14 Responses to “Is the Media Really Biased? I Don’t Think So.”
Audrey Voigt on
May 2nd, 2007 4:14 pm
I am truly looking forward to your future tips on working with the media. For a long time I have felt that we in the Republican Party use this “bias” philosophy as a cover and not use the media to our advantage…I firmly agree with you that as a whole the media is more liberal but that the word “bias” in reporting is inappropriate.
Todd W. on
May 2nd, 2007 5:17 pm
With all due respect, the liberal bias of most media sources (most, not all) is so abundantly clear it’s silly to claim otherwise. I could pull 50 quotes out of Newsweek, Time, ABC, NBC or CBS news, each and every week, to demonstrate this fact. There’s nothing wrong with accepting this truth, but it is wrong to shun the media because of it. I’m an elected official, and I work twice as hard as my peers to maintain relationships with reporters in my area because I know if they like and respect me, they’ll treat me fairly despite our political differences. Reagan understood the importance of communication and relationships with the media, whereas Bush has done a terrible job in this area, and the results speak for themselves. Conservative candidates and officials need to use the knowledge of a biased media as a reason to double their efforts with reporters, not as an excuse to ignore them.
Right on Mark! I ran for a State Representative seat a couple of years ago. Most people complained that our local newspaper was biased. I actually spoke to the reporters several times to tell them I thought they were reporting about my race fairly even though they did not always use my “best material” or my “best zingers”. I finally realized at one point that I was enabling them to overlook my good stuff because I was spending so many words on clarifying the background of why I was using these “zingers” in my comments. You nailed it by pointing out that if you say it (and thereby drown out your main points) those words become susceptible to interpretation by the reporter. Remember they see YOUR words through THEIR lens of what they THINK you are trying to say.
Nicki on
May 2nd, 2007 5:42 pm
Definitely a true point made in your asking if the client said those words. We all need to remember that when talking to media, everything we say is on the record. I know that truly being misquoted several times has made me be more prepared when I speak to the media.
Duncan McArthur on
May 2nd, 2007 5:44 pm
I think you’re two examples help prove the point about the bias. Conservatives avoid talking to the media because they will selectively use the material to make their case. It has happened so many times that many people called by the media do not want to go there again unless they have to. Those involved in the middle of a campaign need to talk to the media but they will be very reluctant to contribute to an article that is not about their campaign. It will do nothing to help them but it can always hurt them.
As far as Reagan, you don’t feel they didn’t try to paint him as aging with a failing memory? He was senile and bring his ability to lead into question? Their only problem wsa that he was so popular, they could not overcome people’s like for him.
Medias is not biased? Yeah. Right. They’re out best friend. By the way, I’ve been meaning to contact you about that lake front property in Arizona.
Mark Montini on
May 2nd, 2007 6:05 pm
Thanks for the comments, Duncan. Reporters have the right (as a matter of fact, it’s part of their job) to pick which comments they believe are newsworthy and which aren’t. The key is for the people who are talking to the reporter to understand this and limit the options a report has to be selective. If you only give the reporter one option, then you completely eliminate any selectivity (is that a word?) on the reporter’s part. A reporter who selects one of the five options a spokesman provides is not biased, he is simply doing his job.
Reagan’s opponents where the ones trying to paint him as aging with the a failing memory. The media accurately reflected their position. Fortunately, Reagan and his team understood that the best way to counter that message was with funny soundbites the media couldn’t ignore. The result was “I won’t use my opponent’s youth and inexperience against him.”
I thought the media did a good job providing both campaign’s perspectives on that issue. Ultimately, Reagan did a better job communicating his perspective and, as result, he won this particular battle.
Aaron Bhatnagar on
May 2nd, 2007 8:09 pm
Couldn’t agree more.
Here’s a good question for all politicians and candidates - how often do you buy a cup of coffee for your local journos. Sometimes its just an opportunity to gossip and chat, share ideas, talk about the history of the district.
I took the most left-wing journo in Auckland City out for a cup of coffee, and asked him when a member of my city party organisation ever bought him a cup of coffee. He couldn’t remember, meaning, I might have actually been the first.
These are simply courtesies - as are regularly ringing up and asking the journo if they got your release, whether they liked it. If there’s nothing in it for them, ask them what they have at the moment and whether they need another viewpoint for the story. Get back to them in an hour or two with a quote or statement so they have something they might be able to use.
