The American media is biased. On both the right and the left, journalists spin the news in accordance with their own beliefs. Sometimes the call comes from the front office, other times from the editor-in-chief. None of this is anything new, yet what is developing is that the examples of bias are growing increasingly worse; the vitriol is becoming louder and more strident.
The fact is that Americans love controversy. The more dramatic and sensational something is, the more it piques our interest. Liberals have Al Franken and Michael Moore. Conservatives have Anne Coulter and Bill O’Reilly. In both cases, facts become subservient to ideology. These so-called journalists are really nothing but demagogues, partisan entertainers who rely on bombast and trash talking rather than intelligent argumentation.
Granted Moore and O’Reilly aren’t Washington correspondents. They are commentators and, like columnists, are thus allowed to assert their own opinions. But their persistent fame and popularity, in my opinion, has brought political commentary down to the level of professional wrestling.
Real journalists conduct research, collect information and confirm the veracity of what they have compiled. They then deliver this information to the public in what is supposed to be an objective manner. But as boisterous pseudo-journalists have garnered more acclaim, it seems that more mainstream media outlets have stepped up their efforts to sway public opinion and boost ratings.
Entertainment, bickering and sensationalism are far cheaper than investigating the true complexity of our world. Profits are winning over product. The more the business office makes demands, the more editors and reporters resemble lemmings, marching single file off the precipice of responsibility. Sometimes, the editors make the call themselves.
A glaring example of media bias is FOX News. FOX News is a shameless, conservative news organization that attempts to frighten the American public as much as possible. Everything is sensationalized and spun to fit its right-wing agenda. Terror alerts appear in large bold letters at the bottom of the screen. Liberal arguments are dismissed in passing. President George W. Bush receives nothing but the highest of praises and his policies the same. Worse still, Rupert Murdoch and company have even gone so far as to hire right-wing criminals as commentators; Oliver North, the lieutenant colonel convicted in the Iran Contra scandal hosts a weekly show that strives to highlight “the real heroes who fought for freedom on the front lines, not in Hollywood.” On the program’s website, no mention is made of North’s criminal background. Ridiculous probably isn’t the right word, but it’s the first one that comes to mind.
This of course isn’t to say that liberals aren’t guilty as well; they are just more conspicuous about it. I admit that as a liberal myself, I am often not as sensitive to bias by those with whom I share a similar worldview. But one example I can offer is The New York Times under Howell Raines.
Before Raines’s resignation last summer, media web bloggers like Andrew Sullivan accused the former New York Times executive editor of encouraging reporters to editorialize hard news and features. Apologists for Raines claimed that a cabal of out of work computer stalkers was carrying out a right wing conspiracy against the Times. The truth is, however, that Sullivan’s complaints were valid.
This isn’t the place to give a litany of criticism. But David Sanger’s front-page story from Friday, Sept. 20, 2002, “Bush to Outline Doctrine of Striking Foes First,” is a perfect example of the Times’s misconduct. In reference to Bush’s policy of pre-emptive war, Sanger writes: “It sketches out a far more muscular and sometimes aggressive approach to national security than any since the Reagan era.” This is obviously news analysis. Yet it is not labeled properly and could thus potentially mislead unquestioning readers. Worse yet, he adds that “with Russia so financially hobbled that it can no longer come close to matching American military spending, the doctrine seemed aimed at rising powers like China, which is expanding its conventional and nuclear forces.” Whether or not this statement is true, it’s clearly an interpretation of the news and not the news itself.
I admit it’s easy for me to sit back and say that I’d never get involved in any of this mess. After all, I don’t have kids, a house or a family, let alone my own bills to pay. But I can say that I find all of this contemptible. I can say that I believe in the importance of an objective non-partisan free press. And I can hope that if ever faced with the decision to either spin the news or fall out of favor with my editor, that I would clean out my desk and blow the biggest, loudest whistle I could find.