Unlike in the primaries, when there was much unconscious but blatant sexism in reporting on Hillary Clinton, the media is doing a better job of guarding against racism and ageism, and the reporting has been more balanced. The sigificantly larger attention given to Obama is, however, unfair and troubling. As an “historical first” there is a certain newsworthiness about Obama, but I think the media should try very hard to give equal time to both candidates.  Seelye’s column sites several serious sudies of media treatment of the candidates. These are important, but they don’t take into consideration the problem of framing. Articles and clips may be filled with positive phrases or words about a candidate, but if the basic way questions and issues are framed assumes the viewpoint of the other candidate, then readers or viewers will come away with a damaging impression of the candidate. Both politicians and journalists are very aware of this technique and use it in subtle ways, so statistical studies are still of limited value.  I agree that MSNBC is a bit partisan toward Obama. A number of other broadcasters have also expressed emotional excitement when they talk about Obama and not about McCain. Pundits and journalists should refrain from expressing more enthusiasm for one candidate than another. I think many in the press are wannabe Obamas and envy him, while others feel unconsciously attracted by his comparative youth or the way he speaks, which is closer to the way most media people speak, except at Fox. Perhaps without realizing it, many in the press seem to feel that Obama is “one of us,” and they have bonded emotionally with him. This is natural, so the media should develop self-checking systems to prevent journalists from losing objectivity. As professionals, they must keep cool and unswayed by their unconscious biases and unexamined emotions.  Media participation in the recent Obama trip seemed excessive to many Americans, who obviously had a negative reaction. If Obama and McCain had been traveling together, the large-scale media treatment would have been justified, since it would have been a bipartisan tour. Following only one candidate, the media ended up blurring the line between reporting and providing free political advertising. The numerous free photo-ops the media provided to the Obama camaign verged on partisan cheerleading, and the questions asked to Obama about the wisdom of his opposition to the successful surge were mostly much too easy. And the European part of the trip was pure politicking, so it should have received considerably less coverage. The media needs to make up for its lazy celebrity-reporting type of treatment during the trip by asking more follow-up questions now.  To me it was natural that McCain protested against the clear bias toward Obama shown during reporting of Obama’s trip, and if this happens again, I hope McCain will again protest. Some of McCain’s statements were humorous and imaginative, and some were negative, but this was understandable during a period of media focus on Obama.  The best way to reduce excessively negative campaigning is for the media to provide rigorously equal coverage. Then the candidates will lose much of their justification for overly negative campaigning. Unfortunately, both campaigns are engaging in negative campaigning, so it would be helpful if the press did more to analyze and criticize the negative hype from both campaigns equally. Also, the public knows more of both good and bad about McCain, since he’s been around a long time. Since Obama is rather new, the press has a tendency to take his rhetoric at face value. It has an obligation to show more skepticism and to maintain more critical distance vrom Obama in the future. The media must treat both candidates as if they were ordinary politicians open to normal criticisms.
A politics blog by the staff of The New York Times.  The Caucus analyzes the latest political news from Washington and around the country and looks ahead to the 2008 presidential election.