Liberal media bias: here's the proof
Paul Greenberg (back to web version) |
SendPosted on 10/22/2004 1:16:18 PM PDT by vannrox
townhall.com
Printer-friendly version
Liberal media bias: here's the proof
Paul Greenberg (back to web version) | Send
October 22, 2004
Folks know what Liberal Media Bias is. Even those who deny it have to know what the rest of us are talking about. Anybody can read it between the lines, see it on CBS (also ABC and NBC), hear it on NPR, and almost feel it, it's so thick at times. Like an oil slick over the news, L.M.B. permeates American journalism's elite.
But defining Liberal Media Bias isn't easy. Because its very purpose is to be slippery, hard to pin down, indefinable. At its most effective, L.M.B. isn't even noticeable. It's supposed to come naturally, even automatically. Indeed, that's the object of the game: to present opinion as news, bias as fact, so smoothly that nobody is aware of the subtle switch.
As with George Orwell's newspeak, the function of L.M.B. isn't just to condition thought; it's to make any other thoughts unthinkable. Or at least unfashionable.
L.M.B. may be hard to pinpoint but, as a justice of the United States Supreme Court once said about pornography, you know it when you see it. Or hear it. Or read it. At least you should if you've got the slightest ear for language. It can even be a kind of spectator sport. Sometimes you almost want to cheer, its sleights of mind are executed so smoothly at times.
At other times, you just groan. I take the precaution, on hearing the first groaner on an NPR newscast, of switching to the classical music station. I owe Linda Wertheimer alone a debt of immense gratitude for guiding me to some of the most beautiful symphonies in the Western canon.
But although evidence of Liberal Media Bias abounds, there's never been any proof that it's part of a conscious pattern, a deliberate decision, something ordered from above. Till now.
Because now, thanks to some public-spirited leaker at ABC, we have the full text of an internal memo from its political director, Mark Halperin, to his minions. It's dated Friday, Oct. 8, 2004, and it makes perfectly clear whose side ABC "News" is going to be on in this presidential election:
It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave.
I do not want to set off (an) endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.
The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.
Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.
We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.
I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.
It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.
To summarize: Yes, our candidate may falsify now and then, but the other guy's falsity is at the center of his campaign. This memo might as well be a declaration of political war on ABC's part. It's what every true believer thinks in the heat of an election season. But it's unusual for a supposed unbiased newsman to think so. Or rather say so. In writing.
Liberal Media Bias isn't just a feeling anymore; it's a documented plan. Case closed. With a full confession.
And if you honestly can't hear the prejudice in ABC's memo, try switching the names of the candidates around and it'll come through loud and clear. Unless, of course, you really do believe one presidential candidate is basically a good guy and the other is evil personified.
The bias behind much of the news Americans are fed isn't exactly a surprise. But at least when you're listening to right-wing talk radio, you know you're listening to right-wing talk radio. And when you're watching Fox News, you can be confident it's fair and balanced in favor of the right.
It's the pretense of objectivity at the old established networks that offends, or should. Now it lies shattered.
What's surprising about this memo isn't ABC's Liberal Media Bias, but that someone at the top would be dumb enough to put it in writing.
How can anybody take ABC's election coverage seriously after this? This memo makes even CBS' fake-but-accurate coverage, phony documents and all, sound semi-honest. Once again, between leakers and bloggers, The Old Media has been unmasked. The proof is in the memo.
©2004 Tribune Media Services
townhall.com
Paul Greenberg is one of the few newsmen in this country with integrity. For all of Bill Clinton's years as Governor of Arkansas, and his eight years as president, Paul Greenberg of Little Rock stayed on his case. Unfortunately, few people listened.
Greenberg is no conservative, but he is a man of principle.
bump
I'll have to go look for web-site but I read a blurb today that said that Evan Thomas from Newsweek (who predicted months ago that the media wanted Kerry to win so much that they(media) would add 15pts. to Kerry).
Anyway, according to this article, Evan Thomas has already written a book "How John Kerry won the 2004 Election". No wonder he wants the media to help Kerry win!
The First Amendment, as it was intended, protects the right of a biased media. It protects the Left as it protects Free Republic.
Does it protect the right to lie?
BTTT
Great imagery. LMB is the pollution of the body politic.
You said: The First Amendment, as it was intended, protects the right of a biased media. It protects the Left as it protects Free Republic.
You are absolutely right, of course, as far as you go. But the problem is that ABC is fraudulent in that it purports to be unbiased when, as the memo referenced in the article shows, Jennings' network is obviously biased to the left. Free Republic does not suggest that it is unbiased. We acknowledge our conservative bias. In fact, we celebrate it. And that is the difference. I don't suggest that what ABC does is illegal. It is just wrong.
It's like any other issue that initially shocked the nation. Like gang shootings, government corruption, or school ground shootings, after awhile people tend to become desensitized from the initial shock of the incidents and over time, what at first caused a deep sense of horror, eventually leads to a certain degree of acceptance. This lessens the impact on people's emotions.
I see a similar pattern relating to MSM bias although I am unsure as to how this will affect the future of it. My concern is that people may become so conditioned by it that they will become complacent thus allowing them to get away with even more. My hope is that the internet and other alternative media will one day render them obsolete.
As the bias becomes more and more overwhelming, don't you figure at some point there will be a backlash against it. I could see a time when people become offended at being told what to think, as if they are all ignorant.
LOL
I would certainly hope so but after seeing what they have gotten away with already and not seeing any serious results from the backlash they've gotten, I don't know what to figure.
I was sure that Dan Rather would be history by now but he's still there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.