Sometimes media bias and/or collusion is a blatantly obvious thing to spot, like it was last Thursday when it came to unbelievably unbalanced coverage of the presidential race. Quick review: The broadcast evening news programs on ABC, NBC, and CBS covered allegations against Donald Trump by several women who claim he sexually assaulted them for more than 23 minutes combined on Thursday night.
Meanwhile, revelations in the Wikileaks email dump of Clinton campaign senior strategist John Podesta – which included derogatory comments by senior campaign officials about Catholics, Latinos, and the NAACP, sympathy for Wall Street, advocating open borders, and blatant examples of media collusion with said campaign – got a whole 1 minute and 7 seconds … combined.
Ratio of negative coverage of Trump vs Clinton – 23:1.
In print on Thursday, it was no better. The New York Times – known as the paper of record – had 11 negative stories on Trump, including one in the sports section. But zero stories on Clinton/Wikileaks.
Ratio – 11:0.
So while it’s understood the Trump allegations are an easier sell because sex always triumphs over substance, 23-1 and 11-0 is a prime example of a media that has gone off the rails with no hope of redeeming itself for some time, if ever.
But oftentimes, there are examples of the worst bias of them all: the bias of omission. And it can be as subtle as it is powerful.
DNC Chair Donna Brazile, a CNN employee at the time, passed along debate questions to Clinton before a key face-off. You can’t make this stuff up.
So when it comes to media bias, if this appears like no one ever cares how this looks anymore, it is because no one does.
Journalism – it was nice knowing ya.