2017 Might Have Been Worst Year in U.S. History for Media Bias

A cornerstone of a truly free society is the presence of a vigilant news media, one that is willing to hold powerful government officials accountable when they abuse their offices for their own personal gain or the advancement of corrupt special interests. A sign a society is on the path to tyranny is when the overwhelming majority of a nation’s journalists are committed to doing whatever they can to destroy one political group while they work feverishly to cover up the scandals of another.

To say that there is a conspiracy to destroy the Trump administration would be a gross understatement. The media’s collusion with left-wing politicians and groups hell-bent on avenging Hillary Clinton’s election defeat is at an all-time high. Never before in the United States have journalists been so eager to adopt conspiracy theories and hurl unsubstantiated negative media at a sitting president—or anyone, for that matter. When the growth in internet media and cable news is taken into account, it’s very possible President Trump has received more negative attention over the past year than any person has ever had to endure in the history of mankind.

And no, this isn’t partisanship. Consider the following evidence: A recent study of media bias conducted by the Media Research Center (MRC) found television coverage of the Trump administration on the evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, and NBC was historically slanted against Trump in 2017. Of the 99 hours of airtime discussing Trump—which, by the way, is much more coverage than President Obama received in his final year in office—only about 10 percent involved positive statements. In some months, negative coverage reached as high as 93 percent.

If you support high taxes, more regulations on businesses, and enjoyed the Obama world apology tour, then perhaps you’re thinking, “Of course Trump’s coverage was negative! His policies are terrible.”

In order for this logic to hold, however, the media would have to actually spend time discussing President Trump’s policies, rather than gossip, alleged Russian collusion, and the president’s Twitter feed. Here, too, the Media Research Center found the media came up way short. According to MRC, “More than two-fifths of evening news coverage of the Trump administration (43%, or 42 hours, 37 minutes) centered on various controversies associated with the President and his top aides. The Russia investigation was the networks’ favorite topic, with an astonishing 20 hours, 34 minutes of coverage, or more than one-fifth of all Trump coverage last year.”

Further, when the media did focus on Trump’s policies, they mostly avoided those areas where Trump has been most successful, such as the tremendous economic growth Americans have enjoyed since Trump was elected.

MRC reports the “five most-frequently covered policy issues [were] the effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare (475 minutes); the nuclear showdown with North Korea (364 minutes); immigration policy, including ramped-up deportations and a potential border wall (258 minutes); the temporary travel ban and the ensuing court fight (251 minutes); and the ultimately successful push for comprehensive tax reform (222 minutes).”

Meanwhile, unemployment for minorities and working-class Americans has reached historic lows, the value of the stock market has risen by $6.9 trillion,food stamp enrollment has plummeted, Medicaid rolls are dropping, hundreds of thousands of employees have received additional salary bonuses after Congress and Trump passed their tax reform legislation, housing prices are up 6.2 percent, and the list goes on and on and on.

In November, CNN reported, “Trump feeds fish, winds up pouring entire box of food into koi pond,” a story in which the entire lede is designed to make readers think Trump somehow foolishly erred in overfeeding fish while on a trip to Japan. In reality, he was simply following the lead of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a fact buried in the fifth paragraph of the article that CNN tried to conceal by selectively editing the story’s video.

Then there’s last week’s “big scandal”: Trump’s weight. Apparently, media outlets aren’t buying the height/weight listed by the president’s doctor following his first official physical in office, leading to endless speculation about Trump’s “real” weight, height, and body mass index. I know you’re sick of hearing “what about Hillary?” arguments, but can you imagine the intense backlash that would occur if the body mass index of a President Hillary Clinton were ever called into question? Even those who loathe Trump must admit that this sort of thing would never be tolerated by the mainstream media under different circumstances.

More than slightly reasonable arguments can be made about some of the things the president has said, done, and tweeted, but fair-minded people must acknowledge that mainstream press bias is worse than ever—and there’s absolutely no sign of the situation reversing course in the near future.

This is not only disheartening, it’s incredibly dangerous. The news media is losing whatever credibility it had left, making it harder than ever for the public to discover the truth about the nation’s most important issues.

A cornerstone of a truly free society is the presence of a vigilant news media, one that is willing to hold powerful government officials accountable when they abuse their offices for their own personal gain or the advancement of corrupt special interests. A sign a society is on the path to tyranny is when the overwhelming majority of a nation’s journalists are committed to doing whatever they can to destroy one political group while they work feverishly to cover up the scandals of another.

The fundamental problem is the singular “a” “news media” “one”.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
The problem is that the only ideological competition the Associated Press and its membership collectively face is talk radio. Before the end of the “Fairness” Doctrine at the end of the Reagan Administration, we didn’t even have that. The reason is quite simple: that is what the “conspiracy against the public” resulting from a continuous virtual meeting of all major journalism outlets looks like. The meeting, furthermore, is not about “merriment and diversion” but precisely about their collective product. It is inevitable under the circumstances that the distinctives of commercially successful general interest journalism should metastasize into a political viewpoint which is a conspiracy against the public. Those distinctives include “If it bleeds, it leads,” “Man Bites Dog, not Dog Bites Man,” “Stonewall any criticism of ‘bias in the media,’" and “always meet your deadline.”
Those distintives are not neutral - they imply negativity towards society and the people/institutions which make society work. And not merely negativity - they actually imply cynicism toward society. And since every complaint about society implies a “there oughta be a law” reaction, cynicism towards society implies naiveté towards government domination of society. And the combination of naiveté towards government and cynicism towards society is, IMHO, the very definition of socialism.
The ancient Greeks defined the response to unfair argumentation of the sort we see in modern journalism:
sophist 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments. philosopher O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage." "Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
The “lover of wisdom” (philosopher) takes the position that truth and wisdom exist, but refuses to claim any monopoly on either. Instead, the philosopher eschews ad hominem argumentation and other tricks of the sort the sophist uses to manipulate the debate. Journalists engage in sophistry - stonewalling discussion of inconvenient issues, for example - because they can. Conservative talk show hosts, OTOH, take on challenging callers and discuss any issue. And they openly admit to their conservatism, rather than claiming objectivity as the journalist does. The role of philosopher requires self discipline, but it is the only option one really has when faced with a disadvantage such as the immense propaganda power of MSM journalism.

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.