OUR VIEW: Media coverage of politics lacks journalistic style

Turn on the TV these days and chances are you’ll quickly find a news network buzzing about the upcoming presidential election. While this is shaping up to be an historic election, it is also shaping up to be a media spectacle unmatched in previous elections.

The media – the all-knowing, never clearly defined group that disseminates information to the masses – have a powerful affect upon the minds of the American public. With the TV being on in the average American household more hours than a typical white-collar employee works in a day, the media have the ability to bring new ideas and information to people.

When it comes to the upcoming presidential election, the media have an especially unique ability to influence public opinion. Most Americans will never have the opportunity to meet Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama or Republican presidential hopeful John McCain, so they rely on the media to provide information. And this is where the problems begin.

In the world of journalism, the bread and butter of media, objectivity is critical, especially in political coverage. Bias is a sure-fire way to lose the confidence of readers or viewers, as the case may be. At least, that’s how it used to be.

Today, political coverage is dominated by cable network pundits, who pander to various political viewpoints. Objectivity has all but been thrown out the window to make room for freewheeling speculation and broad opinion. Whatever station you watch – be it CNN, MSNBC or FOX – there are political commentators playing the role of journalists, but lacking the objectivity required to allow the public to receive the facts and come up with ideas themselves.

As if people haven’t become accustomed enough to spoon-fed information, now the news networks have taken it one step further to take away the trouble of actually learning about candidates and all but tell you who to vote for and why. This has some serious consequences, most of which are detrimental to the political process.

Both major presidential candidates have benefited from positive coverage and both have faced harsh criticism. Both parties have spent plenty of time crying foul, claiming the news networks are being too hard or too soft on a candidate.

The reality? More than anything, the news networks have spouted so much non-objective information that it’s nearly impossible to know what a candidate actually believes, what they have said and what they have not said and what they plan to do if elected. With so much confusion, is it any wonder there is such poor voter turnout?

Political commentators definitely have their place in the political process. Many people enjoy hearing things from a viewpoint that sounds familiar to them, and political pundits can fill that role. But when these pundits are on the air more than objective reporters, they soon appear to be journalists, which they may not actually be.

News networks have trodden down a dangerous road in allowing bias into mainstream newscasts. The public is clamoring for the truth and the facts and the news networks have an obligation as disseminators of information to provide the cold hard facts. While major networks may have no desire to change their format any time soon, it is important that we carefully analyze what is being said. Separate opinion from fact, do some research, share what you find with others. That is what politics is really about, even if a talking head says differently.