Try to Guess Martha Raddatz's Political Leanings from this Interview
In my book on media bias I write a section entitled "Open and Transparent, but That was Just a Lie." The title refers to the behavior of journalists--specifically, how secretive they are about their political views. I contrast them to politicians, who are very open about their views.
The section begins with an anecdote about Martha Raddatz, who will be the moderator for Thursday night's vice-presidential debate:
As I mentioned earlier, a few years ago ABC correspondent Martha Raddatz appeared on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal. A call-in viewer asked a pointed question:
CSPAN viewer: I would like to know if your guest this morning—if she is a Republican, Democrat, or Independent?
Raddatz: We don’t talk about those things. We don’t talk about those things at all. I’m an objective reporter. Uhh, we can’t, uhh. We don’t really talk about that. I wouldn’t talk about that. I’d like you to find a reporter that does.
CSPAN viewer: Well, you notice that when we call this program, which is greatly appreciated, I think, by many, many, curious people about the news, we have to state whether we are Republican, Democrat, or Independent. And I think it is a little disingenuous that you would suggest that you are totally unbiased, or that if you were Democratic that you could not be objective, or if you were Republican you couldn’t be objective. So could you tell me the last time that you voted for a Republican?
Raddatz: I’m not going to tell you anything about how I vote, when I vote, and who I have ever voted for. I am here as a journalist. I’m not here as a political representative of either party. I am a journalist. And that is my job, to try to maintain objectivity. It is not… I’m not calling in on a call show to tell you what party I belong to. I’m a journalist.
Now try to imagine Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or John Boehner saying something like that. Suppose, for instance, they were asked, “How do you stand on partial-birth abortion?”, and suppose they answered, “I’m not going to tell you anything about my position on that issue. If I did, it would compromise my ability as an objective lawmaker.”
Voters would laugh at such a response. And they would soon oust them from office.
Journalists, in contrast, are very secretive about their views, as well as those of their colleagues. Responses like Raddatz’s are common. For instance, when I asked Rebecca Trounson—the Los Angeles Times reporter I interviewed in Chapter 6—about her political views, she similarly refused to answer.
Such secretiveness has become something of an institutional norm among journalists. Meanwhile, a contrasting norm of transparency exists among politicians.
As I document in the book, the typical mainstream newsroom votes about 93-7 for the Democrat in a typical presidential election. Given that fact and the above anecdote, I’d bet my life savings that Raddatz usually votes Democratic.
Here is a video of Peter Robinson and me, discussing the norms of secrecy among journalists. (The relevant part begins at 18:56.)
Here's the C-SPAN video of Martha Raddatz. I think it's fair to say that she literally (and figuratively) squirms when asked about her political views. (The relevant part begins at the 34:20 mark.)
Today the Daily Caller reports new evidence supporting my betting stance: President Obama seems to have attended Raddatz's wedding in 1991.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Try to Guess Martha Raddatz's Political Leanings from this Interview
It's like asking Eric Holder if he runs the Justice Department. It's none of our business.
Apr '12
Re: Try to Guess Martha Raddatz's Political Leanings from this Interview
90% + of them are Democrats so it usually makes little difference who is asking the questions. What is important is for Republicans not to accept the premises of their questions and to reformulate them in a proper way and answer them the way they want to.
Sep '10
Re: Try to Guess Martha Raddatz's Political Leanings from this Interview
How did it get this way? I suppose it is a legacy of the days when television was limited to 3 stations and in effect controlled by the government. Perhaps it goes back farther than that to newpapers. To call any of them perfectly objective at any times seems laughable to me so I wonder why compelled to hide it.
Jul '11
Re: Try to Guess Martha Raddatz's Political Leanings from this Interview
I thought I smelled a dirty Raddatz.
Jan '11
Re: Try to Guess Martha Raddatz's Political Leanings from this Interview
I always wanted to ask an "objective" reporter:
If the reason you want to report the news is so that voters can make an "informed decision," it stands to reason that your job also informs ... you. So, your reporting either affects your vote, or, frankly, your job is irrelevant.
Assuming your job is relevant, then, your reporting should have brought you to an informed decision. So, given that you're the one doing the informing, how do you vote? If it doesn't influence your vote, how can you expect it to affect ours?
Mar '12
Re: Try to Guess Martha Raddatz's Political Leanings from this Interview
Does the belief that there is an objective criterion by which to decide what is news make one a man or woman of the Left?
There is, of course, a difference between fairness and objectivity.
Jun '12
Re: Try to Guess Martha Raddatz's Political Leanings from this Interview
Capt. Aubrey: How did it get this way?
Newsroom bias is a direct consequence of undergraduate and post-graduate programs producing the journalists staffing them and the editors running them. Higher education means liberal indoctrination in America, and it has for some time. Listen to any conservative who has "come out" in the last thirty years. They all say the same thing: I was your typical, unthinking liberal college student who never questioned what I was told, until one day, something happened that caused me to start thinking..."
May '10
Re: Try to Guess Martha Raddatz's Political Leanings from this Interview
I still like presstitutes.
Edited on October 10, 2012 at 10:47pmMay '10
Re: Try to Guess Martha Raddatz's Political Leanings from this Interview
And Raddatz is married to the guardian of our luminiferous ether, the brigadier of broadband access himself, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. Julius and Barack Obama were chums in Harvard Law school...In light of all of that, Raddatz's pretense of objectivity is especially disgusting.
Jul '11
Re: Try to Guess Martha Raddatz's Political Leanings from this Interview
They're divorced. Probably one of these easy amicable liberal lefty divorces where everyone is still friends but just needed to grow( never mind their child).
When I divorce I get the cops, restraining orders, rehab institutes, psychiatrists and all the really good stuff. Liberals are soft.
How likely is it that she has handed the questions over?
Jul '10
Re: Try to Guess Martha Raddatz's Political Leanings from this Interview
As DocJay pointed out, they're no longer married. And the wedding was in 1991. This isn't something we should be concerned about. But, if she asks Biden if he needs a softer pillow, then that's another thing. For now, let's give her the benefit of the doubt as she is seen in many conservative circles as a pretty unbiased reporter.
Dec '10
Re: Try to Guess Martha Raddatz's Political Leanings from this Interview
I don't know about conservative circles, but Raddatz is hardly unbiased.
Meanwhile, there's a reporter named Jamie DuPree that is pretty darned unbiased and should be considered as a future moderator. He doesn't vote; ever. He seems to view Republicans and Democrats with an equally gimlet eye.