Commentary
By Sara Pentz
As John Adams said, more than two centuries ago:
"Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes,
our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions,
they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
Faint in the background I hear the chip-chip-chip of a tiny pickaxe as it begins to expose the bias in the media. It is a fragile sound, but nevertheless it is there in response to the increasingly open criticism of the media from all sides of the spectrum. Taken collectively there is evidence to indicate that the end result may open a crevice into which those who do not report with objectivity and integrity will fall—unless they find it absolutely necessary to listen to the whittlers in the forest.
There are reasons to hope for a more fair and responsible media. For one, the expansion of Internet sites devoted to demonstrating biases has taken the lead. Sites like Townhall.com and Spinsanity.org (“Countering Rhetoric with Reason”) cut to the chase analyzing biases. For another, some book publishers looking at the bottom line have finally discovered that books critical of media bias actually sell.
Former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg’s books “Bias” and his newest one “Arrogance” have exposed bias on a first person basis making Goldberg a highly reliable source. When Goldberg revealed that, “…his network—and all the others—were liberal,” it came as a shock to his colleagues. He wrote, “…the liberal press had been talking to themselves for so long, they all believed that every other sane person shared their views, and that Republicans, the NRA and pro-lifers were all wackos.” The response from Liberals was to flail him over a hot stake. His books have sold very well.
There are other small fissures exposing media bias which, when taken as an overview, seem to reflect the general appearance of an anti-bias uprising. At NBC, Today Anchor Katy Couric is said to be losing popularity with viewers and The Today Show is losing ratings. For example, sounding like a good Liberal, she claimed that the capture of Saddam Hussein was only symbolic. Not that Couric is the only one who colors her reports and interviews. Maybe that’s why the public is voting with a remote control.
Meanwhile, across the pond, the BBC is in trouble. Recently, an independent inquiry looked at the BBC’s report about supposedly “sexed up” information regarding weapons of mass destruction in order to sway the British public against the
Early this year ABC News made an amazing confession of sorts about its own bias. On its own website the Network published “A Note” written by the political unit:
* Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.
* They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are ‘conservative positions.’
* They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories. ...
* It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him – and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base.
The fact that ABC posted this information on its own website for all to read deepens the chipping by a considerable margin. But then along comes The New York Times with a brilliant new idea. The solution to a Liberal bias, they determined in a formal announcement, was to examine “…conservative forces in religion, politics, law, business and the media...” by giving a new Conservative beat to a former media correspondent. Here now would be reports from one man about all the conservative views on Earth while the rest of the staff would continue to write from their own Liberal viewpoint. It was typical Times politics to pretend that this was the answer to bias, but—still—it was an admissions of sorts.
The top people at The Times, and others, surely have not changed their politics or philosophy—or even acknowledged their bias. But The Times, even in this convoluted manner—by implication—has admitted that it is publishing slanted material. That act alone might convince us that the faint chipping away we hear might one day lead to the non-objective stalwarts in the forest falling one-by-one upon their swords—ending the monopoly of media bias. Just maybe!
###
