An essay on anti-McCain bias.

Of the numerous tools word slingers have at their disposal none is as difficult to control as personal bias. As a source of information most news organizations attempt to offer an unbiased overview of the facts. People rely on this stream of news to create their own opinion on specific issues. When supposedly neutral news becomes corrupted with personal views or agendas the entire process of informed opinion is perverted. Our judgments become moot, having no definitive basis in truth. The issue of media bias is especially important during a presidential election.

Amidst a worsening economic environment and an increasingly hostile perception internationally, the election has overwhelmingly captured the attention of Americans across the nation. Because of this increase in interest the debate concerning the extent to which media bias can influence the outcome of an election has taken on greater relevance.

Over the past few months the majority of bias accusations have originated from the McCain campaign. Previously, McCain’s relationship with the media had been one of mutual respect. Campaigning across the nation from his famous “straight talk express” RV, McCain would host informal question and answer sessions; no subject was considered taboo. Such unfettered access to a politician was an unusual event and contributed to the media’s positive perception of McCain. Reporters were charmed by McCain’s sincerity and frankness. These spin-free interactions cemented his reputation as a different breed of politician. However, a shift in public opinion of Republicans would soon force McCain to reevaluate this relationship.

With many people placing blame for the nation’s current problems squarely at the feet of Republicans, McCain faced an uphill battle to the presidency. Apparently he felt that the only path to success lay in the adoption of techniques pioneered by Karl Rove. As an advisor to Bush, Rove proved a master at influencing public opinion. This change in strategies necessitated a complete severing of McCain’s previous rapport with the press. Honest discourse was replaced with strict adherence to specific messages. The press found it difficult to reconcile this abrupt change in attitude. In my opinion the previous events created an environment resulting in possible media bias.

As a regular reader of the news, I have rarely come across blatant instances of bias. I believe the issue has been blown out of proportion. Further muddying the waters has been the Republican response of crying foul at every opportunity. Accusations of bias are utilized as just another political tool in the arsenal. These claims are used as a way to invalidate any objectionable stories and further the idea of an all-encompassing liberal agenda. It is impossible to diagnose bias when each person views the news through the filter of their political affiliation. The media’s neutrality has become the latest casualty in the war on public opinion. In the face of this onslaught it is no surprise that viewers have gravitated toward sources that merely validate their own personal beliefs. However, as a benefit of this increased interest news organizations have strived to prevent the insertion of bias.

When not being used as a political tool, accusations of bias in the media serve an important function in the relationship between the source and receiver. With the public’s greater awareness of bias, news organizations are placing more emphasis on remaining neutral. This is a reassuring notion in our world of conflicting perspectives.

Where has the middle ground gone?

Was there ever a time when the word bipartisan had any basis in reality? Politicians appear to have no interest in working together for a common cause. They grasp at every opportunity to flash the middle finger to the opposing party.

Take Nancy Pelosi's recent speech before the vote on the big bailout. She spouted the same rhetoric blaming Dubya and the Republicans for the current economic disaster. Is it true? Hell, yeah. But doesn't the severity our predicament take precedence over finger-pointing? Was there no other venue she could have used? After years of abuse by the Repubs. Pelosi just wants to lash out wherever she can. Hell hath no fury like a speaker of the house spurned.

By reacting exactly as her opposites have, she has proven just how similar they are. Any resolution to important issues takes a back seat to the great game of politics. I find the selfishness of our politicians disconcerting. They are elected to represent the people but they rarely act like it. Unfortunately, progress on issues is viewed as secondary to personal feelings of enmity.