Why the Media is Biased in Favor of Mitt Romney

COMMENTARY | Mitt Romney has provided the press with so many opportunities to be attacked that space will not permit them all to be listed. Yet time and time again, the press continues to pull its punches, while they tear apart other candidates for lesser grievances. Even President Obama, once considered the darling of the media, has lost his teflon coating from reporters.

Whether it is his incessant flip-flopping, hiding from his gubernatorial record, and touting his “business experience” while hoping you never look up what he and his company actually did, Romney is miraculously avoiding a full-court press from the press. They don’t seem to see the irony when the only man to ever run as a liberal, conservative, and moderate accuses others waffling.

Why is the former Massachusetts Governor getting a free pass from the press? It’s because journalists think he’s the one that can make the race against Obama a close one. And that will make you pay attention to the newspaper, radio, television, internet, or any other source of information, boosting ratings.

For years, folks labored under the illusion that the media was biased in favor of a certain ideology. Conservatives swear that the media is biased in favor of liberals, while liberals are convinced that the media never takes their side. It’s like watching fans of rival teams slam the referees for biased calls against their team.

The media only cares about its own interests. And those interests don’t involve the passage or defeat of a health care law. They don’t get much out of a stimulus bill. When you get down to it, most reporters couldn’t care much if guns and abortion are legalized or banned. What they want is for you to watch and read, and pay to do so.

You wouldn’t watch a film that you knew the outcome from the previews, right? You wouldn’t pay attention to an election with a foregone conclusion either. The media hates contests like Clinton-Dole in 1996, Reagan-Mondale in 1984, and Nixon-McGovern in 1972. People just stopped paying attention.

But just as movie audiences like a taut-thriller keeping you on the edge of your seats, voters get excited about nail-bitters, where the election is “too close to call.” Bush-Gore in 2000, Clinton-Bush-Perot in 1992, and Bush-Kerry in 2004 got the ratings machine going. Even Obama-McCain in 2008 snagged people’s attention, as no one knew whether voters were lying to pollsters.

What the press wants is an Obama-Romney contest that goes down to the wire. Reporters don’t really care who wins, so long as it is close. Regardless who wins, it will be open season on whoever gets inaugurated in 2013.


People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *