sooner n houston
6/15/2008, 07:37 AM
from Political Diary of the WSJ -
The presidential primaries are finally over. We know how the candidates fared with voters but what did voters think of the news media that covered the race? If objectivity and balance are the goals, not well at all. A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 68% of Americans "believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win." Not surprisingly, a majority of voters also thought that Barack Obama received the most favorable coverage during the primary season.
The belief that news reporters are often news twisters isn't confined to cranky ideologues. It cuts across all racial, gender and income groups. A full 82% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats and 69% of independents believe reporters try to give an assist to the candidate they prefer. Only 17% of all voters believe most reporters actually attempt to deliver unbiased coverage.
Barack Obama is likely to be the beneficiary of this favoritism come the fall campaign. During the primaries 54% of those surveyed by Rasmussen thought he received the most favorable coverage vs. 22% for John McCain and only 14% for Hillary Clinton.
This fall, a full 44% of voters think the media will try to make Senator Obama look good while only 13% think most reporters will tilt in Senator McCain's direction. Even Democrats believe that the news media will be part of the Obama cheering section – 27% believe reporters will shape coverage in Mr. Obama's favor, 16% think they will want Mr. McCain to win, while 34% think reporters will be largely unbiased.
No real surprises in any of this. Nonetheless, I am still struck by how many reporters insist to me that they "just report the facts" and firmly believe the public overwhelmingly views them as impartial. Poll results like Rasmussen's show most readers and viewers continue to be a lot more savvy than the people delivering the news give them credit for being. Shouldn't that also be news? Somehow I doubt the Rasmussen survey will get much coverage – thereby proving its central message.
The presidential primaries are finally over. We know how the candidates fared with voters but what did voters think of the news media that covered the race? If objectivity and balance are the goals, not well at all. A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 68% of Americans "believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win." Not surprisingly, a majority of voters also thought that Barack Obama received the most favorable coverage during the primary season.
The belief that news reporters are often news twisters isn't confined to cranky ideologues. It cuts across all racial, gender and income groups. A full 82% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats and 69% of independents believe reporters try to give an assist to the candidate they prefer. Only 17% of all voters believe most reporters actually attempt to deliver unbiased coverage.
Barack Obama is likely to be the beneficiary of this favoritism come the fall campaign. During the primaries 54% of those surveyed by Rasmussen thought he received the most favorable coverage vs. 22% for John McCain and only 14% for Hillary Clinton.
This fall, a full 44% of voters think the media will try to make Senator Obama look good while only 13% think most reporters will tilt in Senator McCain's direction. Even Democrats believe that the news media will be part of the Obama cheering section – 27% believe reporters will shape coverage in Mr. Obama's favor, 16% think they will want Mr. McCain to win, while 34% think reporters will be largely unbiased.
No real surprises in any of this. Nonetheless, I am still struck by how many reporters insist to me that they "just report the facts" and firmly believe the public overwhelmingly views them as impartial. Poll results like Rasmussen's show most readers and viewers continue to be a lot more savvy than the people delivering the news give them credit for being. Shouldn't that also be news? Somehow I doubt the Rasmussen survey will get much coverage – thereby proving its central message.