The media is biased in favor of the present zeitgeist, and in turns works to create that zeitgeist, until events come along to turn things around. In other words, the media's propensity to put out stories that people want to read leads it to put out stories that agree with people's preconceived notions of things. If 80% of people think government is corrupt, more people will read or watch a story about government corruption, then, say, the ethical civil servant who passed up a better paying private sector gig because he was enthused about some public matter. The media will run a story about the corrupt civil servant, and then 85% of people will think government is corrupt.
In 2001-2005, the media was very pro-Bush and pro-Republican. This was the time when Fox News was gaining and generally dominating. If you tried to go against the wind (Dan Rather at CBS) you were vulnerable. So you didn't go against the wind. In the run-up to the war in Iraq, and during the war itself and its wake, media cheerleading reached a peak. It was really not until 2006, when Bush's popularity had plummetted, that the media slowly changed. But by 2007-08, it had switched around too much. All of a sudden it was biased towards the Dems, and Obama in particular. Obama was the zeitgeist.
The media does not care. They just want to go with the winner. They will praise whomever the winner is, and make him out to be a genius. The media was friendly towards Hillary Clinton all the way up to late 2007, and then they came on like piranhas at the first smell of blood. Had she won they would be praising her genius again. They will not be alone in this; so will most people. Whether Chuck Prince or Ken Lay really is a genius, the media does not care about this. Nor do their investors, as long as the stock price is going up. They don't care if it's a scam. As long as no one has gotten hurt yet, you keep dancing because the music is playing. Everyone thinks they will sell out at the top. The opposite goes for losers. They are villified as poor managers, unethical, disorganized, etc. regardless of the reason for their loss.
If I am a journalist, and I write a story, and I win the Pulitzer, do I care if this story is biased? Do I care if it is even entirely true? Do I care if there is another story out there that I think is even more interesting but which people probably won't be interested in? No. I got the Pultizer.
Well put. It is really is a vicious circle. But I think the media has become more enertainment than journalism, which leads them to shape stories more than just report facts. Like at the end of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance...
When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
I think now they print the legend before it becomes fact and it therefore becomes fact.
Poll
