A textbook case of media bias (Post-Star style)

(Ed. note: My friend at Planet Albany blog used that title for a recent entry so I offer this title not as plagiarism but as an hommage)

Last night, New York Libertarian state chair Eric Sundwall was in Glens Falls to talk about his participation in the race for the state's open 20th Congressional District seat, vacated by US Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.

I will have a report on the event hopefully tomorrow or Sunday. I was the only journalist in attendance for the whole event, as the two members of the local commercial media left after 15-20 minutes and missed 75 percent of what happened.

I am not yet endorsing a candidate, as I know little about Democrat Scott Murphy (though I've been very unimpressed by what I've seen so far).

However, this blog has taken a consistent position in favor of real multipartyism. This blog has also consistently advocated in favor of smaller party and independent candidates getting comparable media coverage to Democrats and Republicans, for such candidates to be included in all debates and for electoral law to be unrigged to allow more candidates to make the ballot without gigantic and unreasonable hurdles. I maintain it is indispensible to our democracy to reintroduce real choice to our democracy. There is no reason why Americans can handle 50 different choices of white bread in the supermarket but will faint with confusion if they have more than two political candidates.

When I report on such "third party" candidates or post information about them or their websites, it's not necessarily because I endorse them (unless I explicitly say so). I do so because I believe that voters should have as much knowledge as possible so they can make an informed decision. And if the corporate media is going to refuse to provide that information, I will fill in that gap as much as I can as a non-professional blogger.

For example, last year, I provided information about and websites for ALL the smaller party and independent presidential candidates on the ballot in New York. I did so as a public service, even though it was clear I only endorsed one. I did so because even though I believed one was the best candidate, I wanted to make sure everyone had access to the same information so they could make that decision. I am a citizen first and a partisan advocate after. I didn't decree who was "serious" or not. I provided the information and let people make up their own minds.

I believe that voters alone should decide who is viable. When the mainstream media blackout "third party" candidates decreeing them "not viable," it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy... especially since the media inevitably give oodles of free coverage to Democrats and Republicans.

I will always bang the drum for the right and the rightness of any smaller party or independent candidate to get a decent amount of coverage from and to be included in any debate sponsored by any media outlet that pats itself on the back as fair and claims some sort of public service role for itself.

If you want us to think you are fair, then don't tell us. Show us!

The local Post-Star hasn't learned this lesson.

In his blog, the daily's managing editor Ken Tingley wrote of the 20th CD special election:

With two new candidates from last fall’s election, we want give our readers a chance to get to know the candidates. We are planning on doing personality profiles on each of the candidates. In our Sunday meeting, we were already discussing in what order and how far removed from the general election the profiles should run.
We really do try to be as fair as possible. We plan out our Sunday stories three and four weeks in advance in an effort to have our very best stories in the Sunday newspaper.

I wrote a comment on the blog pointing out that there were not two candidates for the seat, but three. Democrat Scott Murphy, Republican Jim Tedisco and Sundwall.

Tingley pointed out that right now, only the first two were on the ballot. Sundwall has to get signatures to make that happen, while Murphy and Tedisco were anointed by a couple of party bosses.

Usually, the mainstream media's bias against smaller party candidates isn't overt. You have to read carefully to notice the obfuscation and rationalization. The typical arguments against such candidates are...

-"They have no chance of winning" (which becomes true when the media blacks them out... the media here makes news rather than just reporting it)

-"People aren't interested in 'third party' candidates" (which is impossible to determine if people aren't made aware anything about them)

-"We DO give them coverage" (almost always a token sentence at the end of an article about the Dem and GOP stating 'Conservative Party candidate Jim the Electrician is also running.')


The 'people aren't interested' myth is also belied by evidence. In a Zogby Poll last year, 44 percent of those polled agreed that the United States' system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections.

Some of my friends attribute this bias to a corporate conspiracy against smaller-party and independent candidates. And frankly I think there is some truth to that at the higher-level races. I'm not so sure about the local races, though it's possible. Frankly, I'm reminded of the phrase "Never attribute to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence."

I think much of the bias is down to pure laziness. Professional journalists intone that there are two sides to every story. That's not true. For most stories, there are more than two sides. That takes a little digging. That takes a journalist who's willing and able to venture from the standard narrative to give a fuller, more nuanced picture. Giving 1 tablespoon "establishment liberal" plus 1 tablespoon "establishment conservative" plus "mix well" is a much easier recipe. Varying from the Script and offering alternative points of view takes a little more work.

But in reality, this is a pathetic excuse because it doesn't take much more work. If a reporter is going to call up Tedisco and Murphy and get their views on stimulus or agriculture or whatever, is it really that hard to phone up Sundwall and get his views on the same issue? ESPECIALLY in a special election like this where there are no other races to spread thin the paper's resources.

I hope it's down to laziness or to small minds refusing or unable to think outside the corporate box. I hope that's the case because if it's not, then maybe there really is something more sinister.

But while such contempt toward "third parties" (either conscious or through sloth) is usually more subtle, Tingley has decided to come out and admit his bias. When I asked him to promise a profile of Sundwall should he make the ballot, the Post-Star supremo responded:

If a third candidate makes the ballot that has a legitimate chance or seems like an interesting candidate, we would always consider doing a profile on them as well.

So in order to get a profile, you have to be seen as legitimate (hard to do when the media consciously ignores you) and you have to be 'interesting' (Scott Murphy doesn't seem to fit this bill).

I take that back.

You need those things before they will CONSIDER giving you a profile.

Translation: Sundwall has no chance in hell of getting the hagiography that The Post-Star has promised to Murphy and Tedisco.

Even my father, an old-school journalist and establishment Democrat with little sympathy for smaller parties, described Tingley's comments as unprofessional.

Tingley is openly admitting that he has differently rules for how "third party" candidates are treated than for how Democrats and Republicans are treated, the very definition of the phrase 'double standards.'

"We really do try to be as fair as possible," whined Tingley in his blog entry.

Openly admitting you have double standards does not fit most people's definition of "as fair as possible."

"We really do try to be as fair as possible."

Refusing to give comparable coverage to all the candidates, when it's quite easy to do so, does not fit most people's definition of "as fair as possible."

"We really do try to be as fair as possible."

Clearly they're need to try a lot harder.


Update: In another blog entry on the topic, Tingley reiterated that they "do try to be fair and balanced and we talk about how to maintain that balance all the time. And that includes third-party candidates as well."

The very definition of the word balance requires that his paper give equal (I'd settle for comparable) coverage to all the candidates.

If he's going to pat his paper on the back for these qualities, he has to expect others to hold the paper to the standards they set for themselves! The paper demands accountability of others. Readers need to demand the same of the daily.