Does the New York Times Favor liberal Candidates?
Printed on the left hand corner of every New York Times newspaper reads it’s motto, “All the news that’s fit to print”. After analyzing a week’s worth of political coverage by the New York Times I found the Times motto to be rather intriguing. At first glance, the motto seems trite and insignificant. Nevertheless, I found the wording to be quite revealing. “All the news that’s fit to print”. Is it possible that the New York Times is telling it’s readers right on the front page that they have the right to pick and choose what is newsworthy? However, isn’t that the job or at least the power of any media outlet? Therefore, if every media outlet is picking and choosing what news deserves to be discussed and broadcasted to the world, is it possible for any publication to be truly unbiased? Throughout the week of October 8th, I carefully examined all of the McCain and Obama coverage printed by The New York Times in order to attempt to answer such questions by paying close attention to the story they are trying to tell, the language used and sheer amount of coverage for each candidate, and finally whether it matters at all.
On October 8, 2008 the headline read, “McCain Excites Crowds With Criticism of Obama”. Sometimes it can be hard to tell whether a reporter is criticizing a public figure, or simply stating the truth. One of the clear indicators of a bias in the press is through careful examination of language. However, examination of the context that surrounds the situation is also a very important determining factor. Since McCain announced Palin as his running mate, the campaign has taken a noticeable turn. Palin clearly resonates with a certain “type” of citizen and alienates the other. The New York Times seems to be painting a definite negative picture of John McCain’s rallies. “As the crowd booed angrily at each mention of Mr. Obama’s name, Mr. McCain threw himself more vigorously into his speech” (NYTimes.com. 10/08/2008).
Throughout the Times article Bumiller, the reporter emphasizes not only on McCain and Palin’s reactions, but the result of those actions. “Where it is the sharp criticism of Mr. Obama, rather than Mr. McCain’s once over comments on the economy that draw the biggest, loudest response from the conservative and almost all-white crowds that come to see Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin” (NYTimes.com. 10/08/2008). It is clear that the Times wants to paint a picture of a narrow group of people that makes up a small portion of our country. In the Times article, McCain is never portrayed as a man that can help to bring people together, in fact it appears that he is a man that stirs up crowds which creates alienation. Ironically, Barack Obama’s entire campaign is based on the exact opposite approach. An article written on October 14, by Adam Nossiter goes even further to cast particular characters as the main focus of the story that are directly linked with McCain and the “type” of campaign he seems to be running. In the third paragraph of the article, Nossiter introduces his audience to Ricky Thompson, a factory worker from Mobile Mississippi. “He’s other, It’s in the Bible. Come as one. Don’t create other breeds” (NYTimes.com. 10/12/2008), said Thompson when referring to Barack Obama. Excluding the tiny population of Mobil Mississippi, and southern towns alike it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that the majority of American people would find this statement to be ludicrous, and down-right laughable. Adam Nossiter and the New York Times are very aware of this fact. Nossiters article makes McCain supporters sound like uneducated “poor white trash”. An opposing argument to the tactics of The New York Times would point out that of course the responses to Obama in a rural southern area would resemble such ridiculous and racist views. However, are the residents of Mobil Mississippi not McCain supporters? Are the residents of Mobil Mississippi not eligible to vote in the United States of America? Suppose that Nossiter went to a Hollywood movie premier and asked celebrities the same questions that were asked to the mobil citizens. I believe that it would be just as easy to predict the answers from that crowd as it was to predict of the Mobil citizens. Where exactly in America can you find a fair playing ground where no predictability can be accountable for? The answer is nowhere. However, a solution to that problem might be to question citizens from many different areas. The New York Times article never does that. Rossiter interviewed several people from a few different small southern towns and although as the article progresses, the blatant racism and ignorance does appear to lighten up, every patron still has some type of racist undertone and overall every answer is stupid. In the end, the article will not disappoint in widening millions of readers mouths across the globe, and closing there papers thinking if these are the type of people that follow John McCain, I don’t think I will put myself with the likes of them.
