I guess the media has noticed they are too biased and have begun to spin their own bias using inane and insane rationalizations.Newsbusters rips into just such an article by the Washington Post.
The numbers themselves are pretty inexcuseable, but that doesn't mean they don't try.
So, why this disparity? Howell has some excuses... er, I mean explanations.After all the platitudes and rationalizations... the WP confesses...
* Obama is photogenicThere you go, Debbroah. That's what I like, making a strike for serious investigation like that.
* He is an historical candidate
* His backgrounds are more photogenic
* He smiles more
But these kinds of discrepancies feed distrust on the part of readers, especially conservative ones, who already complain that The Post is all for Obama.Hey the conservatives actually did perceive reality correctly and aren't insane.
The conclusion... it rocks.
Here I'd like to suggest a reason why Obama gets such favorable photos. I'd like to suggest that, contrary to Howell's claims to the contrary, there is bias in his favor indeed. Even if we take Howell's excuse that the photos that come from stringers and wire service shooters tend to give a bit of cover to the paper, it is still bias influencing those shots. Those wire service guys are all going for the Obama as Messiah shots of which we've become so boringly familiar. They are looking for, competing for, those "artistic shots" of Obama looking beneficent, surround in light, sporting a halo even. And the papers eat these photos up and then clamor for more. And it's all driven by the photographer's personal bias and excitement for Obama on one hand, and their assumptions that their editors back in the office similarly want the newest and most Obamarific photo and will pay handsomely for them.There is the bias right there. Its endemic in the entire process from star-struck photog, to moon-eyed photo editor, to sycophantic page editor, to the printer and out the door to a unsuspecting public.It isn't our fault we discovered we were totally in the tank for Obama. (BTW I am now including 20% more in the tank references just to be new and improved) Sure the entire process reflects this from beginning to end, but it isn't our fault. It's John McCain's fault for not smiling enough.:lol:
Howell next says she is going to tackle the actual stories to see if there were more Obamaholic writers than those intoxicated by McCain's story. I am curious who she will blame this time? If it is the wire service photographer's fault for the overwhelming disparity in Obama photos, maybe Howell will blame the Obamasized dictionary writers who surely gave them too many Barackable words to use?
Damn you John McCain for not smiling and being photogenic enough! You've now revealed the bias of those "journalists" who were only giving to Obama at 100 to 1 ratio.