|
Everyone in the target audience knows the horse race aspect, so the broadcasters/reporters are compelled to explore the sidelight factors, or be virtually laughed out of the arena by knowledgeable fans.
Here's a principal difference: with dozens/hundreds of teams there's naturally balanced coverage and perspective. Even the most popular or most hated teams are favored or despised by a small percentage of overall fans. The vast majority don't really care, so it's obvious when there's blatant bias, in any direction. A home town announcer knows his role and is easily identified. That's one of the few accepted exceptions.
But let's face it, in politics almost everything is driven by rabid partisanship. When a lesser known politician is revealed in scandal, the first thing everyone does is look for the D or R, then the argument is shaped by whether the offender is friend or foe. Political reporting, similarly, is allowed to be biased, if not blatantly shallow and inept, because no matter which way you tilt almost half the audience will embrace you and quote you, wonderfully content not only to ignore the slant but to scream it's outright mythology.
Notice sports bias is seriously debated only when an extremely high profile team is the focus, like the Yankees or Notre Dame. Those teams approach political levels of allegiance and hatred, so the clarity is lost.
|