What's Really Important Media Bias is in the Eye of the Beholder
What’s important to me in the present climate of extreme political dissent and division in our nation is that all voices be heard. I don’t believe in censorship or in ignoring those I disagree with. Besides, in my world, it’s more fun, and sometimes fruitful, to debate with someone rather than simply pretend they never voiced an opinion contrary to my own. The issues that divide us will not be resolved if each side preaches only to the choir. That will result in a solidification of polarities; it will not reestablish the common ground which has been lost.
This present blog originated as a comment I sent to a fellow blogger in response to one of his blogs. It concerned an allegation of liberal media bias, to which I took exception. For whatever reason, he chose not to publish it on his site, and that’s okay. Believing a rebuttal is in order I’ve decided to post it here instead. I’ve only made a few very small changes.
Hearing about liberal media bias seems to have become a right wing mantra, another one of those things they repeat over and over as if that lends credibility to a concept. It’s the “pot calling the kettle black.� I’m not really sure what it means. Are we supposed to believe that conservative news sources have no bias? Are the Rush Limbaugh’s, Sean Hannity’s and Bill O’Reilly’s of the world straight shooters that tell the whole story from an objective viewpoint? Am I to take it on faith when Fox “News� claims ad nauseum they are “fair and balanced?� The fact that they repeat it every fifteen minutes leads me to believe it must not be very obvious. Rupert Murdoch wouldn’t recognize objectivity if it ran him over.
My guess as to why much of the print media tends to be liberal, is because liberals read. Perhaps the radio airwaves are ruled by the right wing because many of them don’t read? I’m only guessing, but it might be supported by statements by our current president who boasted he doesn’t read newspapers, and seemed quite proud of the fact.
Of course someone came out with his summer reading list which included Shakespeare, Camus, a book about Lincoln and even a biography of Robert Oppenheimer, Alexander II: The last Great Tsar by Edvard Radzinsky, and The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History by John M. Barry.
It may be true that someone added these things to his reading list, but I’m not sure anything was said about his actually reading them. I myself tend to believe it more likely I’ll meet with the Tooth Faery and the Great Pumpkin before seeing George W Bush actually reading books such as these. Of course, that’s only my opinion.
Is it silly ole me, or does this sound odd as summer reading for the leader of the free world who doesn’t even read newspapers, but relies solely on advisors to tell him what is happening in the world? In an interview with Fox “News� anchorman, Brit Hume back in 2003, Bush claimed that he walks into the oval office each morning and asks his Chief of Staff, Andrew Card "What's in the newspapers worth worrying about? I glance at the headlines just to kind of (get) a flavor of what's moving, I rarely read the stories.� He went on: “The best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what’s happening in the world.� Right, I surely believe the president’s staff is objective, especially politically.
I would suggest that one might expect to read papers with a liberal perspective while in the Bay Area. It’s an area where a lot of those dreaded liberals happen to live, and people tend to view things, and tell about them from their own viewpoint. I’d imagine that the newspapers might display a slightly different perspective in all those red states that cover the vast expanse of the interior of the nation.
Though we agree much of the media has a bias; that bias appears to be in the eye of the beholder. There are unfortunately very few real investigative reporters any more, and TV news seems to have become almost solely driven by entertainment value, ratings and corporate interest; we differ in the belief that it is a bias that only goes one way. I’m not even going to go into how soft the media, print or otherwise, has been on this present administration, but do believe anyone really believing the media has been too hard on this administration or been an adequate check in terms of demanding accountability might want to consider that “denial� is not just a river in Egypt.
It’s just possible that George W Bush has earned much of the criticism coming his way, and that is called reporting, not liberal bias. His party is in control of the Executive, Congress and Supreme Court, and if problems exist guess who just might be responsible?
Comments
Stephen.,
I believe there is a bit of bias on Fox News. I dont believe for one minute that they are fair and balanced in their views of this administration. Murdoch gave huge sums of money to Bush for his presidential campaign and he and the president are good friends.. I tend to believe he would lean his news program to be pro-bush., and O'Reilly, Hannity and Rush lean so far right, they need a cane to keep them from falling over.
Edward R Murrow told the american public long ago that we had better beware of TV and News shows. That they could lead us astray if we rely totally upon them. And I believe he was right. By the way., I'm not supporting them, but CNN has won both the Peobody award for news and the Edward R Murrow award...Fox has never won either of them.
I do believe political parties have realized the effect that TV has on viewers, and are using it. That recent movie on 9/11 where they make it look like Clinton was "solely" responsible for the terrorist attacks is such fabrication, I couldnt believe they would actually air that pack of lies. That was definately a political ploy because of the upcoming elections.
There is one news journalist that doesnt take it easy on Bush and does ask the hard questions... Helen Thomas! She is my hero as far as journalism goes. If she said it was so., I would bet it is!
I have a great site, if any of your fellow bloggers would like to use it. Its called FactCheck.org and its non-partisan. If you have a question about anything you hear on the news or whatever, you can check it out here, and you will get the whole facts with no political views.. just the facts ma'am!
kate
Posted by: Katerina | September 24, 2006 05:43 PM
Stephen.,
I believe there is a bit of bias on Fox News. I dont believe for one minute that they are fair and balanced in their views of this administration. Murdoch gave huge sums of money to Bush for his presidential campaign and he and the president are good friends.. I tend to believe he would lean his news program to be pro-bush., and O'Reilly, Hannity and Rush lean so far right, they need a cane to keep them from falling over.
