Pressthink: A Western Civ Course in What's Gone Wrong With the Press (liberal writes about bias)

Pressthink ^ | March 14, 2005 | Jay Rosen

[NutCrackerBoy]

Kierkegaard mistrusted journalism because he thought it would feed our love of the ephemeral, and he was no doubt right about this. Hegel remarked that in his time, newspapers were replacing morning prayer. -Kenneth Minogue (conservative writing in The New Criterion)

The conservative mind began hating journalism right there. -Jay Rosen, journalism school big shot and liberal blogger

He may be, as you say, a "thoughtful liberal," but he's taking the easy way out by blaming the so-called "religious right."

Rosen's processing the Hegel reference in a way that liberals must. Just jumps right over that "obviously obsolete" bit about a person taking spiritual sustenance from a daily devotional. More and more I am finding that during a debate with a liberal, at some point I run up against the brick wall that they think it is never necessary to confront anything that transcends a scientific/progressive worldview.

[swilhelm73]

The other major problem is that America once had a singular perspective that allowed journalism to report through that prism without challenging it.

This is indeed part of the issue.

In the post WWII period, America was fairly ideologically close. Conservativism/libertianism had been broken by the Great Depression (and FDR) and the rise of the atheist, communist sympathizing Left was yet to come.

As such the press could reflect this mainstream bias and claim that they were being nonpartisan as it was a bias shared by the majority of the populace.

This started to shatter in the 60s though with the rise of the New Left, and completely fell apart when conservativism returned to the American political scene as a major force in 1980.

For various reasons the press continually drifted into the New Left's camp, and year in and year out one can see them becoming no more and no less then the New Left's mouthpiece.

But to your average member of the MSM, the national consensus merely changed, it didn't splinter, as they were of and surrounded by the New Left. Make no mistake, from the vantage point of Boston or New York, the media's bias perfectly mirrors that of your neighbors.

The press has become aware that they were flatly wrong, and missed the direction most of America has been moving in for decades now - and that explains a part of why their biases have become so much more pronounced and *purposeful*.

[Miss Marple]

Excuse me for getting to the dixcussion late, but could you give me an example of right-wing bias in the mainstream media? I used to detect some in The Indianapolis Star a decade ago, but that has disappeared since it was sold to Gannett.

In the major networks and the major press, I cannot think of an example. Maybe I am missing something.

[hsalaw]

Consider the Wall Street Journal - conservative and proud of it, and they don't pretend to be anything else.

[Miss Marple]

If you are speaking of the editorial pages, the WSJ is conservative. The news portion is not; Al Hunt was until recently their Washington Bureau Chief. Many of the reporters on their news pages write things from a liberal point of view.

Grampa Dave can really comment on this far better than I. Al Hunt was the one who set up all the NBC/WSJ polls.

[driftless]

Pres. Bush goes on shows like 20/20 where Barbara Walters tries to get him to admit that the Iraq war is a failure and all the liberal press can do is squawk about one conservatve asking a friendly question. Should Gannon have been planted? No, but the instances of Bush fending off critical queries from liberal inquisitors are far, far greater.

If the libs were honest, they would admit that they're upset about the fact that there are any friendly questions put to Bush at all. And being the stinking hypocrites that they are, they're totally unapologetic about their own stooges in the media. Most lib media-types practically groveled at Clinton's feet when he was prez.

[driftless]

I agree with your view. If one reads up on certain issues or events (pick one..."global warming, etc), it is possible to discern what the pros and cons of that particular issue are. It is then infuriating to read reports about global warming where the reporter "informs" the reader that ALL scientists think alike on the issue (pro-warming) when plainly there is sharp disagreement within the community. That is exceptionally dishonest "reporting", and it is a trademark of modern liberal "journalism". I've yet to read a report about "global warming" in any major rag where I have not detected a liberal bias in the piece.

[Captain Rhino]

Here is an example from the article of your point:

Maybe it explains some of the inbox: Those people are in pain! This idea resembles the explanation most popular with journalists: "your anger is with a world that refuted your hopes, but you've directed it at us, the news criers, because we delivered the message."

For example, one day the new criers might say: "Sorry, Republicans, but a new and credible study doesn't support your hope that Charter Schools deliver a better education. Turns out the kids in Charter schools aren't doing any better than kids in other schools, and some are worse off. Now here are the facts..."

The writer complains about people being mad at journalists for delivering upsetting news, then provides in the next paragraph an example of bias in news reporting! Personally, I was not aware that charter schools were a Republican idea. They seem to be most popular with teachers and school administrators (hardly a Republican constituency) as a measure for dealing with faltering scholastic performance. Perhaps it is deliberately exaggerated by the author to single out a specific party to be offended. Perhaps not. But it perfectly represents the elements of bias people find most offensive: snooty, patronizing, condescending, blatantly lying, personally insulting, double-speak load of B.S.

[swilhelm73]

Most lib media-types practically groveled at Clinton's feet when he was prez.

“If we could be one-hundredth as great as you [Bill] and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been in the White House, we’d take it right now and walk away winners....Tell Mrs. Clinton we respect her and we’re pulling for her.” --Dan Rather

[freeangel]

Great analogy! It is interesting to note, however, that many people CHOOSE to keep on smoking despite the truth now.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

He didn't commit a crime, but there was a controversy over whether or not he had a concealed relationship with administration officials.

So what if he had a relationship with the administration? As best as I remember he simply had a blog that was pro-administration. On that basis most of the reporters would be barred because of relationships with anti-andministration and even foreign groups.

His first question basically started the whole controversy because it contained a factual error (Harry Reid never talked about soup lines),...

Again, if we are going to boot reporters because of factual errors, the entire liberal press would be barred. He at least got right the gist of what Reid was saying. That is better than many.

...and it was later found that he was able to get into the press briefings using an assumed name.

If my name were Gluckett, or whatever, I would change it too. Any other assumed names in the press core? Can't think of any off the top of my head but I'll bet there are. I know there are a few polititions like Joh "kerry" and Gary "Hart".

He was also found to have a connection to the Plame case, which added suspicion over his relationship with the administration.

The Plame case was another media-created brouhaha to deflect attention from the fact that her husband, an enemy of the administration, was sent to Africa at her suggestion and after lolly gagging with old friends for a few days came back and gave a false report on Iraq's attempt to buy yellow cake in Africa.

His crime was being conservative and I stand by my position. (Of course, I am writing this under and assumed name.)

[Mind-numbed Robot]

If the libs were honest,(I am sure you see the humor in that statement.) they would admit that they're upset about the fact that there are any friendly questions put to Bush at all.

They defend this by claiming that the media are supposed to be adversarial no matter who is in office. Yet.....

And being the stinking hypocrites that they are, they're totally unapologetic about their own stooges in the media. Most lib media-types practically groveled at Clinton's feet when he was prez.

[NutCrackerBoy]

BUMPlestiltskin!