Time For Obama

Journalism ought to be objective in reporting the news. A task that is nearly impossible when it comes to politics. Take a liberal journalist and a conservative and have them report on an event of political importance and chances are two different stories will emerge. Now it could be that both stories will be "objective", that is to say they will disregard individual viewpoints and report what they saw. What will differ is the premise of the news story, they may not be the same. In short, since everyone has an opinion in politics total objectivity is impossible because the focus of attention in any given story will determine the political leanings of the journalist.

In looking at the Democratic primary there has been much ado about how the media favors Barak Obama over Hillary Clinton. Having a bias may not be possible however the bias can be so acute that the news outlet can cross the line from reporting the news to outright advocacy under the guise of journalistic objectivity. This has been the charge by Hillary Clinton aimed at the media on its treatment of Obama. Aside from remarks made by a reporter and commentator on MSNBC during primary coverage one has to look at subtle nuances in news reporting on many outlets to agree with the charge.

In a March 10th issue of Time magazine, Clinton may have a case. Not only does she have a case but Time magazine ought to just give up the notion that it is a news magazine altogether and come out and say it is an opinion journal. To start the charge by Clinton during the campaign is that Obama is inexperience. It's been a charge that has garnered little traction. But just in case there may be some validity to it out comes Time with a image of Obama on the cover with the headline asking "How Much Does Experience Matter?". Certainly it matters to some degree. We generally elect governors because they actually have run governments or someone who at least is a politician. Now Obama has been in the Senate less than 1 term before that a state legislature so maybe he doesn't seem to have enough experience in national politics, in short a case can be made. So before you think experience does matter thereby giving credence to the charge and effectively sink Obama, Time comes to the rescue with an article on the cover with a question and a subtitle "Why Science says it may be overrated" emphasis added. Time wants us to know that experience doesn't matter, er, that is, not Time per se but absurdly the most objective people of them all, scientist. What scientist have to say in the article is that just because a person has been at a particular field for some time doesn't mean they are actually good at what they do. The article shws various tests and studies that presumably dispel the notion. The problem is we're not electing professional presidents. All presidents are new at the job on the first day which means the article with all that it has to say about professionals and performance is meaningless. Before the scientific "proof" debunking Clinton there is an article comparing past presidents and what experience they had. Presidents with little "experience" were Washington, Taylor, Lincoln, Grant, Arthur, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and Kennedy a mixed bag of mediocrity and greatness that proves nothing in particular one way or another.

Okay they made their point. Don't worry about Obama's lack of experience he could be another Lincoln who had less, so there. To be sure the articles were objectively written but the premise of experience, the choosing of such a topic could only help Obama. And in a more extreme example of how much Obama is on the minds of the journalist in Time in an aside article noting the passing of William F Buckley they write that "His fixed star was the idea of human freedom. A sure applause line in presidential candidate Barack Obama's speeches..." please. Now where is the objectivity in that. Was it really necessary to interject Obama in a piece where he has no relevancy what so ever?