Better at This

Comedians and rival politicians have made much of Barack Obama’s supposed preferential treatment at the hands of the national media. Op/ed pieces have even cited statistics showing the ratio of positive to negative coverage of Senator Obama to be significantly higher than the ratio for other candidates—especially Hillary Clinton.

While Obama certainly has benefited on occasion from glowing media treatment, the claims of bias make a false implication–specifically, that each candidate for public office should receive the same amount of positive and negative coverage as another. This argument relies on the assumption that all politicians are equal in their honesty, experience, consistency, and statesmanship. It assumes that all candidates are equally well-behaved on the campaign trail, and that all of them are hiding the exact same number of skeletons in their closets.

But this is not true. These candidates are unique individuals, with distinctive personal stories, who behave very differently with the public and the media. Simply put—some candidates run more positive campaigns than others. Some are more candid and magnanimous. Some statesmen (or women) perform better on a national stage.

The media have no responsibility to cover rival politicians in equally favorable or unfavorable fashions. They simply owe it to us to report the truth—what the candidates have said, whether or not it is true, what they have done, and what they plan to do. It’s not their fault if some people are simply better at this than others.