The hatred for Hillary & Bill (greater than anything directed at George W. Bush) is so venomous it could melt the video tube. I suspect the Media have never forgiven Bill for maintaining his popularity and not being kicked out of office in spite of all the effort they spent trying to bring him down. Everybody wants to be Woodward & Bernstein, even Woodward & Bernstein.

Similarly, the love affair with Obama. There are not words enough of praise, even if, as it turns out, most of Obama’s words come from others.

Hillary can barely open her mouth without generating criticism. Nothing Obama says or does is bad; there is always an explanation.

The only positive side to an Obama-McCain race in the GE is that, since the Media love both men, there is a chance that the coverage will be fair.

Jeff does an excellent job of dissecting the subtle nuances of media bias that has driven conservatives nuts for years. Has anyone noticed that recent Hillary pictures are often presented with exaggerated facial expressions while Obama is usually presented as very calm and collected? What the public craves is honesty from the press, they have grown weary of these types of games and are savvy enough to ignore them. This constant subtle manipulation to stage a story in a particular way defines the current traditional media and also helps to explain why they are losing market share to the more diverse internet blogosphere.

The question I have is what percentage of this behavior is done consciously and/or subconsciously by the individuals who make up the traditional media? Do they actually make decisions behind closed doors to submarine the Clintons? Or does it just play out that way as the herd mentality takes over?

After all, I judge the merit of political books by how well they’re footnoted. No footnotes? Then there’s nothing to support your opinions and comments and you’re wasting my time.

Of course, I’m assuming that people want the unvarnished truth rather than just believing what they want to believe. And that’s a huge assumption.

Moreover, how much would it take to convince people predisposed to believe in bias that no such bias exists (if in fact it does not exist in a particular case)?

No answers, just questions.

I have tried to point out that the media has an inherent bias to the left on this site over the years and Jeff has been honest and fair.

The whole Democratic examination of the media from a conservative perspective does remind me of the kid who thought the bullies were having fun and it is not big deal when their ire was directed in another direction.

But when the bullies aim at oneself then it takes on a whole different flavor. I agree that we all have our biases and Jeff has been a standup guy on that point, it is one of the reasons I appreciate his site.

Now the Democrats have to recognize that these biases are there and that they either need to be recognized and on the record, or that the Republicans have had a point and that there needs to be more diversity in the newsroom.

Let’s face it, the biggest problem Hillary’s got is this:

Bush, Clinton, Bush… Clinton?

That’s not the media’s fault.

Personally, I think voting intention is a private matter. It can be volunteered but there should be no rule or expectation that it be divulged. Journalists have views, but professionally they should keep that separate as much as possible and report in a fair manner. If that is not done, then flag it up, but I don’t think its right for them to declare their voting intention, I think that is an invasion of privacy.

Mr. Jarvis: Learn to live with it. Others have.

I live in Iowa. I saw all the candidates. And I caucused for John Edwards.

When I saw Hillary Clinton speak to 1200 people in my hometown, I thought the performance was “dry and tiresomely programmatic.” Other Iowans I know detected in the campaign a “sense of entitlement.”

When I saw Obama speak to a similar sized crowd, his speech was a little “mesmerizing,” the crowd seemed “enraptured,” and his charisma looked indeed “boundless.” (using the words of Terrance Smith)

None of this was enough to move me off my support for Edwards. (For the record, when I saw him speak, he was very passionate. He pushed to remind me of the things which seem to be at the root of America’s problems. I felt re-inspired that these problems can, in fact, be overcome.)

But… I did not have to cover these events as a journalist. If I did, I think I would have a hard time not weaving these impressions into the coverage. In fact, would you want me to ignore these things in my coverage?

If I were a reader in California, reading about the candidate appearances in small town Iowa, I could read the text of the speech for myself. I could read the candidate position statements on the Web. So what I would really like the reporter on the ground to give me is some flavor of the crowd, some sense of the candidate’s demeanor, some indication of how the crowd responded. How can we accomplish that?

(To be fair, I know others who met Clinton in very small groups, 12-20, and they were impressed by her warmth. From seeing her on stage and on television, they were surprised to find such a real person in their living room. I tend to believe this disconnect between Clinton’s abilities in small groups vs large groups to be something that is “real” to some degree and not a manufactured by the media. But other can disagree.)

Keith

Furthermore, where would it end? Would a city reporter have to disclose his displeasure for potholes when reporting on the road resurfacing budget?

And to what degree does one have to disclose? Being a supporter of Hillary: does that mean that’s who you’re passively voting for, or does that mean you are passionately promoting her via blog posts, phone calls, coffee shop debate, financial contributions, etc. etc?

Would it be enough to know who Chris Matthews is voting for, or should you also know how much money he contributed, how much time he contributed, how many people he called and lobbied off the air?

This disclosure thing is a non-starter, Jeff. Life is too messy. This type of disclosure would create more problems than it would solve. We’d have to come up with a new label: Misinformation Disclosure - disclosure that is the truth, but not the whole truth.

It would simply be easier for us to eliminate the expectation of that myth called objectivity from journalism. Editorialize everything and let the reader do his own due diligence.

Journalists such as Cilizza and Downie choose not to vote for two reasons. First, they genuinely believe that it reflects their commitment to fairness. Second, there is the pragmatic recognition that, in today’s attack-environment for journalism, voting (and revealing their vote) would summon the howling pack.

The last thirty years have been a free-fire zone against the press–a conscious effort (largely by the conservatives) to gain political advantage and de-fang the watchdog. The left has done little to defend the institution upon which they–and all of us–depend for the information we need as citizens.

Like the fellow who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he’s an orphan, conservatives today decry the lack of respect for authority and institutions–yet have been central in destroying the credibility of the press, government at all levels, higher education and public schools. I am not complaining about the legitimate criticism due here–I am pointing out that conservatives benefit politically by demonizing these flawed but vital institutions.

Over at BuzzMachine, Jeff Jarvis, director of the interactive journalism program at City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism, makes a cogent argument in this election season for making political journalists reveal their votes and th…

For years the GOP has been railing about the media’s subjectivity against them. So why does it only becomes an “issue” when they turn against your candidate, Jarvis?

I’d like to wager that if Hillary gets the nomination, and the media bias is on her side during the general election, your request for transparency will change.

It is interesting that lifelong Democrats are seeing this as a new phenomenon while Republican’s have been dealing with it for decades.

It is tough to have the press against you when trying to support your candidate.