Marc Ambinder contemplates the nature of bias in the media, quoting Jim Vandehei and John Harris:
There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site–when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring–has made us cringe.
As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.
VandeHarris is right.
Perfect example: Jake Tapper today points to campaign photography as an example of bias in the media; there are more flattering photos of Obama than there are of McCain.
He’s right to call out that atrocious photo of Cindy McCain (why run that?) but if McCain is simply much less photogenic than Obama, as one campaign photographer points out, then isn’t it fair and accurate to have less flattering photos of him in circulation? Going the extra mile to find more flattering photos of a less-photogenic candidate for the sake of balance is bias in itself.
To use an analogy from the sports world: you can’t accuse a sports writer of being biased against Barry Bonds because she writes more negative stories about Bonds than she does about Albert Pujols. Barry Bonds is a criminal and a dickhead, while Albert Pujols is a pretty alright dude. Bonds simply lends himself to more negative coverage.
Now, McCain isn’t quite the jerk Barry Bonds is, and he’s certainly not a criminal, but his candidacy has, by any objective measure, been much more lackluster than Obama’s. Why wouldn’t the coverage reflect that?


