By Bob Bonett

One of the main gripes of the 2008 election has been fairness in coverage of the candidates, specifically Democratic candidates, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and the Republican candidate, (Sen.) John McCain (R-Ariz.). Newspaper readers have written to newspaper ombudsmen, hoping bias in coverage of the potential candidates be alleviated. Essentially, the main issue regarding the coverage is that more coverage pertaining to Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. One such newspaper that has dealt with this issue is The Chicago Tribune, one of Illinois’ leading periodicals-the state for what, coincidentally, Obama has served his term as a senator. The newspaper’s ombudsmen, Timothy J. McNulty, did some research into the “matter of faireness,” delving further in to see if Obama and Clinton were given more attention than McCain (Obama especially) and reported his findings in a March 28 article. Based on the ideas ofjournalistic integrity and fair coverage in the media, the job that the newsroom of the Tribune, along with many other publications across the United States, has done covering the 2008 election is laughable.

The argument that coincides with McNulty’s piece is whether newspapers have, in fact, covered the Democratic candidates more extensively than the Republican candidates, and whether said coverage is justifiable. In past Tribune issues, McNulty found that Obama and Clinton made newspaper headlines five times more than McCain did. Essentially, the argument that comes from this is three-fold.

Firstly, McCain has long been the frontrunner for the Republican Party, meaning that there is less news coming from the conservative front. Secondly, a large number of the headlines covering Democratic news have been negative-it is well known that the Clinton and Obama camps have launched a myriad of attacks, sometimes personal, against one another. Finally is the idea that Obama is a senator from Illinois (similar to when Clinton and former mayor Rudolph Giuliani at times received more coverage in Newsday due to their connectionto New York) andwill inherently receive excess coverage there.

The counterargument, however, is that a conscious effort should be made to ensure that the newspapers themselves are not determining the winner of the presidentialelection based on coverage, but balanced and equal coverage is given to each candidate, ensuring that the readership can make an educated, informed opinion. While it is certainly legitimate that McCain has been the assumed Republican nominations for several months, and that the hot topic right now is infighting between Democratic candidates Obama and Clinton, McCain’s daily speeches and trips throughout the country should still be reported. Moreover, when it comes to the Democratic party, Clinton deserves the same amount of coverage, regardless of any sort of “hometown” proximity Obama may have.

The biggest issue with the Tribune’s coverage, as well as that ofvarious other media outlets across the United States (CNN being a prime example), is that there is clearly bias used when reporters from newsrooms across America report on the election. It has long been thought that the media has a pre-determined candidate whom they wish to represent, and that their reporting on the election will clearly unveil which candidate that is every year. While it is difficult to perform the research thatMcNulty ran at the Tribune, perusing the headlines of CNN.com, The New York Times and Fox News make it clear that each organization has an idea of which candidate they support. While making an assumption may not be fair, coverage of the Democratic side of the ticket, for one, has been quite lopsided. Clinton has endured many more investigative reports into her past,for example the infamous “sniper fire” trip to Bosnia,than Obama has, making her appear to be a liar and a buffoon at times.

The biggest issue pertaining to election coverage, however, has to do with lower-tier candidates. News-gathering organizations have chosen to ignore and shuncertain candidates and even make a mockery out of certain candidates.A recent interview with former Democratic-now-Libertarian candidate Mike Gravel on CNN with Rick Sanchez was downright demeaning to the presidential hopeful, poking consistent fun at the former Alaskan senator’s bid. Dennis Kucinich, the representative from Ohio’s 10th Congressional District, who actually attained a large online following, and Gravel, who switched to the aforementioned Libertarian Party due to disrespect from the Democratic party, were not allowed to partake in a December Iowa debate. They were not allowed to partake because of an obscure rule regarding campaign managerial staffs-a rule that was called upon to ensure that Gravel and Kucinich were kept out of the forefront of the race.

This day and age has brought with it a media bias that is destroying the sanctity, purity and legitimacy of the presidential election. No longer does the public receive a fair amount of information on each candidate or each party, and receive the opportunity to make a personal decision on which the best candidate for the position is. Instead, the media blacklists certain candidates, minimizes the coverage of certain candidates and, in essence, attempts to decide who the next president will be. Granted, substantial research would need to be made into the matter, but it is nearly a guarantee that the coverage Obama has received since slipping behind Clinton in the race of the Democratic ticket has been much more positive and much more expansive-an attempt by the media to thrust him into office. Moreover, never mind the front-running candidates-the media may make it impossible for a person not at the forefront of a political party or not a member of one of the two major parties, to ever claim astake in office. And until these reporting prejudices are alleviated, America will not see a true, fair election.

Bob Bonett is a sophomore print journalism student. You may e-mail him at [email protected].