Media Bias
I have had a number of people assert to me that the media is not biased, except for Fox News. They claim that Fox is the “lap dog of the RNC” and “a right-wing propaganda machine”. I have had a few pieces of scathing mail criticizing my use of Fox News sources for my articles and suggesting that I use a more moderate, reliable and unbiased news source like National Public Radio (NPR) or CNN. While I do listen to some NPR and will switch over to Anderson Cooper 360 now and again, I find the assertion of independence and neutrality of either laughable.
There is a local radio talk show host here in my home state of Colorado, Mike Rosen, who is not a hard news guy, but "issues of the day guy". He has a very honest and open way of stating his bias. Mr. Rosen frequently starts his monologues by saying, “before I tell you where I sit let me tell you where I stand”. Mr. Rosen will then go on to explain his philosophy before getting into his position on the issue at hand. I find the op-ed guys at Fox to be very open with their bias as well, Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes both are very clearly, unapologetically, on opposite sides of the issues. I do not see that same clear declaration, or acknowledgement of bias, at CNN, NPR, MSN, ABC, CBS or NBC. I do not see balance or an equally applied philosophy of fairness doled out on other media outlets as I do on Fox.
Yet when you look at the Fox hard-news reporters, I think you see a very balanced approach and would be hard pressed to single out an individual Fox talking head / news anchor that you could definitively pin down on their ideology (expect maybe Brit Hume). Fox brings recognized experts from both sides of the issues in and gives them equal time on their hard-news programs. Fox will consistently stop guest when they resort to talking points and won’t give them the platform for propagandizing from either side of the issue. The Fox News competitors do not display this kind of evenhandedness. That is demonstrable bias. When the regular viewer chances by a Fox broadcast they hear views and opinions that differ from their normal daily news source, and frequently mistake that novelty for bias. If one is only fed a steady diet of a single point of view, anything that differs from that will initially appear foreign and biased.
There are many examples of the networks applying a different ethical and moral standard for those on the left than for those on the right. If you go back and read my post on Mr. Barney Frank and compare how the majority of media outlets have treated the skeletons, lapses of judgment and moral failings of Frank to how they treated Congressman Mark Foley or Senator Larry Craig (neither Republican was convicted, both were lynched in the media and forced from office long before going to trial). Look at how ACORN is reported on compared to how National Right to Life is treated in the mainstream media. This is clear bias.
I will make my final point on discerning media bias by asking you to consider the following:
Do YOU believe that it would it be major leading news if John McCain’s home church pastor had a twenty-year history of inflammatory racial rhetoric? Do YOU believe that it would be major leading news if John McCain had a 10-year relationship with and sat on a charitable board with a man who had, in his past, bombed abortion clinics? Do YOU believe that it the mainstream media would ignore reports that John McCain funneled grant money to his church for a white studies program? Do YOU believe that the media would cover a story about Cindy McCain telling the world that she is finally proud of her country for the first time in her adult life now that her husband has won the nomination for the president? Do YOU believe that the media ever let up if it came out that one of John McCain’s mentors was a member of the American Nazi Party? Do YOU believe that the media would ever stop repeating a McCain sound bite if he declared in a speech:
I am sure that you would agree that any of these accusations would be full investigated, reports lacking hard dates and facts would be filled with innuendo and somber questions of fitness to lead (Like the phantom McCain Affair). The sound bites would be looped ad nauseum. The media, for the most part – (Props to CNN's Drew Griffin – Whoop! Whoop!)-, has refused to report on this in an investigative way, but only reports that the McCain camp is relentlessly trying to distract you from the issues that Obama clearly has the upper hand on. Is that unbiased reporting?
“But Tony,” you rail, “Barack has answered these questions and they are just distractions from the pressing issues of the day!”
Really? Is a candidate’s veracity not a major issue? Is a candidate’s changing story regarding their relationships not an indication that he (or she) is hiding something? If a candidate will lie to cover up one unsavory relationship that should be of no consequence, what else would they be willing to lie about? Has the mainstream media run any stories on what cases Barack Obama prosecuted for ACORN when he was their legal council (take a look at Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance)? Have they investigated Barack’s college thesis that he won’t release to the public? Have they really raised the question about sitting in the pews of a Black Liberation Theology church for 20 years and how that would impact one’s world view? Have they even brought up the fact that Bernardine Dohrn (number two on the FBI’s Most Wanted List at one time) and Michelle Obama worked at the same law firm - Sidley Austin? Have they reported on the Obamas charitable giving record – or lack there of?
There are many unanswered questions, questions that few in the media are asking. There are many Obama supporters who frankly don’t care. They have made their mind up. They have their candidate and his most appealing characteristics to most is that he is NOT BUSH and NOT MCCAIN. Obama might be able to win on just these sterling attributes alone, but the media is doing everyone a disservice by not covering all the issues. In the event that Obama wins, the RIGHT will cry foul! “We didn’t get a fair shake!” they will whine. If McCain win’s, they will claim America is “just not ready for a Black President” instead of pointing to his experience, character and the litany of unanswered questions.
