I’ve been putting off another “My Turn” column as there have been several issues on parallel paths running through my mind lately.
One is media bias, in particular bias in the Concord Monitor. Of course every newspaper is biased, and that shows to a large degree on the editorial pages. Exactly how biased becomes apparent based on the choice of stories to cover, their placement and headlining.
The Monitor may have broken new ground in biased (and IMHO unprofessional) reporting this past week by creating news that negatively reflects on the candidate they oppose and placing it on the front page in bold headlines.
My related thought is that while I suppose it’s gratifying for a Capital Region Democrat to open the paper every morning and have their worldview confirmed and applauded, it probably breeds a snobbish complacency. For me – on the other team – reading the Monitor every morning challenges my belief system.
It is bitter medicine; probably good for me and great for producing resentment. I think a snobby and complacent left and a resentful right could well open the door for hubris of the first order (by that I mean more votes for Trump and fewer for Clinton).
Back to my first point; the Monitor began this week by endorsing Hassan in Sunday’s editorial pages – as expected. The key logic seems to be the necessity to break the “gridlock” by electing Democrats – nothing necessarily good about Hassan and nothing really bad about Ayotte, just politics. I get it. New Hampshire’s terrific young up and comer, a dying breed of moderate Republican, needs to go because she, like all Republicans, shock of shocks, is opposed to the progressive agenda.
Anyhow, I get it, and agree the Monitor is squarely within the bounds of reasonable journalism to endorse whomever they see fit as editorial opinion. Additionally, and while I can’t prove it without a lot of research, it seems to me that the Monitor has made it a point to consistently and prominently place any story that is negative to Trump and Republicans. Bias yes, but nothing that hasn’t become commonplace in 21st-century media.
What raised my hackles was a front-page bold headline story titled “Senate travel a murky topic” (in the same Sunday edition where Hassan is endorsed). The article, presented as “news,” compares Kelly Ayotte’s travel expenses to Sen. Shaheen’s.
Reportedly Ayotte spent $135,000 more than Shaheen over the past four years. Further down in the article the writer states that it’s virtually impossible to explain why the difference exists, despite Ayotte’s staff saying its likely travel for them to provide more constituent service. So, there’s no real story of overspending – just reporting there is a difference.
Why does that warrant the front page bold headline treatment “murky topic” and a finger pointed at Ayotte? Just the Monitor being the Monitor I rationalized, so I finished my coffee and took a walk.
Lo and behold, on Monday, also in bold headlines on the front page of the Monitor is the story titled “ISIS fond of lax gun laws.” The writer drags out politifact.com to register “mostly true.” Gov. Hassan’s statement, “with her (Ayotte’s) solution, terrorists can still today – and by the way ISIS knows it, they have been advertising it – buy guns online and at gun shows in the United States of America.” The article goes on to quote sources that say something about ISIS advising its members, but as we all should know the debate over gun control is much more nuanced than that. My point is that it is way more than a stretch to link Ayotte to ISIS getting weapons. This is an article about lending credence to a low blow landed by Hassan in a debate. For it to be front page news is how bias happens.
On Tuesday the beat goes on. The headline of the newspaper is “Clinton, Warren take aim at Ayotte.” This article – while definitely newsworthy for a change – gives prominent space to the Democrat ploy of tying Ayotte up in Trump. The first and prominent quote from Clinton declares that Hassan, unlike her opponent, has the courage to stand up to Trump. Then of course the lovely lefty Warren gets quoted as saying “Donald Trump sure has made Kelly Ayotte dance.”
Again my point is that while this actually is news, it’s the opinion of one side, negative to Ayotte and really shouldn’t warrant front-page headlines.
On Wednesday we got a brief respite from the attacks on Ayotte, though the shared headline was typically biased. Instead of headlining that the ACA costs were going up a whopping 25 percent nationally and an outrageous 116 percent in Arizona, our local media source decided to tout the information that the ACA cost was only going up 2 percent in New Hampshire.
On Thursday – the straw that broke this camel’s back: “Spending Spree,” a story that is important, reporting that outside interests have spent $81 million on the New Hampshire Senate race, 77 percent of the total. It is awful for sure, and alarming. The bias? The montage that covers the front page shows 15 photos of negative adds, four target Republicans, while the other 11 target Democrats, leaving a visual impression that it’s those evil Republicans (Boo!!! – Koch brothers!!) at it again.
Maybe I’m watching the wrong television shows, but it seems to me there are more negative ads targeting Ayotte than the rest combined. Then there’s the article itself: The first example given of outside ads is an Ayotte contributor. The first and only “super PAC” discussed is one that backs Republicans. You have to read down to the 16th paragraph – on page two – before it is disclosed that 81 percent of Hassan’s contributions come from out-of-state, compared to 77 percent of Ayotte’s. Gee, I wonder why that fact wasn’t in the first paragraph on the front page.
The left has always had a great deal of trouble foreseeing unintended consequences, so it’s no surprise the editors think they’re helping defeat Kelly Ayotte, but I think the Monitor does a disservice to its readership (left and right) by subverting the news to political goals. I also think it will come back to bite.
I know the Monitor alienates anyone who thinks of themselves as a conservative or a Republican. I’m sure many would like to subscribe to the only daily covering their towns but can’t stomach the politics, and the rest of us just resent what it’s doing.
I also think this paper disserves Democrats. It is unhealthy to have your belief system and world view validated and applauded on a daily basis, as it fosters complacency and elitism. It engenders the kind of snobbishness that is so apparent in the Clinton WikiLeaks business with the “other” – in that case people of religion – and of course Trump’s “deplorables.”
In closing I’d like to say that the hubris of the left will cause some independents and moderate Republicans who were not going to vote for Trump to change their minds. It will also cause some Democrats not to bother voting.
I’d hate to see Trump win, but a part of me would be thinking “you asked for it.”
(Steve Mongan lives in Concord.)