Replies

Wow, Black XXX!!!! Hard to belive I've been around for nearly half of the black threads (although not as much as I'd like).

Speaking of the mudslinging and media elitists, Mud, I wrote an article for school I think you'll like.:o)

Media Biased: Fact or Fiction?
Author: Vicky Dearing (cb88) –all rights reserved ©

Is the media biased? If so, which way is it biased? Before you answer these questions, consider the following. Media power is concentrated in the hands of a very few reporters, editors, anchors and producers of the national networks and newspapers. Of the media, television is the most powerful—it stimulates us visually and audibly. With so much power, the media have often been called the “fourth branch of government.” That’s a very strong statement, but perhaps it’s accurate.

Media holds the power of newsmaking—they decide what we see, what we hear, how long we see it, when we see it and the slant that is put on it. With so much power, it is hard to deny that power can be corrupted to project the views of the ones who hold the power. The media people claim they merely “mirror” reality and what they see in society, but with the power to control what we see, this gives them the power to shape the news, not to merely report it.

The media is protected by the First Amendment. It is not a neutral force in government, but active participants, challenging government officials, debating public issues and defining society’s problems. Yes, I said, “defining”. For if they control what we see and hear, they have the power to decide what issues are important. They have the power to set agendas, frame issues, present alternatives and create political issues. They hold this power by having absolute power to screen the news. Think of this, we have been in Bosnia for nearly a decade, yet we hardly hear of it any more—should we debate Bosnia and its validity? The media thinks not because they choose not to report it. If they put in the front pages and on leading news the issues still confronting that conflict, perhaps more people would be debating it as well as, or instead of, the validity of Iraq—but the media keeps Bosnia out of the spotlight and therefore off the table of important political issues. Are they doing it out of biased? Maybe, maybe not—a possible reason for not reporting it could be argued to be “sensationalism”. Bosnia is old news and it wouldn’t sell papers or commercial advertising; or would it?

Media power extends beyond newsmaking. They not only frame the news, but they provide interpretation of the event—they editorialize. Ready to say “no, they report”? Don’t speak so fast. The media provides interpretation in a myriad of ways. One of the most powerful ways is by selecting the footage we see. We remember better what we see than what we hear. Who among us will forget the pictures of the charred American bodies hanging from the bridge in Iraq? If the media had not shown those, but shown instead more pictures of the cheering and celebrating crowds, who would be the target of our hatred for those atrocities? The media can interpret news by deciding which side of the story they want to report—the angle they want to come from. Consider the disproportionate amount of bad news coming out of Iraq as compared to the good stories of how much we’ve accomplished. You rarely hear of the successes, only the failures. But, let’s leave Iraq out of this for a moment. How about the Los Angeles Riots? Does anyone remember the way the news was reported? We were made to almost feel sorry for the angry mob because, after all, the police had been completely freed of any charge of beating Rodney King. And what about the Rodney King video that started it all? How much of the footage BEFORE the beating did we ever see in the news? I remember watching a show on that and saw how violent and out of control Rodney King was prior to the beating. I’m not a civil law attorney, or even a criminal justice specialist. I’ve never worked in law enforcement and I’m not arguing that the use of force to the extent they did was necessary, but Rodney King was a LARGE man and behaving extremely erratically. If the media had put more emphasis on the moments before the beating, I think the public reaction might have been entirely different.

Not only does media hold the power to set agendas and interpret the news, they hold the power to persuade. In paid advertisements, news and entertainment the media often attempts to persuade public opinion. Political leaders are not devoid of taking advantage of this. They have a love-hate relationship with the media. Often they try to manipulate the media and use them for direct persuasion by holding press conferences, and indirectly by giving information to reporters they want released. The media is the all to willing accomplice if the information is significant. There is much biased by the media towards anything that includes violence, conflict, scandal, corruption, sex, or the personal lives of politicians and celebrities. Muckraking, or the new politically correct term “watch dogging”, is common practice by the media. Muckraking more aptly describes it, but the media doesn’t like the negative feeling of that term. However, call it what it is, they scrape the “bottom” and continually look for the negative—remember, they came up with the philosophy “if it bleeds, it leads.”