Bob Schmidt on
May 3rd, 2007 12:53 am
We could all relate anecdotes for either side of this debate. I’d like to see these anecdotes lead to a better understanding of media people and HOW to get them to give coverage.
Allegedly it doesn’t matter what they say as long as they spell your name correctly. Our biggest problem is we are ignored … and we expect to be ignored.
Some of the bias I see is that reporters want something that is “newsworthy”. It is not newsworthy for a candidate to say he supports X and opposes Y. It is newsworthy when the candidate has a compelling photo op. Such photo ops involve cute children, sympathetic seniors, and humorous confrontation of the opponent.
The winning candidates (or their campaign managers) are skilled at creating media events out of thin air. A smart campaign manager knows that time is the most valuable resource and the one in shortest supply … especially the time of the candidate. So the smart campaign manager builds a calendar that shows EVERY PTA meeting, every senior group meeting, every city council and legislative hearing, zoning hearings, school board meetings, church events, club events, holiday events, parades, etc.
Then, rather than spending his limited time and money on creating events and generating people to those events, the smart manager cleverly positions his candidate beside other people who are popular where they can be seen in the same photo with the popular PTA president, the popular senior citizen, etc.
The smart manager has the candidate avoid saying nice things about himself and instead has the candidate praising the Boy Scouts and giving an award to one of them … an award created out of thin air as an opportunity to do it.
The newspaper headline should not read “Senior Group supports candidate”. It should read “Candidate supports senior group”. “Candidate gives award to local Boy Scout”.
I wish there was time to relate the anecdotes … good and bad.
David Gibson on
May 3rd, 2007 5:12 am
Mark,
Brilliant article. We have the same perception with the media here in Australia - that they are bias against conservative politics.
Prior to running in our State Elections last year I worked as the General Manager for our local daily newspaper. I didn’t get any favours from the editor during the campaign but I did get a good run with media because I knew what they were looking for, and I understood their deadlines.
If we took a photo for a media release we tried to make it relevant and interesting not just another mug shot. We always tried to have a quote from an ordinary citizen in the print media releases so it was more than just about the candidate.
Finally we took the time at the beginning of the campaign to visit with all the media outlets to understand their deadlines and what formats they would prefer to receive the media releases (ie fax, email, courier pigeon) and who we needed to ring to confirm they had been received (and encourage to run with the story).
During the campaign my opponents tried to cry foul saying I still had influence with the newspaper (this was despite me having resigned at the time of my preselection near 9 months before the election). The reality was that I understood the needs of the paper and all the local media and tailored my media releases accordingly. Yes it meant more work but the result was it helped me to get elected.
Mark, bring on more of those scared cow hamburgers!!!
Frank Setineri on
May 3rd, 2007 8:51 am
Mark,
You are right on target. This is precisely what you demonstrated in your CD set of how to run a successful campaign strategy, message and speech.
Like every business person, a media reporter is looking for a story that differentiates him from the others. When he finds find a snippet he jumps on it because it sets him apart from the other reporters and weakens the conservative candidate. The solution is to be on message all the time; one deviation can result in a lost election. Freedom of speech? Not exactly but that’s the world in which we live. Keep on message and one day we can have another Ronald Reagan.
For example, I love the president and used to work for him….but here is a man who does not utilize the bully pulpit very well.
All I here from my clients on the local level is–why aren’t the Republicans getting their message out in the media.
During the 1994 elections, Newt Gingrich, in my opinion, did great with the media–which is one of the main reasons we won. Even though he was not a media darling, and was rarely treated fairly, he didn’t let that get in the way of aggressively getting his message out.
Just my thoughts…really enjoy your tips.
Bob Langenbach on
May 5th, 2007 9:17 pm
Selectively quoting the worst for the conservatives, and the using the best for the left wingers? Not biased???? What about when they write right wing conservative Republican Tom Tancredo, but Democrat Ted Kennedy? Why the label for Tancredo, but no left wing liberal for Kennedy. THAT IS BIAS!!! Instances like those are the norm, and that is BIAS.
The libmedia is (for sure) 90% democrat in the newsroom but you maintain that has not effect on their slant. Reagan went “over the media” which hated him. Notice Bush lacks that ability. I submit the economy coverage as only the most recent lib bias. Libmedia bias is most pronounced in what is not covered or covered at the very minimum possible. Look at the “key bias words” in article columns or within the first paragraphs. Look back at Clinton 1992-1993 for some fawning. Then look at how any Repub-conservative is challenged by the libmedia TV hosts. In the “old days” it was always 3 to 1 libs hammering and talking over any conservative guest. Your denial serves no one.
