Media bias: liberal or conservative?

barometer.orst.edu ^

[chance33_98]

Media bias: liberal or conservative?

by David Williams

If our network news programs told us tonight that the sun was going to rise in the west and set in the east tomorrow, I think many of us would concur by shaking our heads like bobble dolls.

Of course, I am embellishing here just a touch. CBS, NBC and ABC do not concoct false stories or opinions that make no sense. Nevertheless, the point is simple.

We, all too often, accept what our primary news sources report as true and real into our value system. Many of us do not even consider the possibility of a blatantly liberal press.

It's not necessarily what the major networks say that makes them biased; it's frequently what they do not say that illustrates my point.

I don't believe, per se, that Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe has a conference call with Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw an hour before the nightly news comes on and tells them what they can and cannot say.

Nor am I stating that liberal press agents in the media collectively and institutionally on a large scale perpetuate only one view point in hopes that the liberal agenda will live.

What I am saying is that a significant portion of people in those outlets, in particular, are liberal and their views are clearly transparent in their reporting.

In turn, their attempt to sustain only one side or to continue their march into political correctness not only alienates the vast majority of Americans, but also strives to polarize and marginalize anyone who has a different view.

It has been said about the major news networks that liberal ideology is in their DNA.

In this instance I say the double helixes and chromosomal anomalies which characterize our genetic makeup can be compared to the elitism apparent in media.

All three of our dinner-time news friends have, on the record, denied any liberal bias. Well, a poll conducted in 2000 by Brill's Content found that 74 percent of Republicans reported a liberal bias, and 47 percent of Democrats conceded that "most journalists are more liberal than they are."

Suffice to say, those outside the media box can see the liberal ideology apparent in their reporting. Those that are not, however, are stuck in their own rut of elitism.

One example is when Emmy Award-winning author Bernard Goldberg asked Rather in 1996, "What do you consider The New York Times?" Rather replied, "Middle of the road."

Are you kidding me? Anyone who has read the Times in the last decade knows for a fact the paper has taken the liberal side of every significant social issue ranging from abortion to gun control to affirmative action and beyond.

Not to mention giving the benefit of the doubt or turning its cheek on immoral behavior from the left.

When Jesse Jackson admitted he had an affair with a staffer at his Rainbow Coalition, The New York Times showed not only extremely good etiquette but extremely poor discretion. They buried the bad news in a one-column headline on page 21.

Think that would happen to Jackson if his coalition were the Christian Coalition instead of Rainbow? Think that would happen if Bill Bennett had an affair? How about Sean Hannity?

The problem is there is little to no diversity in the major news networks. Sure, a broad range of ethnicities are presented, and rightly so. I wonder when was the last time anyone thought about ideological diversity?

As I have briefly illustrated, the crème de la crème, so to speak, of our major news sources do not have a clue that they are liberal by nature. They come from Ivy League schools, with backgrounds and value systems completely out of touch with middle America.

I suppose it's not their fault, really. It's just in their genes.

[mrustow]

Why do supposedly conservative commentators always say "liberal," when describing socialists and communists?

And why does he feel obliged to pay lip-service to affirmative action/multiculturalism?

The problem is there is little to no diversity in the major news networks. Sure, a broad range of ethnicities are presented, and rightly so. I wonder when was the last time anyone thought about ideological diversity?

Why is it right to present "a broad range of ethnicities" in news rooms? If ideological diversity is what matters, then ethnic diversity is of no value. And since ethnically diverse newsrooms are inseparable from affirmative action, they are of negative value. Black applicants get hired, because they are black. Black reporters demand that they be given control of all reporting on anything related to blacks (including "race relations," which covers all groups), where they have been caught dishonestly reporting for years. They ahve also harassed, intimidated, and silenced any white reporters who were working on stories on black communities or figures. This isn't a matter of a few bad apples, but is pervasive to the point of being monolithic.