In the midst of such historic political events, it is easy for us to overlook some of the current shortcomings of our media system. We’ve seen the Saturday Night Live skits and heard the hype, but with our ground-breaking presidency, we may be letting our news system get away with more than responsible journalists should. The concept of media objectivity is not a new one, but what with the standards of recent reporting and the importance of clarity in evaluating a new and critical presidency, we now depend on our media to be more dependable than ever.

The most pertinent and recent examples of biased journalism can be drawn from the recent election. The 2008 election was many things, heated and historic, but one thing it was not was impartially and critically reported. In fact, the issue of partisan media was so pervasive that even the candidates themselves referred to it. In the case of former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the skewed reports of the “liberal media” were to be used as a major argument against her opponents. What Palin failed to mention, however, was that American media was impartial towards both sides of the political fence. Reports conducted by reputable organizations to evaluate the leanings of major networks revealed that political biases are, in fact, quantifiable. By counting the number of positive and negative comments mentioned outside of objective poll data, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts showed varying levels of Democratic affiliation. The average came to around 65 percent of comments being pro-President Barack Obama and 31 percent pro-presidential candidate John McCain. Fox’s “Special Report” on the other hand, though showing more even numbers, was just more critical all around, summing up to 39 percent pro-McCain and 28 percent pro-Obama with the rest of the comments largely negative.

Just as important as what the American audience sees is what they don’t. The media holds an equal amount of power in what it withholds as what it puts to print. An older study conducted during a previous election by Tim Groeling of University of California Los Angeles was also able to measure how much news stations chose to show and how much to withhold by evaluating two statistics: presidential polling conducted by CBS, NBS and ABC, and how often the networks’ then broadcasted the results. What Groeling discovered presaged later findings: CBS, NBC and ABC were democratically inclined and were more likely to report rises in Democratic polls than falls. Fox, on the other hand, was much more likely to report rises in the Republican popularity polls.

If these discoveries of clear partisanship from our major news stations are not shocking for most Americans, it is only because we forget the power of our media. We underestimate the information networks’ ability to shape our opinions. In the past, the influence of journalism has been manipulated to stir sentiment and even ignited major world conflicts. Now, more than ever, as the expansion of technology facilitates quick and pervasive communication, the journalistic system must be held accountable to a higher standard of excellence.

Another major problem, even a contributor to biased printing, is the media’s loss of focus. For matters as important as the selection of the next president, it is critical that news stations examine the most important part of politics: the policies. In an unprecedented inundation of media attention that represents the power of our modern information era, every step of this election, and every aspect of both candidates was narrated and communicated for public judgment. People were fascinated, and deeply invested, in a presidential race that was historic not only for its candidates, but for the dire economic times in which it took place, and the beast of the American media was more than happy to meet the interest. In its oversupply, however, some media, especially those articles and comedic programs which examined the candidates’ characters and personal lives, were driven to superfluous and increasingly inflammatory proportions. Rather than providing the vital forum for discussion of the candidates’ national plans, much of this election’s focus lay in critiques of their characters. On both sides, particularly in the cases of Palin and Obama, the news focused largely on their personal lives and ad hominem, or character, attacks, scrutinizing the smallest statements and extrapolating them into measurements of character.

A standard amount of personality judgment is expected, even necessary, in the election. Free speech allows our media to uncover for the public the reality of the politicians that we elect so that we may exercise our democratic powers in an educated manner. But when entire news stations are labeled as partisan and fact-based revelations are extorted and reported to distortion, then the media crosses the line from public responsibility into the realm of self-interested gossip. It is clear that the media is not immune to using scandalous personal stories to fuel reader interest and fan public frenzy. During the election, the reporting of character attacks such as the Muslim theories had more effect on the polls than the candidates’ own speeches. Because the American media holds such sway over public opinion, it is all the more necessary that it mitigates its power with responsibility, cuts its printing of ad hominem attacks and focuses its attention on critically reporting the politicians actually policies.

Now, more than ever, as we have elected an historic, improbable president who faces some of the most vital economic and military decisions of our times, our nation must learn to dismiss celebrity and evaluate our national leader with clarity. The American media, like any great sociopolitical force, must learn to strike the delicate balance between expository journalism and inflammatory reporting. If nothing else, the 2008 election should stand as a cautionary example and shape the way we debate and assess the actions of our newest president.