Doesn’t Fit the Narative
Over at Shadow’s World a writer makes an observation about press coverage.
On Saturday, there were “Tea Party” tax protests held in Orlando FL, Raleigh NC, Ridgefield CT, and Cincinnati OH. Round-up here.
Today I opened my Sunday Washington Post, and what did I find?
On the front page, below the fold, an article on Obama’s “volunteer” campaign (Obama’s Campaign Army on Road Again).
On page A-8, an article on a rally outside the AIG offices in Washington (In the Capital, a Glut of Outrage).
On page A-10, a full-page article on the anti-AIG demonstration outside the home of AIG executive Douglas Poling in Fairfield CT (Obama Looks for Calm in a Firestorm).
On page A-16, an article on the anti-war (in Iraq) march from the National Mall to the Pentagon (Protestors Mark Milestone). The largest demonstration (against the war) was estimated at 2000-2500 people.
The Tea Parties linked to above were more widespread, and at least one was larger than those reported on by the Post. Did I see any coverage of the Tea Parties?
Its been widely reported that their was more media covering the AIG protests than actual protesters. However, you assemble several thousands people to protest the government’s expansion and you can’t get a single reporter to show up. How can anyone seriously argue that the MSM is neutral when things like this happen?
It reminds me in the last couple of years the ridiculous amount of coverage small groups of Iraq war protester received. Just because only a small amount of radicals were showing up to protest doesn’t mean MSM shouldn’t give it extensive coverage. No, what determines coverage is whether it fits their narrative. Iraq war is bad so we cover the protest. Corporations are bad so we cover the protest of bigwigs getting bonuses. Expansion of federal government is good so we ignore those that protest it. Good olde bias news coverage. You just can’t get enough of it can you?
March 25th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Our news media is proving itself worthless. Luckily, the populace understands this on some level, as evidenced by the drop in newspaper sales.
The market seems primed for a new direction.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
It is funny you mention this. I brought the story with me to work written from AP about the protestors outside of AIG houses. Yes there were 40 of them. Less than the number of reporters covering it. I showed my coworkers this story (which was on the second page of the main newspaper here and I then showed them via Instapundit the tea parties. I said why is there no MSM coverage of this as there are thousands in Orlanda for the tea party. The explanation I recieve is not one of MSM bias. First I am told that I only see bias because I am looking for it. Then I am told there is more outrage in this country right now from AIG than big government. What part of the denial is from pride and what part is from stupidity?
March 25th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
If you measure ‘outrage in the country’ based on people willing to protest then you would have to concede outrage towards bail out and budget far exceed the outrage of AIG bonuses.
Many people that lean left but have never had their beliefs challenged about MSM bias simply assume that news coverage is neutral. When confronted with clear and obvious examples illustrating the bias they often point to confounding factors. In this case, the argument that ‘the nation’ is more angry about the bonuses then the bail out.
By the way, when someone says ‘the nation’, ‘the American people’, or ‘the country’, what they are actually saying is I. Thus when those who argue with you about the MSM left lean say ‘the country is more outraged about the bonuses than the bailout’ what they are actually saying is that ‘I am more outraged about the bonuses that the bailout’.
Of course the irony being that they are biased by their own outrage that they fail to see how a significant portion of the rest of the population might be outraged by something else. Because the MSM narrative is congruent with their own narrative they fail to realize that the MSM is ignoring other narratives. Ultimately this leads them to argue that the left leaning MSM narrative is free of bias when in fact its because of its bias that they think its neutral. Oh the painful irony.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Pfft. Steve, you have a severe sampling bias. In 2003, when there were half a million people protesting the Iraq war in DC, and two hundred counter-protesters, the counter-protesters got vastly disproportionate MSM coverage.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Prove that to me.
March 26th, 2009 at 8:28 am
The thing is, we need a villian. It’s easy to get mad at AIG executives getting million dollar bonuses. It’s harder to get mad at a government that is overspending to give everybody (supposedly) more stuff and services. Especially when that government is being led by Mr. Hope and Change. Obama’s too likeable to be the face of villainy that you want him to be.
March 26th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Steve - I can do the same thing you do, cite facts that were omitted in the MSM narrative that would paint a picture sympathetic to a particular position, and ‘facts’ that were exaggerated/hyped in the MSM account that turned out to be false or irrelevant.
Would you accept this as proof that the MSM has a conservative bias, or do you acknowledge that the type of evidence you present is wholly inadequate to demonstrate a bias?
I don’t think that’s it, Michael. Most Americans, even if they disagree with the way the bailout plan is organized, feel that government action is necessary to protect the money they have in the bank.
March 26th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Does that mean you don’t have evidence to back up:
March 27th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Dan, we already have a system to protect the money in the bank. It’s called the FDIC and it’s been doing a pretty good job of it. It takes screwed up banks, nationalizes them briefly, shores up their balance sheets, then resells them to a private firm. However, conservatives like Steve probably don’t like this idea since it has that nasty “N” word, even though it would be more effective than constantly throwing more bailout money at hemmoraging banks.