The proof we need?

[Jackie Treehorn]

From Toby Harnden's (editor for Mail Online) blog:


"In South Carolina, it was an open secret that the press were rooting for Gingrich, not out of bias or any belief that he would be a weaker candidate against Obama but simply because the press wants a good story and a knock-down, drag-out battle for the GOP nomination to cover."

http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/01/newt-gingrichs-big-slobbering-mutual-love-affair-with-the-elite-media.html

Now, not only has objectivity gone out the window, but media bias is being openly flaunted (almost bragged about).

[Varin]

I believe it think it was the same with Santorum/Huntsman the press just looking for the best story. They got a 24h news cycle to cover without a surge no story.

[69360]

Proof for what?

It's not illegal for the press to favor a candidate and they do.

[Jackie Treehorn]

Proof for what?

It's not illegal for the press to favor a candidate and they do.

But don't you think that open admittance of "pulling for a candidate" is a slippery slope to blatantly biased coverage?

[Bruno]

If they don't have news, they will just make news.

[bcreps85]

The proof has existed forever. It is there in edited interviews to make Ron Paul look bad, graphics that cover candidates who are doing far worse yet leave out Ron Paul, time spent covering each candidate, the manner in which they are covered, and the fact that people in the media being caught on camera basically saying that "Ron Paul can't win and it is being dealt with".

As far as I see it, this sort of thing is outright treason, but the argument will always be made that the private media can cover whatever it wants. That being said, I still don't understand how they can outright lie without repercussion. They've been reporting open primaries as closed primaries, they've misstated his stances on issues, misstated his finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, had that full day of the article from AP about the first class tickets that was an outright lie, and I still occasionally see sources pick up the newsletter issue and falsely state that he actually wrote them...

Bias can be proved. Reporting lies can be proved. The question is whether or not anything can legally be done about it...

[69360]

But don't you think that open admittance of "pulling for a candidate" is a slippery slope to blatantly biased coverage?

It's not illegal and the coverage already is blatantly biased.

What do you hope to accomplish?