Historical vs. biased

By: Kathryn Lisk

When reporting on hurricanes or floods, it is easy for journalists to remain objective. They state the facts, cover the story in an inverted pyramid form, and move on. Even when covering sports stories or movie reviews, most journalists are able to provide information to readers without offending and can stay neutral. 

However, during the past week, endless stories have been written on the presidential candidates and more specifically on Barack Obama's victory. Have journalists still remained completely neutral?

Various reporters have regarded the Democratic Party's victory as an historical event and

a blog posted on npr.org questioned whether this was a fair statement. The blogger said the claim may imply a liberal bias. 

In this specific example, I disagree. Whether or not a journalist supports Obama really shouldn't matter. He is the first minority to be elected president and has made history. This election is without a doubt historically significant within the U.S.

In fact, I disagree with the argument that newspapers have reported unfairly since the election ended in general. It is certainly news that Obama won. After two years of speeches, rallies, debates and so on, the president elect should be front page nationwide. 

Papers would have done the same had John McCain won.