HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Nov. 7, 2006 Generally, I prefer to not respond to other Useless Knowledge columns directly with my own article; however, a recent writing by Tom Pain compells me to do just that, since Mr. Pain's topic of media bias is one I've been following for years. I agree completely with Tom Pain about the existence of media bias. The evidence is so overwhelming of the leftward slant evident in most mainstream media outlets that to deny it represents a bias in and of itself. I also concur with Pain's point that much of the bias is evident in what the media chooses to cover (and not cover) and how much space or time is devoted to the issue. One needs only to observe the endless ink and air time devoted to a bogus case related to the "leak" of Valerie Plame's identity, when it was believed the Bush Administration committed the sin, in comparison the the coverage devoted to the issue when it became apparent that an enemy of Bush was the culprit, that is if a crime even took place at all. Mr. Pain hit on one aspect of the bias, but he gives too much credit to the media in many ways. The overall theme that liberal stories sell better than conservative ones is absolutely true, but I do not believe that these stories are written necessarily to attract a more liberal (i.e. "open-minded") potential customer. Liberal stories simply sell more papers, attract more viewers, period---whether these are liberal or conservative viewers and readers does not really matter. Even conservatives are often attracted to good, juicy liberally-slanted stories. This is why so many publications use inflammatory headlines to grab attention---and more often than not, those headlines lean to the left. Although the profit motive is a strong factor in media bias it is not the prevailing one. I believe media bias is not so much conspiracy-based as it is institutionally installed in news coverage. The field of journalism tends to attract youngsters who "want to change the world". These individuals are very idealistic, tend to be anti-war, believe government is the great equalizer, etc. They also feel compelled to fight for the little guy with their pen (now keyboard). In short, they are liberally oriented. They are then indoctrinated into liberal arts programs in colleges, which are dominated by leftward, socialistic professors--who drill liberal theory into their heads endlessly. Most of these people graduate from journalism schools with little or no training in business, economics or science and are often more easily influenced by emotional arguments. They are then hired into the world of journalism, where leftward thought also prevails. Their bosses, who rose through the same background and ranks, demand left-leaning stories, which is fine because that's all these neophytes have been trained to produce. (Of course, the fact that liberalism sells better intertwines all of this.) These reporters, editors, anchorpeople, etc. are more sympathetic to Democrats and their causes because it is in their predisposition to be favorable to liberal solutions to the world's problems, but also because their training has taught them that Democrats are the good guys and Republicans are bad. As such, they are prone to jump to John Kerry's defense when he makes a verbal gaffe, not so much because this will attract more liberal viewers, but because they truly believe in what Kerry represents than say Dick Cheney. So John Kerry is protected in many ways by the media while that same media scrutinizes a Dick Cheney hunting accident as if it's Watergate II. This is also why we read front page news stories about missing artifacts from a Baghdad museum even as Saddam Hussein's regime is falling in a potential world-altering event. Pain also brings up another point which is often bandied about by those who doubt the presence of liberal media bias. This is the idea that, since newspapers and television networks are run by large organizations controlled by rich executives and stockholders, that they are actually more prone to a conservative media bias. This theory itself is based on a false stereotype, that rich and powerful people are conservative. It is very often not true. Ted Turner is as rich and powerful as they come and he owned a major cable news network; he is also an avowed anti-Christian liberal. Billionaire investor Warren Buffett and Microsoft founder Bill Gates are two others who strongly lean to the political left. And I'm sure everyone knows of one George Soros. In fact, evidence shows that Democrats receive far more large dollar donations than do Republicans, who are supported significantly with $25 and $50 donations from more "average" people. Still, even if it was absolutely true that the rich and powerful people who run media companies are conservative, it is a huge jump to assume this means they control the daily messages being put together by the reporters, editors and broadcasters who work in their organizations, especially when one considers that surveys show these media types to break down politically as greater than 70% Democrat, with the balance being spread amongst Republicans and Independents. No, the Chairman of the Board of Time Warner is not choosing the stories of the day or writing the copy for those stories any more than the chairman of General Motors is screwing a bolt on a Cadillac at a GM plant somewhere in the Midwest. Another factor in the media bias affair is pure laziness. It is a fact that, for decades, the major media has developed a litany of sources for its various issues. From affirmative action to gun control to tax policy, the liberal media tends to draw from the same old tired sources in its collective Rolodex. Due to the influences outlined above, these sources are, more often than not, liberal themselves. So we hear from the head of Planned Parenthood for abortion rights issues, but rarely do we see the other side fairly presented in the mainstream media. Likewise, we are far more likely to see quotes from gun control advocates than the president of the National Rifle Association. It is simply easier to re-write the same angle on a story that has been written countless times before, and using the same sources is also that much more simpler. Liberally-slanted stories tend to write themselves, while it can take serious effort for a journalist to attempt a new angle not previously presented. This is even more true when the writer understands the liberal arguments better than those presented by the conservative side. The bottom line is there are a multitude of reasons for the existence of a distinct leftward media bias. The most fundamental of these reasons, the one which gets the old ball rolling, is that the media itself--those people who choose the stories to cover and how those issues are to be presented--are themselves liberal. ------------ About the author: Ed Abraham is a concerned citizen living in flyover country, U.S.A., who happens to be truly disgusted by the loss of common sense in our society and is doing all he can to try to reinstall it. Email: eabra@myway.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
