Replies

IMHO there are two ways to look at the issue of "bias". First, the journalist is unaware of their own bias and simply produces biased reports naturally. -OR- secondly the journalist uses the profession as a front to create ad copy (sow fear uncertainty and doubt) used to promote their political client (DNC).

IMHO it is a subtle combination of the two explanations: Journalists are undoubtedly, like most of us, able to compartmentalize enough that they do not actually realize the implication of their own perspective. They are taught that "If it bleeds, it leads," to report on "Man Bites Dog" and not on "Dog Bites Man" - and to always make deadline. Those things will help make their newspaper profitable. Now if anyone other than a journalist (or other member of the complaining professions, such as plaintiff bar, unionist, etc.) said anything which was predicated on the assumption that whatever was good for their business was good for the country, journalists would come down on that person like the hounds of Hell. But journalists have internalized the idea that their business is uniquely important to the national interest. So they have systematically blinded themselves to the fact that a self-interested perspective is embedded in those rules of journalism.
And being unable to see their own perspective hiding in plain sight, journalists do not see their own perspective when other complainers project the same perspective. To them it isn't a perspective, it's just what is - the natural order of things. Journalists assign positive labels to everyone who projects journalism's arrogant, negative, superficial perspective - other journalists are "objective," and simpatico non journalists are "liberal" or "moderate" or "progressive." Journalists don't think of those "liberals" as clients, they just think of them as right minded people just like themselves. People who could get a job as a journalist tomorrow, and in that instant would become "objective."

If the the second scenario is true (which I happen to believe and observation supports), then the concept of "bias" is misleading in that it never addresses the real issue which is the MSM are not in anyway affiliated with objective journalism/news reporting but instead are a network of marketing firms, as unobjective as they can be for their client.

Bias is indeed misleading, since journalists (at least print journalists) have an unambiguous right to have and print their own perspective. That is not a bias - but the fact that they actually think they are objective is a screaming bias if there can ever be said to be such a thing.

"bias" to me is a term perpetuated by the left which serves to A) frustrate conservatives (time and energy wasted) B) hide the true nature of their business model: Marketing Firm (with DNC as their single political client)

It is exactly the case that journalists prefer to be charged with "bias." They can respond in high dudgeon that you have insulted them. If you point out their perspective, that is less of an option for them. It means the same thing operationally, of course . . .

Here is where I get hung up. I understand what you are saying, but I make the following observation. The "stories" the MSM produce follow a formula that is exactly the formula used to create ad copy for a consitant set of benefactors. Coincidence?

If you turn on CNN right now and listen, you will hear the "report" sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding Bush administration policy or that of any conservative. There is never a report that puts the administration or conservative POV out there without challenge and a clear attempt to discredit.

That is in actual effect - Marketing

So they have systematically blinded themselves to the fact that a self-interested perspective is embedded in those rules of journalism.

I read this as the charlatans of "big journalism" have systematically corrupted the budding journalists via threat of osticization into ignoring fundamental objectivity for group acceptance, all the while unaware that they have been turned into pitchmen no different than Ron Popeil or Chef Tony for the DNC.

Regardless of the mechanisms/controls used to create the facade of objective journalism, at the end of the day it's ad copy approved at the highest levels enthusistically presented by spokespersons for the ads benefactor. Without the expectation of objectivity on behalf of the charlatans (MSM executives and in the loop pitchmen such as Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Andrea Mitchell, et al.), why should wethepeople expect objectivity and especially those of us on the right who are harmed by the 24/7 infomercial promoting our political competitors?

If no objectivity exists or is expected, the concept of "bias" can not exist either.

By thinking in this way, the hand wringing over "bias" disappears and the belief that the MSM has any jounalistic credibility dissapates opening minds to the possibility that the other side, MY SIDE, has a legitimate point to make encouraging a much needed reconsideration of assumptions, many of which originally set in place by liberal indoctrination.

This re-evaluation of assumptions and possible awakening to the truth is what the left fears the most... and will as you note, cause the left to come down on those suggesting -The entire MSM network is nothing more than the marketing arm of the DNC - like hounds of hell.

The strategy is sound if only there was a coordinated effort to get the message out. However, MRC, Newsbusters and Limbaugh have tied perpetuating the flawed expectation of objectivity through the continued use of the word "bias" to large revenue streams so that now it appears we have conservative icons actually doing more harm than good.

We need a sea change in perspective if we ever expect to win over more hearts and minds.

Eddie01