Posted on 08/12/2005 8:40:58 AM PDT by george76
Liberal media bias is a fact of life. But when the issue involves the business of journalism, the bias gets so bad as to be deliberately dishonest.
Consider the slanted coverage of the recent Senate Judiciary hearing into a proposed federal media shield law. The bill would shield the media from identifying their sources in criminal and certain national security cases.
On July 20, Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz wrote a story about a hearing that waited until the ninth paragraph to disclose that the Washington Post was one of the "news giants" supporting the bill.
Kurtz noted that Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey Jr.'s opposition to the bill was "a disappointment to lawmakers and news media advocates who have been negotiating with Justice officials and this week scaled back the bill to meet administration objections." What are "news media advocates?" That's a new term describing behind-the-scenes lobbyists for Big Media companies.
Can you imagine reporters referring to lobbyists for the nuclear power industry as "energy advocates?"
The Post wasn't the only news organization that failed to cover the hearing objectively...
Other news organizations completely ignored how the Big Media were backing the bill.
CBS News...failed to disclose that CBS is one of the media companies supporting the bill.
Los Angeles Times..."Some 80 media groups have formed a coalition to support a shield law to prevent other reporters from going to jail." But she failed to report that the Tribune Company, which owns the L.A. Times, was one of them.
The New York Times failed...to mention that the New York Times Company is one of the media organizations supporting the bill.
The Washington Post...failed to mention that the Washington Post supports the bill.
Fox News...failed
CNN...failed to mention that CNN supports the bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
So much for full disclosure
"So much for full disclosure"
I guess the public has a right NOT to know!
If this looks like it will take off, I think FR should officially support the bill and demand that its 200,000+ members be covered.
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.