There is a local radio talk show host here in my home state of Colorado, Mike Rosen, who is not a hard news guy, but "issues of the day guy". He has a very honest and open way of stating his bias. Mr. Rosen frequently starts his monologues by saying, “before I tell you where I sit let me tell you where I stand”. Mr. Rosen will then go on to explain his philosophy before getting into his position on the issue at hand. I find the op-ed guys at Fox to be very open with their bias as well, Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes both are very clearly, unapologetically, on opposite sides of the issues. I do not see that same clear declaration, or acknowledgement of bias, at CNN, NPR, MSN, ABC, CBS or NBC. I do not see balance or an equally applied philosophy of fairness doled out on other media outlets as I do on Fox.
Yet when you look at the Fox hard-news reporters, I think you see a very balanced approach and would be hard pressed to single out an individual Fox talking head / news anchor that you could definitively pin down on their ideology (expect maybe Brit Hume). Fox brings recognized experts from both sides of the issues in and gives them equal time on their hard-news programs. Fox will consistently stop guest when they resort to talking points and won’t give them the platform for propagandizing from either side of the issue. The Fox News competitors do not display this kind of evenhandedness. That is demonstrable bias. When the regular viewer chances by a Fox broadcast they hear views and opinions that differ from their normal daily news source, and frequently mistake that novelty for bias. If one is only fed a steady diet of a single point of view, anything that differs from that will initially appear foreign and biased.
There are many examples of the networks applying a different ethical and moral standard for those on the left than for those on the right. If you go back and read my post on Mr. Barney Frank and compare how the majority of media outlets have treated the skeletons, lapses of judgment and moral failings of Frank to how they treated Congressman Mark Foley or Senator Larry Craig (neither Republican was convicted, both were lynched in the media and forced from office long before going to trial). Look at how ACORN is reported on compared to how National Right to Life is treated in the mainstream media. This is clear bias.
I will make my final point on discerning media bias by asking you to consider the following:
Do YOU believe that it would it be major leading news if John McCain’s home church pastor had a twenty-year history of inflammatory racial rhetoric? Do YOU believe that it would be major leading news if John McCain had a 10-year relationship with and sat on a charitable board with a man who had, in his past, bombed abortion clinics? Do YOU believe that it the mainstream media would ignore reports that John McCain funneled grant money to his church for a white studies program? Do YOU believe that the media would cover a story about Cindy McCain telling the world that she is finally proud of her country for the first time in her adult life now that her husband has won the nomination for the president? Do YOU believe that the media ever let up if it came out that one of John McCain’s mentors was a member of the American Nazi Party? Do YOU believe that the media would ever stop repeating a McCain sound bite if he declared in a speech:
You go into some of these inner cities in Pennsylvaina and Ohio, and like a lot of inner cities in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these inner cities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to drugs or gangs or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-white sentiment or anti-Wall Street sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
(Do you recognize this quote? Few words shifted to create a hypothetical McCain speech. Visit this link for a full transcript )I am sure that you would agree that any of these accusations would be full investigated, reports lacking hard dates and facts would be filled with innuendo and somber questions of fitness to lead (Like the phantom McCain Affair). The sound bites would be looped ad nauseum. The media, for the most part – (Props to CNN's Drew Griffin – Whoop! Whoop!)-, has refused to report on this in an investigative way, but only reports that the McCain camp is relentlessly trying to distract you from the issues that Obama clearly has the upper hand on. Is that unbiased reporting?
“But Tony,” you rail, “Barack has answered these questions and they are just distractions from the pressing issues of the day!”
Really? Is a candidate’s veracity not a major issue? Is a candidate’s changing story regarding their relationships not an indication that he (or she) is hiding something? If a candidate will lie to cover up one unsavory relationship that should be of no consequence, what else would they be willing to lie about? Has the mainstream media run any stories on what cases Barack Obama prosecuted for ACORN when he was their legal council (take a look at Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance)? Have they investigated Barack’s college thesis that he won’t release to the public? Have they really raised the question about sitting in the pews of a Black Liberation Theology church for 20 years and how that would impact one’s world view? Have they even brought up the fact that Bernardine Dohrn (number two on the FBI’s Most Wanted List at one time) and Michelle Obama worked at the same law firm - Sidley Austin? Have they reported on the Obamas charitable giving record – or lack there of?
There are many unanswered questions, questions that few in the media are asking. There are many Obama supporters who frankly don’t care. They have made their mind up. They have their candidate and his most appealing characteristics to most is that he is NOT BUSH and NOT MCCAIN. Obama might be able to win on just these sterling attributes alone, but the media is doing everyone a disservice by not covering all the issues. In the event that Obama wins, the RIGHT will cry foul! “We didn’t get a fair shake!” they will whine. If McCain win’s, they will claim America is “just not ready for a Black President” instead of pointing to his experience, character and the litany of unanswered questions.
Comments