The blogosphere is a-Twitter (sorry) with the news that ABC News will be going all-out to publicize President Obama's health-care plan next week. Unprecedented level of access and information-sharing, or ethical violation? What do you say?

(Image courtesy of the Drudge Report; H/T Caffeinated Thoughts)

Comments

[Karen]

Would we have cared very much if this had occurred in the Reagan or GW Bush administrations?

[Gina Dalfonzo]

I certainly hope so. Bias is bias.

Of course, such an event at such a time would have been about as likely as Evan Thomas admitting that Obama is a mortal being.

[Dan Gill]

In the first place, it wouldn't have happened in the Reagan or GW Bush administrations. The mainstream media is nuts over President Obama. They despised President Reagan and both Presidents Bush.

In the second place, it's unethical no matter who is in the White House. This is a case of bias, pure and simple. They are not reporting the news, they are attempting to make it. And attempting to legislate through their influence.

[Lori F]

It is an ethical violation because they have refused to air or discuss the many different opposing viewpoints about this issue. They should at least make their entire audience very aware that there are other viewpoints and that they are not operating as a news outlet while they are presenting the White House only. (Not that they would ever do that!)
No matter which President would do this, I would hope that there would be an outcry from all side of the politcal spectrum.

"Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth... We both value too much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish its exercise even where in opposition to ourselves." --Thomas Jefferson

[Jason Taylor]

I have a couple times heard a different point of view: that the demand for objectivity is itself a cause of such things.

The reasoning is that true objectivity is impossible. And if one demands objectivity one is inclined to assume one is objective. And therefore to assume one's opponent is not just wrong but beyond the pale.
And therefore a more realistic goal is not objectivity but multiplicity of sources.
There is something to this. A giant like Aquinas could argue both points. On the other hand he was never being objective, just reasonably fair.

[vikingmother]

Did any of you have most of your main and cable channel stations bought up for half hour--to hour OBAMA infomercials right before his election? This happened during several days---in Chicago area!!! I think there was one constant OBAMA cable channel also. I should have photographed my TV listing screen.

Personally, I did not hear other media discussing this amazing phenomenon...at least on Chicago channels.

(I thot the BEATLES had returned to Chicago!!!)

Someone tell me that Bush, Reagan...ANY pres. of either party ever had such LONG paid coverage (complemented by such FAWNING press).