I am truly looking forward to your future tips on working with the media. For a long time I have felt that we in the Republican Party use this “bias” philosophy as a cover and not use the media to our advantage…I firmly agree with you that as a whole the media is more liberal but that the word “bias” in reporting is inappropriate.
With all due respect, the liberal bias of most media sources (most, not all) is so abundantly clear it’s silly to claim otherwise. I could pull 50 quotes out of Newsweek, Time, ABC, NBC or CBS news, each and every week, to demonstrate this fact. There’s nothing wrong with accepting this truth, but it is wrong to shun the media because of it. I’m an elected official, and I work twice as hard as my peers to maintain relationships with reporters in my area because I know if they like and respect me, they’ll treat me fairly despite our political differences. Reagan understood the importance of communication and relationships with the media, whereas Bush has done a terrible job in this area, and the results speak for themselves. Conservative candidates and officials need to use the knowledge of a biased media as a reason to double their efforts with reporters, not as an excuse to ignore them.
Right on Mark! I ran for a State Representative seat a couple of years ago. Most people complained that our local newspaper was biased. I actually spoke to the reporters several times to tell them I thought they were reporting about my race fairly even though they did not always use my “best material” or my “best zingers”. I finally realized at one point that I was enabling them to overlook my good stuff because I was spending so many words on clarifying the background of why I was using these “zingers” in my comments. You nailed it by pointing out that if you say it (and thereby drown out your main points) those words become susceptible to interpretation by the reporter. Remember they see YOUR words through THEIR lens of what they THINK you are trying to say.
Definitely a true point made in your asking if the client said those words. We all need to remember that when talking to media, everything we say is on the record. I know that truly being misquoted several times has made me be more prepared when I speak to the media.
I think you’re two examples help prove the point about the bias. Conservatives avoid talking to the media because they will selectively use the material to make their case. It has happened so many times that many people called by the media do not want to go there again unless they have to. Those involved in the middle of a campaign need to talk to the media but they will be very reluctant to contribute to an article that is not about their campaign. It will do nothing to help them but it can always hurt them.
As far as Reagan, you don’t feel they didn’t try to paint him as aging with a failing memory? He was senile and bring his ability to lead into question? Their only problem wsa that he was so popular, they could not overcome people’s like for him.
Medias is not biased? Yeah. Right. They’re out best friend. By the way, I’ve been meaning to contact you about that lake front property in Arizona.
Thanks for the comments, Duncan. Reporters have the right (as a matter of fact, it’s part of their job) to pick which comments they believe are newsworthy and which aren’t. The key is for the people who are talking to the reporter to understand this and limit the options a report has to be selective. If you only give the reporter one option, then you completely eliminate any selectivity (is that a word?) on the reporter’s part. A reporter who selects one of the five options a spokesman provides is not biased, he is simply doing his job.
Reagan’s opponents where the ones trying to paint him as aging with the a failing memory. The media accurately reflected their position. Fortunately, Reagan and his team understood that the best way to counter that message was with funny soundbites the media couldn’t ignore. The result was “I won’t use my opponent’s youth and inexperience against him.”
I thought the media did a good job providing both campaign’s perspectives on that issue. Ultimately, Reagan did a better job communicating his perspective and, as result, he won this particular battle.
Couldn’t agree more.
Here’s a good question for all politicians and candidates - how often do you buy a cup of coffee for your local journos. Sometimes its just an opportunity to gossip and chat, share ideas, talk about the history of the district.
I took the most left-wing journo in Auckland City out for a cup of coffee, and asked him when a member of my city party organisation ever bought him a cup of coffee. He couldn’t remember, meaning, I might have actually been the first.
These are simply courtesies - as are regularly ringing up and asking the journo if they got your release, whether they liked it. If there’s nothing in it for them, ask them what they have at the moment and whether they need another viewpoint for the story. Get back to them in an hour or two with a quote or statement so they have something they might be able to use.
We could all relate anecdotes for either side of this debate. I’d like to see these anecdotes lead to a better understanding of media people and HOW to get them to give coverage.
