Fair And Balanced Media, continued

There’s no conspiracy, friends and family say whose beliefs align with those self-identifying Democrats who work for the news media. I’ll concede the point, but at the same time, I think it’s essential to note that these non-conspiratorial media folk are not hiding their own opinions, and their opinions are liberal.

Media, of course, includes the various types of entertainment TV, and in this area, where apparently there is no FAA requirement for equal time, the Democrats are making the most of the existent bias.

Back in April Fox News reported that First Lady Michelle Obama already had more TV appearances than any of her predecessors in the first four years in the White House. Laura Bush, with her literacy program, tallied twelve TV appearances. Mrs. Obama? Forty-four. And still going strong.

Since the end of the two political conventions, she made “her first visits to ‘The Dr. Oz Show’ and ‘Rachael Ray’ for appearances that will air in September” and “her third appearance on the ‘Late Show with David Letterman.’ ” (Washington Post)

Obama’s appearances are working for her, [Doug] Schoen [a Democratic political strategist] said.

“I think Michelle Obama is a terrific asset for the president,” he said.

[Dan] Gainor [of the Media Research Center] had no quarrel with that claim, but said it’s all about the 2012 race.

Michelle Obama gains “an overwhelmingly amount of positive coverage” from being on these shows, said Gainor, who also added that these appearances allow her to campaign for her husband.

“What she’s doing is political,” said Gainor. “She’s getting her face out there because it’s an election year.” (see “Michelle Obama becoming the most televised first lady” by Bree Tracey)

Is it any wonder, then, that with a 69 percent favorable rating, she has replaced Hillary Clinton as the most popular national political figure? (See “Poll: Michelle Obama and Ann Romney more popular than their husbands” by Alicia M. Cohn)

But what about Ann Romney? Apparently she’s been on Entertainment Tonight, but primarily her interaction with TV has been a clash with Hilary Rosen over stay-at-home moms, a jab by the executive producer of Modern Family and critiques of what she wears based on how much her outfits cost.

What’s the average person to do with this? First, realize that, sans conspiracy, the media is still all about forming public opinion. There’s a reason David Letterman invited Michelle Obama onto his show three times. There’s a reason pundits talk about how expensive Anne Romney’s clothes are instead of what she said when she was speaking. Granted, she got coverage when she spoke at the RNC, but it was short lived.

So far I haven’t seen her name mentioned in the promos for the talk shows, day or night. Maybe I missed it.

Second, I think the average person can appreciate what Mrs. Obama is doing for her various causes, but weigh those, along with her likable personality, against her positions on marriage, life, size and role of government, and so on. One issue ought not sway a person to believe every word that person says is gospel.

Third, I think it’s judicious to ask questions of those who are criticizing Mrs. Romney. For example, is it their usual practice to discuss the cost of the clothing speakers wear? Did we hear how much Mr. Obama’s suit cost? Or Vice President Biden’s? Or any of the other women, for that matter, who stood on the platform at the DNC?

Apparently I’m not the only blogger who has noticed the different ways the media treats the wives of the two Presidential candidates. This from Independent Women’s Forum:

First Lady Michelle Obama wore a jacket with a $6, 800 pricetag to a Buckingham Palace reception Friday night [July 27]. I could care less and hope that she enjoyed it.

Still, it is difficult not to notice the wildly different treatment the press accords to Democrats and Republicans in these matters. Remember when Ann Romney showed up in a $990 T-shirt to be interviewed on TV? The press went crazy—it showed how out of touch the rich Romneys are (as opposed to how in touch with regular folks the rich Obamas are). (“A Tale of Two Tops” by Charlotte Hays

Maybe there’s no media conspiracy, but that doesn’t mean there’s no media bias. Viewers and voters would be wise to beware.

Published in: on September 13, 2012 at 6:52 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , , ,

3 Comments

  1. Thanks for this post. People who think the media isn’t slanted are sheep. I learned that looong ago, reading women’s magazines like Redbook and O magazine, which openly shove liberal agendas down our throats. I also wrote for newspapers, and how EASY would it be to manipulate the quotes or statistics (I didn’t!)?

    My mom was astounded that the Flying Wallenda guy who went over Niagara Falls (on a tightrope, in the fog, I think?) and attributed it all to God didn’t get more coverage. Didn’t surprise me one bit.

    I hope people vote for the real issues, not the figureheads. I think that’s what we’re going to have to answer for someday.

    Like

  2. Rebecca, there really isn’t much of an effort now, even by the newscasters, to present their news as fair and unbalanced. Oh, they’ll say that they’re trying to do so, but their excuses are wearing thin. And their audience and market share is dropping precipitously, too.

    The places Ann Romney needs to be appearing are on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and Fox News. Their audiences are growing.

    Like

  3. Maybe it should be mentioned the multiple expensive, as in multi-million dollar, trips Mrs. Obama has made to Spain, The Hamptons, etc., (more than any other first lady) on our dimes and dollars. I didn’t pay for Mrs. Romney’s shirt, and she didn’t expect me to.

    Like


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: