By Joe Concha - 10-17-16 08:23 AM EDT
Sometimes media bias and/or collusion is a blatantly obvious thing to spot, like it was last Thursday when it came to hilariously unbalanced coverage regarding Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Quick review: The broadcast evening news programs on ABC, NBC and CBS covered allegations against Trump by several women who claim he sexually assaulted them for more than 23 minutes combined on Thursday night.
But revelations in the WikiLeaks email dump of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta - which included derogatory comments by senior campaign officials about Catholics, Latinos and the NAACP, sympathy for Wall Street, advocation for open borders and blatant examples of media collusion with said campaign - got a whole 1 minute and 7 seconds combined.
Ratio of negative coverage of Trump vs. Clinton: 23:1.
In print on Thursday, it was no better. The New York Times - known as the paper of record - had 11 negative stories on Trump, including one in the sports section. But zero on Clinton/WikiLeaks.
Ratio: 11:0.
So while it's understood the Trump allegations are an easier sell because sex always triumphs over substance, 23:1 and 11:0 is a prime example of a media that has gone off the rails with no hope of redeeming itself for some time, if ever.
But oftentimes there are examples of the worst bias of them all: The bias of omission. And it can be as subtle as it is powerful.
Today's lesson comes as a poll conducted by The Washington Post and ABC News. In it, the poll asks participants 38 questions about the two candidates. And six of those questions pertained to sexual assault allegations against Trump:
Q: (AMONG REGISTERED VOTERS) There's a videotape recorded 11 years ago in which Trump talks about his sexual advances toward women. Given what you've heard or read about it, do Trump's comments on this tape make you (more) or (less) likely to vote for him for president?
Q: (AMONG REGISTERED VOTERS) Trump has apologized for his comments on this tape. Do you think his apology is sincere or not sincere?
Q: (AMONG REGISTERED VOTERS) (Men: In your experience)/(Women: As far as you know), are Trump's comments typical locker-room talk by men, or do his comments go beyond how men typically talk about women?
Q: (AMONG REGISTERED VOTERS) Do you think Trump probably has or has not made unwanted sexual advances toward women?
Q: (AMONG REGISTERED VOTERS) Do you think Trump's treatment of women is or is not a legitimate issue in the presidential election? IF LEGITIMATE ISSUE: How important is this issue in your vote for president: Extremely important, very important, somewhat important, not so important or not important at all?
Q: (AMONG REGISTERED VOTERS) Who do you trust more to handle women's rights - (Clinton) or (Trump)?
Of the 38 questions that were asked, take a guess as to how many pertained to Clinton and the many revelations in the WikiLeaks's dump of Podesta emails.
Zero.
None.
This isn't the first time a Washington Post/ABC News poll has illustrated an inability to even remotely make any attempt at balance.
Back in May, the same two entities ran a joint poll that showed Trump leading Clinton 46 to 44 percent. But in the same poll, the Post and ABC - completely out of nowhere - presented participants with a hypothetical question:
Q: How about if the candidates were (Hillary Clinton, the Democrat), (Donald Trump, the Republican) and Mitt Romney, running as an independent candidate, for whom would you vote? Would you lean toward (Clinton), (Trump) or Romney?
Romney hadn't even hinted at that point at jumping into the race. But by splitting the Republican vote by inserting Romney, it allowed Clinton to "lead" in that part of the poll.
You can't make this stuff up.
Bias can be blatant and easy to spot.
It can, for example, be Donna Brazile - a CNN employee at the time - sharing a question ahead of a debate with the Clinton campaign. Brazile said, in an email, that such questions were sent to her in advance "from time to time." Meaning the collusion could have occurred more than once. Amazingly, CNN has refused to even open an internal investigation via an outside firm in an effort to restore confidence and credibility with its audience to track down the culprit or culprits.
That's bias and suppression with a capital B.S.
And then there are the more subtle examples, like questions inserted into a presidential poll.
Six questions for Trump as it pertains to allegations against him by a growing number of women.
Zero questions regarding Clinton's latest and biggest Achilles' heel.
If this appears like no one ever cares how this looks anymore, it's because no one does.
Journalism - it was nice knowing ya.
Concha is a media reporter for The Hill.
The views expressed by Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill
No comments:
Post a Comment