Thursday, May 27, 2010
I gave my lesson on bias today. I referred to the oil spill, and how some in the media have referred to it as "Obama's Katrina," implying that because of the geography as well as the ecological and financial devastation, BP's disaster is equivalent to a hurricane followed by an inept federal response. By framing it this way, the media reduce the story to one of conflict instead of one that is complex and multi-faceted.
Ah, so that's what I said. But I wonder about my own bias. Were Bush in charge, the oil spilled, and the federal response the same as it is today, with Obama, how would I react? Would I spend time investigating BP's donations to the Republican party and Bush, in particular? Would I harp on the fact that a strong push for alternative energy has again been kicked down the road? Would I stomp and pound my fists that it's been over four weeks since the spill, and BP hasn't stopped the flow of oil, and would I claim that administration complaints about BP missing "deadline after deadline" ring empty?
I'm pretty sure that's what would happen.