January 19, 2010

Subtle media bias

The New York Times ran a front-page article yesterday about Scott Brown, the Republican who is surprisingly likely to win the Senate seat vacated by Kennedy in Massachusetts, which would be a dramatic change in representation for the traditionally blue state.

What caught my attention was that the color photo presented next to this article, which was emphasizing Brown's likeliness to win, was a picture of his opponent -- Martha Coakley -- smiling and waving with Obama.

Only on the inside pages, next to the continuation of the story, was a (black-and-white) picture in support of Brown shown. But it wasn't even a picture of Brown; it was a picture of a rather homely woman holding up a campaign sign in support of Brown.

The most prominent photo -- the thing that catches your eye before you can even get the gist of the text -- is a smiling Coakley. Brown doesn't even get equal facetime.

Biased much?

It's like acknowledging that maybe people aren't as Democrat-happy as Obama would like is some sort of moral failing. We have to clandestinely sweep dissent and critical thought under the rug.

For further information, check out these polls. And for evidence that fairness and representing the people's interests isn't foremost on most politicians' minds (like you needed reminding), check this out:

And in case you do want to know what he looks like, here's a picture of the man:


  1. Anonymous5:42 AM


  2. I just can't get on board with the premise of the post, Lora.

    The major story from Monday, that would be written about in the Times on Tuesday, was less about Scott Brown and more about how Coakley found herself in such dire straits. A visit from the POTUS will garner a lot of media attention because it sells, not because Obama is a Democrat.

    In the post-game analysis, we're also going to hear a lot more about Coakley and Company than about Brown. That's because the real story is how terrible her campaign was, not how swell Brown is.