In the aftermath of the this week's Presidential election, there is one journalistic observation that I believe merits attention: regardless of your political affiliation, bad reporting is bad reporting - even when it favors your candidate or your point of view.

Election 2008 was the granddaddy of all elections when it comes to partisan, ineffectual, inaccurate reporting and in that regards, both John McCain and Barack Obama were losers. 

More importantly, the American people were losers because on way too many occasions, we read and watched the sort of agenda-driven news coverage that only fuels public suspicion that all journalists are shills for some puppet master.
 

Cameron

To single out a specific example is probably unfair because there are so many worthy examples.  But I simply can't let pass unnoticed the incendiary, flagrant television dispatch I witnessed the day after the election.
 

Fox News' Chief Political Correspondent, Carl Cameron, who covered the McCain campaign, breathlessly reported on the O'Reilly Factor about McCain insiders who were now letting out the 'truth' about how dumb, how uncooperative, how greedy and how bitchy Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin really is.

Quoting unnamed McCain campaign sources, here is some of what Cameron reported on Nov. 5th*:
 

Early on, they [McCain operatives] began to discover that there were these gaps in her knowledge.  I just want to rattle off a couple of the things that insiders say she just simply didn't know.  There were real problems with basic civics, government structures; municipal state and federal government responsibilities.  She didn't know the nations involved in the North American Free Trade Agreement, we're told.  She didn't understand, McCain aides told me today, that Africa was a continent and not a country, and actually asked them -- they argue, they say -- if South Africa wasn't just part of the country as opposed to a country in the continent. 
 

And this Leona Helmsley-like characterization from Cameron*:
 

There are stories that say she would look at her press clippings in the morning and throw what has been described to me as "tantrums." .... They have suggested that she's a bit of a shopoholic and that on more than one occasion she would go out and buy clothes that to many seemed unnecessary because the campaign had already provided her with a very large wardrobe, uh, a wardrobe that famously rang up a bill of $150,000, mostly because they bought extra sizes to make sure everything fit.
 

For the sake of argument, let's say that Cameron's reporting is 100% accurate.  One does not have to be a fan of the Alaska governor to realize Cameron's unprofessionalism in conveying those "facts' in a vacuum.

Cameron made no effort to explain what his sources have to gain from releasing this information.  Many solid journalists, obviously not including Cameron, wouldn't repeat such pernicous information coming from sources who ask to remain unnamed.

Nor did Cameron venture to point out that even if all that the McCain operatives are saying about Governor Palin is factual, they were the ones who nominated her in the first place.  Might it be in their self-interest, masked behind anonymity, to try to get the public to believe they weren't responsible for their own dumb choice - if that is what they are now contending adding Palin to the ticket was?

Perhaps readers of this column might be thinking, 'Well, what do you expect, Cameron is from Fox News?' -- which in some peoples' minds epitomizes Republican boosterism and a lack of journalism professionalism.  I, however, think we must demand more from all journalists, whether they work for Fox, MSNBC, The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal.

Actually, I think Cameron, disappointed that his candidate didn't win, simply lost it and in the process trashed Sarah Palin and his own journalistic credibility.  From what I read on the Fox News blogs, thousands of dedicated Fox viewers agree.

In this regard, going forward, political reporters may want to take a page from the playbook of sports commentators.

The hometown newspaper and the hometown broadcast team at any professional sports event have learned to navigate that fine line between boosterism and denial.

Boosterism is shading the obvious truth in a misplaced sense of team loyalty.  For a professional broadcast team to mislabel the hair-brained execution of a play by the popular local quarterback only insults true fans of the game, who can spot incompetence for themselves.  Likewise a lousy coach or a feckless team owner must be acknowledged as such.

Denial would be, for example, local radio commentators covering the recently completed World Series between the Red Sox and the Rays in such a way that fans would be unable to distinguish whether those calling the game were doing it for the Boston or Tampa hometown station.  Any broadcast team that was so 'objective' in its professionalism as to be indistinguishable would be in denial over what job they were hired to do.

Political journalists, too, are wrong to deny which team they root for, just as they are wrong when they underestimate the innate powers of observation of their readers, listeners and viewers.

I'm okay if Cameron roots for McCain or MSNBC's Keith Olberman is an Obama man.  And they should call 'the game' knowing which team they favor and who are their like-minded fans.

What Cameron, Olberman and many others still must learn is that you can't mislabel an interception a "completed pass" and still expect even loyal fans to welcome your partisanship.