Aquinas | The University of Scranton

Editorial: Election coverage an example of media’s job
BY BRIAN TENAZAS
FORUM EDITOR
November 20, 2008 issue

The media’s effect on the election:

The news media’s importance as the primary source of information is as prominent in our lives as the rising sun. From Somali piracy to Sarah Palin’s wardrobe, most of the information we receive about current events comes from the news media. For this reason, objectivity and fairness are stressed in the journalism profession. Any hint of bias destroys the thin veil of truth around a particular story, degrading it to a subjective interpretation rather than a factual report. The 2008 election demonstrated at least two prominent, competing roles of media: “The Watchdog” and “The Agenda setter.” Both played a prominent role in the last few months of the contest.

The role of watchdog to the media is most obvious in stories about crime and government. Ever wonder about how the government is spending your tax dollars? What about that serial killer loose in the state? Reporters and editors do their best to uncover scandals, find correlations between seemingly unrelated events and generally try to maintain the well-being of the community they serve. The agenda setter follows a somewhat different mentality. The news service focuses on a particular issue in order to influence public opinion. Sometimes it goes with the watchdog role and other times it occurs completely on its own. For example, if a federal official were discovered having an affair, say with an intern, the watchdog media would write one article with a possible follow up story. If the agency wanted to make it their agenda to have the individual impeached or removed, they would do multiple negative stories over the course of two weeks to a year and vice versa with positive coverage. Agenda setting is a subtle way for a news agency to influence the public without making their entire medium an editorial page.

The two roles influenced election coverage by giving it a slight spin. The effect is so blatant, that a self-study by the Washington Post found a majority of articles portrayed Sen. Barack Obama positively. This is not because the media is “liberal” as the conservative pundits would like to label it. Rather, it is a result of its watchdog and agenda-setting nature. After eight years of President George W. Bush, many journalists feel that Obama will promote the changes American needs. The media feels that Bush did not do a great job taking care of the American public. The Iraq War wasn’t the quick action we were promised, with the president still being slammed for his now infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech. His foreign policies alienated America from the rest of the world, eroding much of the global support we rely on — Freedom fries anyone? Because of these shortcomings, the media felt it was its duty to influence change in American leadership. In order to do so, many articles focused on positive aspects of Obama’s platform. His many visits with foreign leaders garnered much support from journalists as a positive step toward mending relations with other nations. His promise to end the war and focus on domestic spending garnered great coverage from major networks. On top of which, they promoted the novelty that Sen. Obama is an African-American. Meanwhile, Gov. Palin gets slammed for wearing expensive clothing. The result is a president-elect that is supposed to be an American messiah who has a lot of promises to fulfill.

Understanding how the media operates removes the stigma of ignorance from many arguments concerning their coverage. Calling the media “liberal” is about as astute and intelligent as using socialism and communism interchangeably. Journalists are simply fulfilling their role in society as our agents of change. Their voice is as strong as ours — it’s just that theirs is a little louder.