Posted on 12/12/2001 9:13:22 PM PST by kattracks
Media bias is no longer news. Poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of journalists vote for Democrats, even though the country as a whole is pretty evenly split between the two major parties.
By itself, there is nothing wrong with this. It becomes a problem when media bias becomes media fraud. Media bias in editorials and columns is one thing. Media fraud in reporting "facts" in news stories is something else.
Three excellent and devastating new books on media fraud have been published this year, naming names and turning over rocks to show what is crawling underneath. These books are "Coloring the News" by William McGowan, "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, and "It Ain't Necessarily So" by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S. Robert Lichter.
In even the best known and most prestigious media outlets -- The New York Times and "60 Minutes," for example -- crucial facts have been left out of news stories when those facts would have undermined or destroyed a liberal argument. Conversely, false claims have been widely reported as facts in the media when those claims supported the liberal vision of the world.
A classic media fraud was the 1996 story of a wave of arsons directed against black churches by racists. It made headlines across the country and was featured on network television news. It sparked indignant editorials and angry outbursts from black activists. The President of the United States recalled his own sadness as a child at the burning down of black churches in Arkansas.
In the end, however, the whole thing turned out to be completely false. Those few journalists who bothered to check out the facts found that there were no facts to support this story and that what facts there were completely refuted it. Even a commission appointed by President Clinton reached the same conclusion. Moreover, not a single black church in Arkansas had burned down during Bill Clinton's childhood.
When this front page fraud was finally exposed, the new story was buried as a small item back on page 20 of The New York Times.
William McGowan's "Coloring the News" offers the best explanation for such journalistic malpractice. Many news organizations have created special editorial office caucuses consisting exclusively of black, Hispanic, feminist, or homosexual journalists, who decide how the news about their respective constituencies will be reported -- or whether it will be reported at all.
For example, when a homosexual man was attacked and killed by anti-gay hoodlums, that was huge, front-page news across the country. But when two homosexuals lured a boy next door into their home and then raped and killed him, at about the same time, that was widely ignored, as if it had never happened. Similarly biased treatment has appeared when it came to reporting on corrupt black politicians like D.C. Mayor Marion Barry or the dangerous double standards used for women in the military -- standards which have already led to death in training and may cost still more lives in actual combat.
The issue is not what various journalists or news organizations' editorial views are. The issue is the transformation of news reporting into ideological spin, along with self-serving taboos and outright fraud.
While William McGowan's book seems the most perceptive of these three, all are very valuable and each has its own special emphasis. "It Ain't Necessarily So" focuses on media irresponsibility when reporting on medical and scientific issues, while "Bias" focuses more on the actions and the cast of characters at CBS News, where its author worked for many years. But all three of these books provide a real education on media fraud, which is infinitely more important than media bias.
Democratic nations are especially vulnerable to misinformation. The media in a totalitarian country may tell as many lies as it wants to, but that does not affect the decisions made for the country by its dictator or its ruling party, which has access to the truth, even if the masses do not. But, in a country where the masses choose their leaders and influence policies, a fraudulent press can mislead the voters into national disaster.
©2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Any behind-the-scenes manipulation and bias that might lean to the right (unlikely, in my mind, that there is much) would be passive, with regard to the end product that Consumer consumes. Consumers aren't force-fed the unbridled political bias of board members and chairmen. The network honchos aren't writing the copy for stories that are shaping public opinion on a daily basis. But the people who are taking an active role - writers, editors, "readers" - have an opportunity to infuse as much personal politics as they can get away with. THEY are the ones who put together the facsimile of reality called The News, and their personal politics, to a person, is all over the final product.
Were we a nation of hard-charging critical thinkers, this would be moot point. No network would get away with routinely presenting obvious bias of any persuasion. In addition, the air would be thick with flying pigs...
It's ancient... The true stories Nicholas Copernicus could tell. By those standars, here's a more recent view from 1953...
Asked to give a toast before the prestigious New York Press Club in 1953, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff at the New York Times, made this candid confession [it's worth noting that Swinton was called "The Dean of His Profession" by other newsmen, who admired him greatly]:
" There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.
"If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes. "
KT, The election and re-election of one bill clinton. It's been ongoing for quite awhile now. Peace and love, George.
One, this person contends that radio (a part of the media) is right wing. That TV reporters are evenly split liberal/conservative. And that the media in general is shifting to the right. Can anyone point me to any info that shows the proponderance of power/influence resides with the big liberal ones like NYT, NBC, ABC, CBS etc...???
Secondly, Can anyone validate that the reporters who distorted their stories of the 1996 wave of arsons, that these reporters were "discredited" by and large with the general public?
Any info that's available will be helpful. Thanks
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.