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.
Rosemary Kennedy (daughter of Joseph P. Kennedy, sister of President John F. Kennedy and Senators Robert F. Kennedy and Edward M. Kennedy) was lobotomized at her father's request in 1941 at the age of 23. The lobotomy went wrong and she was left with an infantile mentality. Why didn't her "esteemed" brother lobby to have her denied food and water?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy
yeah,...you bet,...cue the Ralph Kramden audio,...and "ah HAAaah"
.
TERRI = Breathes, Eats, Speaks / MICHAEL = "When is that B-ITCH gonna die?" ..per Nurses
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1366750/posts
.
And why, pray tell, do "mainstream journalists share a similar view of the world?" I submit that it is nothing more than simple economics. Adam Smith could have told you that; it is nothing more than a manifestation of the routine conspiring of tradesmen against the public. The cardinal rule of whoso would be a "mainstream" journalist is, not to engage in flame wars with other mainstream journalists. That, after all, would be to commit the folly of voluntarily picking a fair fight.So instead the "mainstream" journalist picks on anyone important who is not a mainstream journalist - and who is also not a toady who parrots the line that whatever "mainstream journalism" mentions is of first importance. Those who toady to "mainstream journalism" are rewarded with good PR, including - until they ran it into the ground - the label "liberal." Those who do not toady to journalism are considered fair game.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
Media bias bump.
Most excellent observation.
A very thoughtful piece by an intelligent and astute man.
Now, I won't feel so guilty about watching my "guilty pleasure" - Wheel of Fortune.
BTTT
Now, what about Alex Trebek? Is he a conservative? Does anyone know?
I had always hoped that game show hosts spent their off hours getting plastic surgery and drinking umbrella drinks by a pool. It's a damn shame that he actually thinks his views are so remarkable as to be taken seriously.
When the lifeless body of this empty headed GAME SHOW HOST is buried in the cold, cold, ground, his only legacy will be this: that he spent his life helping others waste theirs. That countless elderly Americans can sit idly in front of a television, pissing away some of their few remaining lucid moments. So that institutionalized people can walk around muttering "can I buy a vowel". This is the life's work of Pat Sajak. What a waste of air.
So you joined Free Republic just to criticize Pat Sajak? Rush Limbaugh obviously doesn't have the same low opinion that you do about Sajak, because Rush used to have Sajak in a guest host on a fairly regular basis back in the early days.
Sorry to burst your bubble but I don't care for Rush either. You never actually see him in a debate. When you simply spout your thoughts without true debate you can say whatever you want. That's what Rush does. He's also dishonest and a drug abuser so I won't listen to him. But if you like him, that's fine.
As I was saying, you joined Free Republic to criticize Pat Sajak and now Rush Limbaugh. I really am not concerned with who you do and don't like. So go back to DU and tell your DUmmie friends that yes, it's true, you guys have lost the White House, Congress, and now the Papacy too. You did succeed in murdering Terri Schiavo, and I'm sure you're all very delighted by that.
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.