Allegedly it doesn’t matter what they say as long as they spell your name correctly. Our biggest problem is we are ignored … and we expect to be ignored.
Some of the bias I see is that reporters want something that is “newsworthy”. It is not newsworthy for a candidate to say he supports X and opposes Y. It is newsworthy when the candidate has a compelling photo op. Such photo ops involve cute children, sympathetic seniors, and humorous confrontation of the opponent.
The winning candidates (or their campaign managers) are skilled at creating media events out of thin air. A smart campaign manager knows that time is the most valuable resource and the one in shortest supply … especially the time of the candidate. So the smart campaign manager builds a calendar that shows EVERY PTA meeting, every senior group meeting, every city council and legislative hearing, zoning hearings, school board meetings, church events, club events, holiday events, parades, etc.
Then, rather than spending his limited time and money on creating events and generating people to those events, the smart manager cleverly positions his candidate beside other people who are popular where they can be seen in the same photo with the popular PTA president, the popular senior citizen, etc.
The smart manager has the candidate avoid saying nice things about himself and instead has the candidate praising the Boy Scouts and giving an award to one of them … an award created out of thin air as an opportunity to do it.
The newspaper headline should not read “Senior Group supports candidate”. It should read “Candidate supports senior group”. “Candidate gives award to local Boy Scout”.
I wish there was time to relate the anecdotes … good and bad.
Mark,
Brilliant article. We have the same perception with the media here in Australia - that they are bias against conservative politics.
Prior to running in our State Elections last year I worked as the General Manager for our local daily newspaper. I didn’t get any favours from the editor during the campaign but I did get a good run with media because I knew what they were looking for, and I understood their deadlines.
If we took a photo for a media release we tried to make it relevant and interesting not just another mug shot. We always tried to have a quote from an ordinary citizen in the print media releases so it was more than just about the candidate.
Finally we took the time at the beginning of the campaign to visit with all the media outlets to understand their deadlines and what formats they would prefer to receive the media releases (ie fax, email, courier pigeon) and who we needed to ring to confirm they had been received (and encourage to run with the story).
During the campaign my opponents tried to cry foul saying I still had influence with the newspaper (this was despite me having resigned at the time of my preselection near 9 months before the election). The reality was that I understood the needs of the paper and all the local media and tailored my media releases accordingly. Yes it meant more work but the result was it helped me to get elected.
Mark, bring on more of those scared cow hamburgers!!!
Mark,
You are right on target. This is precisely what you demonstrated in your CD set of how to run a successful campaign strategy, message and speech.
Like every business person, a media reporter is looking for a story that differentiates him from the others. When he finds find a snippet he jumps on it because it sets him apart from the other reporters and weakens the conservative candidate. The solution is to be on message all the time; one deviation can result in a lost election. Freedom of speech? Not exactly but that’s the world in which we live. Keep on message and one day we can have another Ronald Reagan.
I kind of agree with you…
For example, I love the president and used to work for him….but here is a man who does not utilize the bully pulpit very well.
All I here from my clients on the local level is–why aren’t the Republicans getting their message out in the media.
During the 1994 elections, Newt Gingrich, in my opinion, did great with the media–which is one of the main reasons we won. Even though he was not a media darling, and was rarely treated fairly, he didn’t let that get in the way of aggressively getting his message out.
Just my thoughts…really enjoy your tips.
Selectively quoting the worst for the conservatives, and the using the best for the left wingers? Not biased???? What about when they write right wing conservative Republican Tom Tancredo, but Democrat Ted Kennedy? Why the label for Tancredo, but no left wing liberal for Kennedy. THAT IS BIAS!!! Instances like those are the norm, and that is BIAS.
THE MEDIA IS BIASED against conservatives.
The libmedia is (for sure) 90% democrat in the newsroom but you maintain that has not effect on their slant. Reagan went “over the media” which hated him. Notice Bush lacks that ability. I submit the economy coverage as only the most recent lib bias. Libmedia bias is most pronounced in what is not covered or covered at the very minimum possible. Look at the “key bias words” in article columns or within the first paragraphs. Look back at Clinton 1992-1993 for some fawning. Then look at how any Repub-conservative is challenged by the libmedia TV hosts. In the “old days” it was always 3 to 1 libs hammering and talking over any conservative guest. Your denial serves no one.
Still waiting for a few good ninja moves for working with the media. Love you site. Are you still there?