WHY THE PRESS BIAS?

Posted at 8:57 a.m. ET

The obvious Obama-boosting by the press has now become one of the most talked-about subjects of the campaign.  That talk is likely to continue as the very journalists who helped put Obama in power start covering his administration, assuming he's elected. 

But why the press bias?  A distinguished observer has sent us an e-mail outlining some possibilities:

-- The media follows the polls and rewards the winner in its daily coverage.  That comports with the CMPA study that found Obama getting negative coverage in the summer and positive coverage in the fall.

-- The candidate makes fewer mistakes, resulting in better coverage.  That is consistent with findings that Obama got better coverage in the fall than the other three major party ticket candidates, whose campaigns and personal behavior produced more mistakes.

-- The media is more leery of criticisms that might reflect racial stereotypes than those that might reflect gender and age stereotypes.  This is consistent with the consistently negative coverage of the female candidates Clinton and Palin, and of some of the negative coverage of McCain over the course of the year.

-- The media wants to cover the first African-American president and are "voting the story" in their coverage.  An occupational incentive could be propelling this.

-- The media has a liberal bias and so have subjected Palin and McCain to negative coverage this fall.  This bias is emphasized because of Obama's liberalism and African-American identity.

I personally think most, if not all, of these factors are at work.  Some are entirely understandable and explicable and others are disturbing.

These are solid reasons, and their overall effect is to erode the credibility of the media.  We've seen the rapid financial deterioration of some news organizations recently.  The Christian Science Monitor is ending its daily print edition.  New York Times bonds have been reduced to junk status.  The Los Angeles Times is in serious jeopardy.  Some in print journalism attribute these ailments to competition from the internet and cable news.  I would suggest another reason:  The press has surrendered its greatest asset - its ability to gather news and present it objectively in ways no alternative medium can.  Instead, it has moved toward opinion journalism, journalism intended to "make a difference."  The audience is rejecting the change.  Many people feel they no longer need newspapers if those papers are simply going to be extended editorials. 

The future of the press is in the press's hands.  It always has been.  Those hands, today, seem less than capable.

November 2, 2008.