Edward R Murrow told the american public long ago that we had better beware of TV and News shows. That they could lead us astray if we rely totally upon them. And I believe he was right. By the way., I'm not supporting them, but CNN has won both the Peobody award for news and the Edward R Murrow award...Fox has never won either of them.
I do believe political parties have realized the effect that TV has on viewers, and are using it. That recent movie on 9/11 where they make it look like Clinton was "solely" responsible for the terrorist attacks is such fabrication, I couldnt believe they would actually air that pack of lies. That was definately a political ploy because of the upcoming elections.
I have a great site, if any of your fellow bloggers would like to use it. Its called FactCheck.org and its non-partisan. If you have a question about anything you hear on the news or whatever, you can check it out here, and you will get the whole facts with no political views.. just the facts ma'am!
kate
Posted by: Katerina | September 24, 2006 05:43 PM
One correction to your post: Fox's claim is "fair and balanced" news, as opposed to "unbalanced."
From what I hear and read and see, which is far more than I wish, I cannot possibly imagine anyone claiming the that media has a liberal bias. But it happens, and apparently it happens as part of a well-crafted strategy. Discredit anyone with an opinion that differs from the right-wing talking points. I think a lot of the noise comes from a bunch of nut cases (just about everybody who comes on the air at Fox qualifies), who make at living telling lies and/or making outrageous statements. I think the best way to deal with the likes of Hannity, O'Reilly or Ann Coulter would be to trivialize them by ignoring them, but somebody has to call out how outrageous they are.
Posted by: dougt | September 24, 2006 05:46 PM
Thanks for the correction Doug; I made the change. Perhaps subconsciously I was thinking of Fox "news" and the term unbalanced came to mind, as in mentally? I never say Fox "news" without putting the news part in quotes.
It absolutely amazes me how many believe Fox is unbiased. I guess that is what happens when you don't watch or read other news. It's a shame so many people will agree with what is said solely because it is something they already believe. It behooves all of us to keep open minded enough to be able to recognize when we might be wrong about a thing and need to change our mind. We all have biases, and yet always have the choice to change those viewpoints. I watch several news stations including Fox, and try to read a few newspapers so as to hear a story from different viewpoints; eventually the truth is sifted out. I have actually been known to change my mind.
For example, I don't understand how people can still be so ardent in their support for Bush now that it has been proven there was no Iraq/Al Qaeda-9/11 connection. This was something the administration pushed continuously -- Bush more indirectly, and more directly through his spokespersons like Rice and Cheney. The same can be said about finding no WMDs in Iraq. At what point does one begin to doubt a person that has called these “facts� and used them as an excuse to invade another nation, only to find out later both allegations were wrong? Many of us believe we were purposely misled; but even if we weren't, doesn't this make the case for a certain level of incompetence in high office?
*******
Good points Katerina. I still question ABC for making a multi-million dollar mini-series, and then airing it with no commercials for five hours. Just who was financially backing this endeavor, and why? The why, of course, becomes more evident when you realize they took an important and recent catastrophe in our history, one in which the main players are still alive, and actually changed the facts concerning what conversations took place, as well as the conversations people had. I’d call this unconscionable, and I’d be up in arms if and when either political party was behind such distortions. Anyone doubting there were intentional distortions is reminded about the ABC disclaimer appearing several times during each program reminding people that this was a fictional drama and not a documentary.
Posted by: Stephen Rose | September 24, 2006 10:13 PM
Again a wee note. I did not have to read the entire article........media is like wag the dog.....remember at the end because the producer who prepared the false front of a war was murdered.....
I have never watched Fox news.
I do watch CNN...I can see who these people are. I can use my profiling training to watch the faces as the people make the news.
media=medium?=middle=caught between, or willingly between=not willing to ride an opinion on your own you can point to whichever is winning ...you don't want to be a loser right????? In other words, since I am not a follower, and have not been a lemming in anything since I was tiny..I intake the outtakes on the messages fed to us.....
You could call it MIND MAPPING. It is a process in NLP...
When seeing people speaking for themselves, reading them has more clarity to me...
Bush cannot help one eyebrow that goes up when he is lying or confused about his speech..
he also makes a noise meaning he is trying to formulate AN ACCEPTABLE MESSAGE IN HIS MIND...
MEDIA is false! It is what they want you to believe...so who owns that newspaper? What millionare? Rep? Dem?
We are shown what they want us to see and hide what we are not to know according to them.
Interesting that THE WORD ABOUT DUBYA that he is gay, is filtering through. He proved it on tv with the Saudi Prince, swinging hands like two lovers when they walked, then stepping to the side and with passion and a high kissed upon the mouths......the press have probably destroyed every remnant of that..or should I say the Government.
Steve how do you debate or discuss issues of the world and political bias? All I have seen is those who think Bush talked to God....and like in chat the blind following of one man who was never been able to lead anything.....
I think I am not making a wee bit of sense.....Yes, do read between the lines! The chatroom has shown me the avid hate of the Republicans...
I will vote my choice by who they are and not what party..so now i am down to two.........
God help us all, when all this republican and bush reality hits ... it has hit the world loud and clear that WE...AMERICA invaded Iraq, and have caused this uproar in the middle east....I have said that would happen from day 1. We are not safe........the media can only print what is allowed.....
well, my friend, I have gone on too long. If I wasn't so tired, it probably would have the glow of my real writing.
GOD HELP THE WORLD, AND GOD HELP US...............
Posted by: BENITA | September 25, 2006 11:43 AM
I don't know that this necessarily belongs in this post, but it's a hoot and everyone should have a chance to enjoy Jacob Weisberg's The Complete Bushisms, from Slate Magazine.
Posted by: dougt | September 26, 2006 03:06 PM