After Pennsylvania's Primary It's Obvious: Big Media's Only Political Bias is Toward A Continuing Democratic Fight

It may be blasphemy for a TV critic to articulate this, but I've reached the point where I would rather watch American Idol than another minute of cable TV primary coverage.

Mostly, its because I'm tired of the pretense. Last night, Clinton scored a victory in Pennsylvania every reasonable pundit in America predicted six weeks ago, and the newschannels reacted like it was a major revelation. A 10-point win in a state where some polls showed her with a 20 percent advantage six weeks ago does not feel like a revelation, but on cable TV last night, it seemed so.

The coverage also solidified something I've felt for a while: that journalists are biased in favor of a continuing contest.

This election fight has been a huge boost for ratings, particularly at the cable TV news channels, where the interest in election news has fueled the creation of at least three shows. It has made some journalists' and pundits' reputations and produced debate ratings for ABC that rivaled prime time TV's viewership champ, American Idol. (the Atlanta Journal Constitution noted Tuesday that CNN's prime time ratings in March for key viewers jumped 87 percent over last year's level)

So I think some news executives were praying Clinton would do well, because that would keep the contest hot for two more weeks. If Obama seems in serious danger of slipping, I bet a new media narrative will rise to keep him viable as well.

Supporters of both sides have accused the news media of helping the opponent at key moments. But I think most outlets are seesawing between basking in the audience that comes from covering such a notable contest and striving to be the news organization that decides the election by delivering the journalism bombshell that blows up someone's campaign.

What seems obvious here is that the Democrats have two strong candidates, each of whom have cornered the market on key Democratic constituencies. Obama has black people, educated whites, new voters and young people; Clinton has women, working class whites, Latinos and seniors. It's an almost even split, and they both have major constituencies that will consider defecting to the Republicans if their candidate loses.

Barring a major calamity that destroys either politician's campaign, there's two big questions left: Can someone in the Democratic party broker a settlement here, after the primaries, that unites the party?

And will the media avoid its own, pro-conflict biases enough to let that happen?

Comments

[dreaming]

big medias been wrong about everything so far, especially, i think, in regard to the viability of obama as a national candidate.

you heard it here first: obama vs mccain will mean four more yrs of repubs. and frankly, im not sure that clinton vs mccain doesnt mean exactly the same thing.

the pundits, big media etc are grossly misleading their audiences about the dems chances. you wd think the election is a foregone conclusion of a dem win in nov.

i dont think so. and im neither dem nor rep. and probably wont even bother to vote. just my opinion.

[jara]

I agree with your assessment of Hil and Bar's chances completely. If only the superdelegates would do their job and select a viable candidate

[Eric Deggans]

Thanks. Unfortunately, I think the supers won't act until after all the primaries are done, so they don't look like they're disenfranchising anyone....

[Gwyn]

It is really hard to watch cable news now, because they all are so biased.
If you watch Fox news, they are extremely pro right wing. If you watch MSNBC they are pro-Obama all the way. I was leaning towards Obama, but now I am confused because of the way the news media has been so against Hillary. You really have to do your research to get the truth.