Former USA Today Editor Says Media Bias Is a 'Myth'

NewsBusters ^ | June 4, 2010 | Tim Graham

[Oratam]

Nixon's Watergate scandal transformed news reporting from a blue collar vocation to one attracting narcissists looking for fame.

It's funny to think that not that long ago the popular image of a journalist (or newspaperman) was that of a hard drinking, chain smoking, rumpled suit wearing wreck of a man hustling to meet a deadline.

Now they're chardonnay sipping, arugula nibbling owners of weekend homes in the Hamptons or on Martha's Vineyard.

[Reeses]

Newspapers could return to profitability by capping reporter salaries at twice minimum wage and more importantly publishing their new pay scale. The fancy journalists would flee from embarrassment. The most successful newspaper reporters rarely had college degrees and the most successful newspapers did not get that way hiring pompous trust fund babies.

[RipSawyer]

The Obama administration is rather transparent but certainly not intentionally so.

[Desron13]

My only question here is has he stopped sniffing glue or is he still doing it.

[Teacher317]

Most LOCAL news sources are merely modestly-biased... but virtually all of the national outlets are egregious. Since there are far more locals than nationals, he's somewhat correct. Overall, the amount of bias on journalism is moderate, based on number of outlets.

However, when based on size/exposure, the big boys are grotesque.

[Teacher317]

Let's see...
EXAMPLE 1
Mr. A says kind words about a friend who is a dying old politician... a legislator who was formerly a segregationist.
Mr. B says kind words about friend... who is a deceased legislator and voted against de-segregation... and unveils a six-figure statue of the man.
Only one is excoriated by the press, and forced to leave his position of power. The other gets applauded and re-elected.

EXAMPLE 2
Group A breaks into a private hotel room to steal plans from their political opponents.
Group B enters into public archives, and steals federal documents in an effort to cover up political wrong-doing.
Only one group is castigated, most of its members and co-conspirators are jailed for a decade or more, its leader was forever associated with the crime, and the press' name for the event becomes a part of the English lexicon (most scandals ending in "-Gate" these days, after the name of that private hotel). The other group has no mention of its leadership made in connection with the crime, and the actual thief himself was not given any jail time whatsoever. No public outrage, no books, and no new words for the dictionary.

Care to guess which side was which in those two rather blatant comparisons?

Mr. A was Trent Lott, who said that maybe 96-yr old Strom Thurmond would've made a good president when he ran 50 years earlier (when he ran as a segregationst). This was said at Strom's birthday party. Nice words for a dying old man, on "his day". Lott had to step down as Senate Majority Leader.
Mr B. was Bill Clinton, commemorating his friend and mentor, J William Fulbright, with a big statue on Arkansas University campus.

Group A was President Nixon and the Watergate scandal.
Group B was President Clinton and Sandy Berger.