For years, the fourth estate has diminished in importance, as other methods of obtaining information have taken hold. Public polls have repeatedly indicated that the voting public believes that a great part of the broadcast and print media are agenda driven and not information driven.
If a political endorsement should come from either broadcast or print media and be valued, it must come from an organization at the pinacle of general esteem. An endorsement only carries the weight of the respect the endorser is generally given in a direct relationship of high public esteem and strong endorsement.
An endorsement from an organization, that has little esteem among the populace – circulation numbers are a good indicator of the level of esteem – carries little or negative weight. An example might be the general commonly heard derisive nickname for the Arizona Daily Star, as it is routinely called the Red Star by citizens of Tucson - meaning left leaning like Pravda – only tells one side of the issue.
The New York Times is routinely named by pundits as a source or pundits extoll the editorials of the Times. During the Republican primary a broadcast media type claimed that since Rudy Giuliani did not get the endorsement of the Times, his home town newspaper, he must not be viable. Well, the New York Times is third in circulation in Greater New York, behind the New York Daily News and the New York Post - not very esteemed is it. Circulation may be misleading as a judge of how much esteem a paper has. In those circulation numbers are people buying the paper for the sports, style section, and ads. These elements are not a real barn burner for political esteem. A month or so, after endorsing John McCain in the primary the Times ran a hit piece on him about some affair with a lobbyist. The piece had no weight, no basis, no facts, and was even weak on innuendo. So much for the public’s esteem of the Times.
Another example of little or no esteem is the Gwen Ifill debacle at PBS. She was chosen to moderate the Vice-presidential debate. Is she balanced? She would like you to think so. PBS would like you to think so. She wrote a book called: The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. The product description taken from the Amazon.Com web site states: “In the breakthrough, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power…”.
On the surface one could say that so, she wrote a book on Obama. What this means is that when the book is released on inauguration day, if Obama has won, she will make lots and lots of money. She has a vested financial interest in his victory. Yet, she did not disclose this book or recuse herself from moderating a debate that can influence the election. What does this do to the esteem of PBS and Gwen Ifill?
Some newspaper and broadcast media are legends in their own collective minds, and have not yet figured out that few who count (voters) are paying attention to them. A newspaper has to earn the esteem with aggressive, balanced, and accurate reporting. A paper that does not do everything it can to inform the public accurately and with balance is not earning esteem. The same holds for broadcast media.
A candidate must earn esteem to be elected, that is the ultimate endorsement. In today’s media environment, candidates make a good decision in seeking endorsements only from organizations, media or not, that carry substantial public esteem, and in spending little effort seeking endorsements from organizations that carry little public esteem.
As far as being a meaningful player in the political process going forward, stick a fork in the media, because they are done!
Well I believe readership is not what counts towards esteem, but the quality of the journalism. In this respect the Times is a much better endorsement than post or daily news. You would not of complained if it had selected a Republicans.
As for Gwen Ifills, though biased personally, she has what you call profeesionalism. Unlike hacks like Hannity, O’Reilly, Olbermann and a like, she is still able to do her job.
Many of the stories about Mccain and lobbyists are true, you’ll just refusing to acknowledge them.
While Ifills acted professionally during the debate, her failure to disclose was unprofessional. The McCain lobbyist report had no truth and has been debunked. He had no illicit relationship with a female lobbyist.
Professional journalism generate readership. Unprofessional journalism loses readers.