I must admit I am not very enthusiastic to report the election results of my hometown: New York City. Bloomberg, the incumbant, who has already been in office for two terms won by only five points promising yet another four years full of the most Republican-esque policies in the most consistently democratic state. It is an irony that I will never understand. Anyway, the polls prior to the Election showed that Bloomberg was ahead of his challenger, Bill Thompson, more than 18 points. But surpringly, Bloomberg won by only five on Election Day.
The Amsterdam News, one of the most local and historic papers in the City, reported that even though Bill Thompson was defeated, the amount of votes he got was actually a victory! It was one of the most bias and slightly ridiculous articles that I have ever read. Who wants to defend a loser! The Amsterdam News was the only paper to endorse Thompson and considering that Bloomberg is not especially popular in the black community, it is no surprise that the Harlem-based paper was not happy. But honestly, they could have just reported the facts. While it is true that Thompson did better than was expected, I would not start praising him as the noble underdog just yet. After all, especially in the case of elections--almost really doesn't count.
This got me thinking. Is there more allowance for bias in more local reporting? Do the readers of these papers or websites really care about objective reporting or is it okay because they are reading the articles in a more subjective context. The Amsterdam News has a very specific audience. I doubt that anyone was upset about the post-election article that so obviously supported Thompson and opposed Bloomberg. I mean if it's only "your people" that are reading, does objectivity really matter?
No comments:
Post a Comment