Sarah Palin in the Media

I stumbled upon this article detailing Sarah Palin's job performance as Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26695078/.

This article provides excellent investigative reporting by the Washington Post on Palin. It is biased against her by talking about all of the bad that resulted from her holding the position of mayor a good 95% of the time. Although presented in a highly biased way (the author of the article could easily have focused on good things on Palin's record, good things about her character, positive commentary from citizens on her job performance, or used various techniques in word choice and transitions to represent the same facts that make her look bad in a not so biased way), I still think this is a great article.

Why? Because it is working to find the truth about Palin.

"Both the US and European models of news are fact-driven and committed to accuracy. The Europeans argue, however, that facts yield truth only when sorted through and subjected to analysis. Truth, a word for broad understanding, does not result automatically from an array of facts or quotes from shoting partisans. In short, the Europeans caution, don't confuse facts and factual accuracy with truth, which is broader and more important." -John Vivian, The Media of Mass Communication, 2008

What is better? A fair and balanced, non-biased article that pits opposing statements next to opposing facts without putting anything into a prospective or weighing the importance and legitimacy of those statements or facts, that seeks to represent the truth? Or a biased article, written in a biased tone with a severe lack of opposing viewpoints and statements, that seeks to represent the truth?

For anyone that follows the political media, and anyone who accuesses the media of bias, this is a very important question to deal with. I believe the Washington Post article about Palin was completely bias. However, its journalistic qualities are sound. This quote, which has not been presented to me by anyone else except the author of this article, really makes me wonder why the McCain campaign is spending their time trumping up Palin's experience as mayor:

"Arriving in office, Palin herself played down the demands of the job in response to residents who worried that her move to oust veteran officials would leave the town in the lurch. 'It's not rocket science,' Palin said, according to the town newspaper, the Frontiersman. 'It's $6 million and 53 employees.'"

I think that any journalism that seeks to find the truth should be appreciated and valued, even if it is biased. The problem is, often times biased journalism is presented as actual news. It is given a headline on the homepage of a website or given a spot on the front page of a newspaper. 95% of the people who then read the article think it is the word of God and the facts are indisputable. They do not realize that taking out a sentence or two, writing with a balanced tone, changing certain words, or including quotes from opposite viewpoints could change the opinion the reader has after reading this article all together.

News that is not biased, that does not pit fact against fact, needs to be given to the consumers as news so they can make a decision on which ideas to support without being pushed by a biased author in one direction or another. News that is biased, like this article, that does practically nothing to represent the other side, should without a doubt be reported; however, it should be reported with the disclaimer that the story does not give equal value to the opposite viewpoint. Using this disclaimer would help the consumer by allowing them to read more than statements and facts, but true analysis. It would also help the consumer by letting them know there are in fact opposing viewpoints to what they are reading, and that they should investigate those viewpoints before making up their mind.

Shame on MSNBC for putting this story on their homepage in the "Decision 08 Politics" section. Citizens of this country need fair and balanced reporting. This is not fair and balanced reporting. This is good reporting, but not fair and balanced. I have no problem with MSNBC reporting this story. I only take issue with the way they represent it as actual news. They are doing a dis-service to their readers by feeding them biased reporting and representing it as hard news.

Until we meet again, goodbye!