Media has the ability to shape public opinion of a candidate. They can constantly air footage that portraits someone in a bad light or a good light. No one remembers all of the good things that Vice President Quayle did because the media’s constant harping on one misspelled word --they single-handedly shaped the majority of public opinion to think of Dan Quayle as an idiot savant. Did he deserve it? Do a little research on Dan Quayle and you’ll find the answer. Not that I thought President Ford was the most brilliant President ever, but does anyone remember how the media had a fixation with constantly airing pictures of him tripping or stumbling? The whole world thought of President Ford as a klutz. Perhaps he was, but did that make him a bad President? No, other things might have, but that issue wasn’t important. So, which way does the media lean? There is no denying that the media elites have liberal leanings. The liberals in politics like to deny this. There is no denying, however, that the likes of Ted Turner and other media giants are liberals. It is feudal to try and argue that their political leanings will not have some influence in their newsmaking. But remember, the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, not fairness. So, why do the liberals deny it?

If we acknowledge the biased is there and that it is constitutionally protected, why do we complain about it? In other words, what’s the big deal if it is biased? Quite simply, the biased puts emphasis on the unimportant. Today a candidate’s image is more important than his substance. The media plays up how good looking a candidate is, their stage persona, etc. The same media that has been telling young girls for years that if they aren’t anorexic they aren’t beautiful is now telling us that if a candidate is not good looking and doesn’t have good stage presence he’s not a good candidate. It’s the “Shallow Hal” mentality, and our materialistic world has played right into it. Perhaps we should remember that all that glitters is not gold. Shouldn’t a candidate’s strength of character and substance be more important than if he wears an Armani suit and gets botox injections?

And what about the media’s power? What about Freedom of the Press? How far should it go? The press often invokes the “Prior Restraint” clause of Freedom of the Press, fully aware the historical intent of that clause was to designed to prohibit government from closing down or seizing newspapers. Now they use it to cover everything from publishing stolen highly classified documents that somehow ended up in their office (see the US Supreme Court rule on the Pentagon Papers case) to trying to push for undeserved answers at military briefings. They need to remember that while the government may not censure, they may be able to muzzle the press, especially in combat areas.

And what about “fair and balanced?” The FCC requires that broadcast media offers equal time and rates to political candidates wishing to use the media for advertisements. BUT, this requirement does not apply to news programs, news specials or talk shows, nor does it apply to presidential addresses or press conferences. So, could the media use the afore mentioned to give extra time to a candidate they are biased to? Absolutely! Sometimes in a meager attempt to appear unbiased, they offer free time for the opposition party to respond to such shows, although it is much more truncated in terms of time.

Can the media say whatever they want about a candidate out of biased? You might be saying, “no, they have to be accountable for libel and slander.” Think again. As a result of the New York Times v. Sullivan case (1964) it is more difficult for public officials to prove slander or libel. They must not only prove the communication to be false and that it was known to be false, but that it was made with “malicious intent” which has been interpreted as reckless regard for the truth. This is very difficult to prove in court, and as a consequence the media can say virtually anything about a public official. In fact, they have tried to broaden public officials to include public figures . Due to “absence of malice,” The Constitution actually protects the right of the media to be biased.

Other factors enable the media to be biased. The U.S. Supreme Court has not given blanket protection to the media in regards to shielding sources, however several states have passed shield laws that would apply in their states. The media feel that their ability to gather information would be seriously compromised if they had to reveal the identity of sources to the police or in court proceedings. But what about accountability? Does this shield give the media carte blanche and remove them from accountability? Some say it does.

The media does have certain abilities in shaping political life. They affect public opinion in the areas of information and agenda setting, values and opinions, and behavior. The media doesn’t tell us what to think, but they do, through their reporting, tell us what to think about. The media, while it can seldom change preexisting opinions, can reinforce existing values and opinions, even negative ones. And, lastly, TV is likely to reinforce behaviors, again even negative ones, rather than change them. So, you decide, is the media biased? And if so, is it wrong?