Losing the Pro-Abortion Media Bias

Accuracy in Media ^ | January 19, 2010 | Cliff Kincaid

[AIM Freeper]

Former New York Times reporter Alex S. Jones has written a book, Losing the News, saying that journalism is in a crisis and that government help may be necessary to save it. He doesn't insist, however, that political bias has had any significant role in this decline. Instead, he sees the bias in the mainstream media as not political but "cultural." He defines this as "a set of beliefs" that can "skew" reporting.

Taking the word "political" out of the equation doesn't make any sense. A cultural bias has a political impact. And I certainly don't share his idea of getting the government involved at any level in financing journalism or journalists.

But the Jones book is helpful in citing examples of how this "cultural bias" is reflected in coverage of actual issues. He admits, in one of the best parts of his book, that the issue of abortion has been covered in a biased way by many news organizations.

Jones, Director of Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, says, "Reporters as a group tend to be pro-choice, and pro-life advocates have long complained that these biases have skewed the way the story is reported." Jones, admittedly pro-choice himself, nevertheless agrees with the pro-lifers, and cites coverage of partial birth abortion. This is a particularly hideous procedure in which the head is punctured so that the child can be removed from the womb dead.

[GloriaJane]

[LRoggy]

This is just a rehash of Bernie Goldberg’s books, Bias and Arrogance.

[Elvina]

I bought the latest copy of “In-Touch Weekly” at the grocery store yesterday, because I was shocked to see Sarah and Bristol Palin on the cover with a giant headline: “We’re Glad We Chose Life.” The headline was pro-life, but the slant of the article was that Bristol and Sarah were heroes and exceptional for not killing their children. While it is true that they are the exception and not the rule (especially in the case of Downs Syndrome), the way the article read was as if this was just a completely bizarre thing—to let your own flesh and blood live. It was an interesting twist on pro-abortion bias. The article overall was a refreshing piece of positive press for the Palins.

[ClearCase_guy]

If reporters could simply report facts and not impose personal opinion, then we could have some decent news coverage. But I recognize that this is very hard, perhaps impossible to do.

I think a newspaper should have the honesty to declare (as they once did) "This is a pro-Democrat newspaper. We support abortion. We support unions. We support homosexual marriage. We oppose Christian morality. Now, here's the news as we want you to see it --"

Be transparent about it. Or, are they worried that the public would buy even less of the crap if the public really understood how deliberate the propaganda effort really is??

[Navy Patriot]

saying that journalism is in a crisis

But it certainly can't be because journalists are biased, no, it's the culture that's biased, yes, that's it!

[Elvina]

[ml/nj]

The folks at the NY Times and elsewhere in the MSM ought to take a look at their sports pages. Go look at the article about last night's Duke Basketball game. (I don't even know that there was a Duke Basketball game last night. I could have said, "Yesterday's Yankee game," but there wasn't one of those either. Just think, "generic sports event.") You can't tell whether the guy who wrote it loves Duke Basketball or maybe he's a UNC fan and hates Duke. It's about the game. And the article is there because there was a game; not because the sports editor is a Duke fan.

Now go look at the "news" selected for the front page, and the inside pages of the news section. Anyone who cannot determine whether the reporters and/or the editors are Obama Fans from the "news" on any given day just isn't paying attention.

The bleeding won't stop until the news pages are just as objective as the sports pages are. (And this doesn't mean that bias should be introduced to the sports reporting!)

ML/NJ

[Notary Sojac]

Americans were better served for news when we had competing liberal and conservative news outlets that wore their positions proudly, than we are now when bias hides under the tattered flag of "objective journalism".

I get most of my news from admittedly conservative sources. But I like to know what the other side is thinking, so I will dip into the Nation or the Huffington Post from time to time (guilty secret... once in a great while I read something there that causes me to give careful consideration to my own views, that's OK too).

But what I almost never do any more is read anything from the so-called "objective" MSM.

[Elvina]

Apparently in the last ten minutes the In touch Weekly link changed from the Palins to this Angelina trash—sorry I didn’t know that the link to the Palin picture wouldn’t be permanent!

[Elvina]

Here’s a better link:

http://www.intouchweekly.com/2010/01/in_touch_exclusive_interview_p.php

[Dumb_Ox]

Most pro-lifers don't know how to schmooze with journalists and seduce them into doing stories they're not inclined to do. Many adhere to a mythical objectivity where it's a sin to lobby to get stories covered. If we did that, we'd have less complaining about "bias."

When you feel like bitching at your local MSM journalist, consider befriending him (or his MSM competitor) instead. Without more journos on our side, our fight is tougher. We can't rely only on the Elderly Women's Television Network (I joke) to get out our message, no matter how great EWTN is.