Word usage can be a powerful indicator of bias. Phrases set a certain tone to writing that although subtle, are definitely pertinent. Word usage of even, but, unlike, or an overall sarcastic tone can give the story a biased appearance. Phrases like “unlike his opponent, Senator John McCain” (NYTimes.com. 10/8/2008) indicate a superior feeling towards Senator Obama. This type of phrasing sends a subliminal message that Senator Obama has done something right “unlike his opponent John McCain” with ought blatantly saying Obama is good, McCain is bad. The words that New York Times journalists focus on give an overall feeling that seems to favor one candidate over the other. McCain is almost never mentioned with ought any criticism and it usually focuses on comparing him to Barack Obama. On the contrary, whenever Senator Obama is mentioned, any criticism is always coupled with a complement or some sort of explanation for the candidates mishaps. “`Interviews with a dozen people suggest that Mr. Obama, 47 has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers. But the two men do not appear to have been close” (NYTimes.com.8/8/2008). The rebuttal to this argument is purely opinion, and I highly doubtthat the Times would have felt the need to clear up negative press that has been leaked about John McCain. Besides word usage and the tone of The Times that seems to indicate a clear bias in favor of Senator Obama, the sheer volume of article written about John McCain is telling in itself. During the week of October 8th, I examined ten news articles and two Opinion columns printed by the New York Times. Both Opinion Articles revolved around Senator Barack Obama, The article entitled “The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama” that was printed October 11, 2008 not only blatantly criticizes McCain and Palin’s rallies that revolve around “raucous and insistent cries of Treason and Terrorist and Kill him! And off with his head,” but he also appeals to action, “They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option,”(NYTimes.com. 10/11/2008). The other opinion article also published October 11, 2008 didn’t even mention John McCain. The entire article entitled “Do Polls Lie About Race?” focused on the tendency for American Polls to overestimate a candidates likely hood to win when race is involved implying that voters lie in order to not appear racist. In my opinion the article was a wake up call, and possibly a warning. Both articles are opinions and although it is clear in both cases who the reporters will be voting for November 4th, there is no problem with that since these are opinion articles. On the other hand, It is impossible not to become skeptical of the Times for choosing to print two extremely biased opinion articles that lean the same way, and focus on the same person.
In the end, does it matter that The New York Times appears to blatantly support one candidate over the other, and lean towards the liberal side. The Times was founded in 1851, and since then has won 98 Pulitzer Prizes (Wikipedia.com). For a newspaper that has earned such a reputable name, they might just have the right to print whatever they choose biased or not. In a column printed on July 25th, 2004 the then public editor, Daniel Okrent addressed the biased question with the headline “Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”. Okrent answered the question in the very first line of the article with a short and concise statement, “Of course it is” (NYTimes.com.7/25/2004). He later goes on to explain that The New York Times is a product of it’s environment. “But if your examination of the paper’s coverage of these subjects come from a perspective that is neither urban nor northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all, if you are among the groups the Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a lab slide, (devout Catholics, gun owners, orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn’t wear well on a composite N.Y Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel like you’re traveling in a strange and forbidden world” (NYTimes.com.7/25/2004). In a cute and funny way Okrent was basically saying of course were a liberal paper, republicans are weird and live on a different planet, ie. devout Catholics and Texans. However, Okrent does make an important point when calling out the context in which the New York Times is created. New York is the city of every color, every race, gay, straight, and weird. Right wing conservativeness doesn’t exactly walk the streets in Manhattan, so why shouldn’t it’s paper reflect those people and their values. In a nut shell, the articles have a clear audience, and the Times write for its audience. The Mobil Mississippi residents interviewed by Adam Nossiter are a strange other to the people of New York City, and so consequently they are a strange other to the New York Times. It appears that during this 2008 election, the people that fall in the “strange other” category are also standing side by side with Mr. McCain. Therefore, it is impossible not to see favoritism towards Senator Obama in the New York Times. According to Daniel Okrent, “Taking the New York, out of the New York Times would be a really bad idea” (NYTimes.com. 7/25/2004).
No comments:
Post a Comment