Today's Washington Post Web site carries the Associated Press story "Who's Watching News Scorecards on Obama?" Written by David Bauder, the piece begins by reporting:
As President Barack Obama passed his 100th day in office last week, two studies judged that the news media has given him more coverage, and more positive coverage, than his two predecessors at the same point in their terms.
Paragraphs later comes one explanation of the fawning mainstream media coverage:
The newscasts reflect reality, said Rick Kaplan, executive producer of the "CBS Evening News." He said he believed that the president has done extraordinarily well. "Everybody, including Republicans, would have to say that his first 100 days have been great," he said.
No doubt Kaplan would be astounded to learn that not everyone agrees that Obama's first 100 days have been so terrific. Today's Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll, for example, finds that 43 percent of voters disapprove of Obama's performance. Moreover, 32 percent of the nation's voters strongly disapprove.
Kaplan went on in the article to explain:
"You cover what's out there," Kaplan said. "Everybody gets upset. If you cover somebody too hard, his supporters think you're being unfair. If you cover somebody too soft, his opponents think you're too soft. Across his four years, or eight years, whatever it is, there will be plenty for people on all sides to not like or love. It will balance itself out inevitably."
I find it interesting that Kaplan speaks of covering "somebody too hard" or "too soft." Factually reporting news would seem to leave little room for such subjectivity. Of course, factually reporting news doesn't appeal to much of the mainstream media. They have a dog in this fight and don't care if their audiences know it.
The incredibly favorable coverage of Obama has again demonstrated the blatant bias that permeates much of the press. Yet, somehow, magically, we're expected to accept that eventually "it will balance itself out."
Sure. I believe that.
