Posted on 03/20/2005 12:34:28 PM PST by wagglebee
I awoke Sunday morning wanting to know what was happening in the Terri Schiavo saga, and here’s what one of the major news services had to say:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush cut short a holiday to return to Washington and be ready to sign a bill that may keep a brain-damaged woman alive in a case pitting Christian conservatives against right-to-die activists.
That sentence is just one of dozens of examples you can find almost daily of what’s wrong with the press. First of all, it is inaccurate. The notion that Christian Conservatives are the only ones on one side of this issue is ludicrous. Most of the discussions I’ve had this past weekend happened to be with Jewish friends who were appalled by the notion of starving an innocent woman to death. There are millions of people on the side of life in this case who are neither Christian nor Conservative, but it is a convenient bit of stereotypical shorthand that the press uses with regularity.
Second, if the Christians are Conservative, why aren’t the right-to-die activists Liberal? There is a very limited spectrum that the press generally uses to describe a person’s politics. There are Conservatives and then there is everyone else. “Conservative Senator so-and-so debated Senator what’s-his-name today.” In the world of the press, a Liberal rarely exists unless he or she is so identified by those hateful Conservatives.
In the Reuter’s example I cited, why not “Christian activists” or “right-to-live proponents”? No, they are Christian Conservatives, get it? Christians (and we know how closed-minded they are) and Conservatives (scary, huh?). The other side favors the right-to-die (giving people rights is always noble) and they are activists (caring, involved people). No contest here. Neanderthals vs. The Enlightened.
I have a little hobby of collecting these examples of subtle bias, and they are very easy to find. The problem is that you appear to be nit-picking when you point them out; however, these kinds of ingrained prejudices are endemic. One Senator merely states a fact, while the Conservative Senator “claims” something. Unnecessary and prejudicial adjectives are used with abandon, usually to the detriment of the more Conservative side. Alarming statistics about global warming, spousal abuse, homelessness or dozens of other issues are given without challenge if they come from activists. The challenge comes only when those issues are discussed from a more Conservative point of view. (“Conservative Senator Smith claimed homelessness is dropping, but the Center for Homelessness reports...”)
Sadly, I don’t believe most of this is done deliberately. I, being the magnanimous guy I am, think that the people who write this stuff are, for the most part, honorable journalists who genuinely try to write without prejudice. The problem is that when you write about something with which you agree there is no need to explain it or characterize it. It is only when writing about those “other” people and their take on the issues that you have to add some clarification because they are so out of step with what you know and believe. Who could possibly be against the right to die? Why, it’s those Christian Conservatives.
As long as mainstream journalists share a similar view of the world, that world can never be reported “objectively”. And that is why the so-called alternative media have had such an impact. But don’t these bloggers also have a slanted view of the issues? Of course they do, but, in most cases, they acknowledge it and the consumers can factor in that slant when they read. When you check out something called “The View from the Right”, you know what you’re getting, but when you read The New York Times, you think you’re getting “All the news that’s fit to print”.
I don’t suggest for a moment that people should completely give up the mainstream media for the alternative types. I merely suggest that all of them be viewed with a discerning eye and a recognition that they all slant the news to one degree or another. It’s just that some are less forthcoming about it.
Of course, that’s merely the claim of a Conservative entertainer.
He really nails it here!
A very well written and supported piece by Mr. Sajak and, frankly, I was surprised at the quality what with my preconceived notions about Hollywood types that I've obtained from the subtle bias of the MSM. The phrase above sums it up neatly IMO.
Is it possible that Pat Sajak has been out there writing articles like this for a long time, and I've only recently seen them?
I'm starting to really love this guy!
I'm a pro-life atheist, and it certainly bothers me when the MSM does this. But it's not only the MSM that's doing it. Some here on FR use the phrase "religious right" as an epithet also.
Pat is being too kind by thinking this stereotyping is just some sort of mind-meld that happens by chance in newsrooms. Remember when Reuters directed their reporters not to use the term "terrorist"? They just made the mistake of putting that directive in writing.
Sajak has been posting conservative pieces for a while now, and it's all pretty much on point and very well written. I had always just assumed he was just another Hollyweird wacko, but he isn't.
From what I recall, he's conservative, but unlike his liberal counterparts he is a professional and doesn't wear his allegiances on his sleeve.
Also interesting, if you didn't know, is http://www.patsajak.com/bio.htm
"In 1968, Pat left Columbia after only three years, joined the U.S. Army, and was promptly sent to Vietnam. After a few months as a finance clerk, he was transferred into Armed Forces Radio and given the morning show on AFVN in Saigon where he yelled, “Good Morning, Vietnam!” for a year and a half. He finished his military career at the Pentagon in 1970."
He apparently couldn't find a job anywhere in media for quite a while after he got out. Wonder if it had anything to do with his politics?
The media are SO biased about this issue. I've lost count of how many times they've said that Terri S. is "brain dead," or "in a vegetative state." She is neither. She is brain damaged, which is not the same thing.
The media are SO biased about this issue. I've lost count of how many times they've said that Terri S. is "brain dead," or "in a vegetative state." She is neither. She is brain damaged, which is not the same thing.
The media are so biased about this issue. I've lost count of how many times they've said that Terri S. is "brain dead," or "in a vegetative state." She is neither. She is brain damaged, which is not the same thing.
Corrected tagline.
IMO, I wouldn't want to be in that state but I respect her parents wishes and don't think she ought to be sentenced to death.
It's all this extraneous bull that has made this case so maddening. The parents accusing the husband of trying to murder her.....it's looking for someone to blame for the tragedy and serves no purpose at all at this point in time.
Stick to whether it is right to take away the feeding tube......
Pat Sajak is a cogent conservative wordsmith and pundit IMHO.
I watched Robert Wexler this morning saying that Terri wanted to die and it was wrong of us not to grant her wishes. If Mr. Wexler and all the other dims really believed what they were saying then why in the world are people like this animal that killed Jessica Lunsford being kept on a "suicide watch" and not allowed to kill himself? It sure would save us a lot of tax dollars!
yeah,...me too,...make sure to watch "The Wheel..",...keep his ratings up
bump for Pat Sajak
Atheist Left Wing scares me more.
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.