Friday, July 25, 2008




As I read Chapter 11 in Rodman I came across a section concerning media bias in covering politics. Political bias in the media is an interesting topic. Each side of the political spectrum has their own organizations which measures the amount of political bias in the news media. Rodman pokes a little bit of fun at these organizations citing that the “anti-Republican AIM claims for example that 80 to 90 percent of mainstream media consistently vote for democrats . . . while liberal organizations such as FAIR say that media often have a conservative bias.” (376-77) these comments lead to a question posed in the text by Rodman “should reporters give up political involvement, including party registration and voting?’

The idea of having journalist drop political ties in the name of journalism is the wrong way to approach the problem of media bias. In the Rodman chapters he not only talks about blatant political bias but also what is known as the “Creeping Bias” (379). This bias is a “subtle form of slanting that manifests itself in understated ways such as placement of stories, the choice of photos, and the captions that go with them.” (379) Rodman answers his own question that eliminating journalist’s political ties will not stop media bias. There is a natural bias everyone has towards political issues erasing their political ties will only leave educated voices out of the voting and political process.

1 comment:

rtsunoda said...

"There is a natural bias everyone has towards political issues erasing their political ties will only leave educated voices out of the voting and political process."

Exactly. If not, we'd have already abolished the generally redundant party system and then the news (especially regarding political campaigns) would lose half of its viewing material. With this, can we really take the news so seriously when most of the coverage regards capital events that only the lay-z-boy warriors could think twice about?

As for political ties NULL of said party system, what of widely-known journalists such as Mohandas Gandhi, who's "political stance" was merely seated in truth and love? He single-handedly influenced masses in South Africa and India, and eventually became a name that would indignify those who didn't know it. Unlike many of the journalists here in the USA, aside from views, he was willing to suffer for his opinions, mostly ideal. Strangely, he doesn't seem to be mentioned once in the Rodman text.

While bias is needed in a lot of today's media, not all of it has to be political.