to report on. "Reality." It’s too bad reality has a well-known liberal bias.

[K-State Collegian]