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 . . .

Why Journalists Are Not Above the Law
Commentary ^ | Feb. '07 | Gabriel Schoenfeld