We've all heard the charge before -- The media has a liberal bias or slant. For years I used to laugh at this allegation. I used to point to one of my favorite bumper stickers: The media is as liberal as the conservative corporations that own them. Aah yes, the (snicker, snicker) LIBERAL media.
Earlier this morning though, it dawned on me that there is much truth to the charge. In fact, in order for the [independent] media to BE the [independent] media, it MUST have a liberal bias. If it didn't, it wouldn't be independent, would it?
In Communist and other totalitarian countries, the media is run by the state and/or the central party. In such nations, news and state-formulated propaganda are interchangeable. Citizens are only told what the power brokers WANT them to hear. Simply put, TRUTH has no place.
For example, think of the Soviet Union and the Chernobyl disaster. Did the Soviet media tell the Russian people that a calamity had occurred? Did Soviet "news" agencies send out hordes of reporters to investigate the severity and culpability of the disaster? Hell, no. The state-run media purposely kept people in the dark, thereby endangering hundreds of thousands of lives.
Is that the kind of media you want here in the good 'ol US of A? A media that decides what information THEY want YOU to know?
If we look at the definitions of the word "liberal", it easily becomes apparent that any media, independent of the state, is liberal by default. TheFreeDictionary.com defines liberal as
Earlier this morning though, it dawned on me that there is much truth to the charge. In fact, in order for the [independent] media to BE the [independent] media, it MUST have a liberal bias. If it didn't, it wouldn't be independent, would it?
In Communist and other totalitarian countries, the media is run by the state and/or the central party. In such nations, news and state-formulated propaganda are interchangeable. Citizens are only told what the power brokers WANT them to hear. Simply put, TRUTH has no place.
For example, think of the Soviet Union and the Chernobyl disaster. Did the Soviet media tell the Russian people that a calamity had occurred? Did Soviet "news" agencies send out hordes of reporters to investigate the severity and culpability of the disaster? Hell, no. The state-run media purposely kept people in the dark, thereby endangering hundreds of thousands of lives.
Is that the kind of media you want here in the good 'ol US of A? A media that decides what information THEY want YOU to know?
If we look at the definitions of the word "liberal", it easily becomes apparent that any media, independent of the state, is liberal by default. TheFreeDictionary.com defines liberal as
1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
If the media is to be free of state control, it MUST be free of authoritative attitudes, views and dogma, and it must be broad-minded. It must seek to present more than one side or perspective on any given issue or topic. Put another way, it MUST be liberal.
The Bush Administration and the Republican Party recently charged that PBS is guilty of this liberal slant. Well, we should be thankful this allegation is true. Were it not true, then PBS would be a mouthpiece for whoever was in power.
If we are talking about 2005, PBS would be singing the praises of Dubya. If we are talking about 1997, PBS would sing the praises of Clinton. The point here is that it shouldn't matter which party is leading the nation at any given time -- We want a media that is independent of these people. The vast majority don't want a taxpayer-funded propaganda machine.
The Bush Administration and the Republican Party recently charged that PBS is guilty of this liberal slant. Well, we should be thankful this allegation is true. Were it not true, then PBS would be a mouthpiece for whoever was in power.
If we are talking about 2005, PBS would be singing the praises of Dubya. If we are talking about 1997, PBS would sing the praises of Clinton. The point here is that it shouldn't matter which party is leading the nation at any given time -- We want a media that is independent of these people. The vast majority don't want a taxpayer-funded propaganda machine.
Straws...just out of...reach...
ReplyDeleteThere's a difference between being free to report the facts without fear, and reporting only the facts that make a certain segment of people look bad. Trashing conservatives isn't the same thing as reporting the truth.
The media already decides what information they want you to know. The problem conservatives have with that is that the information the media decides to put out isn't free of opinion, and isn't held accountable for any omissions of facts that might cast conservatives in a favorable light.
If the media trashed both left and right equally, there wouldn't be a problem. Better still, if the media simply reported the facts, we'd all be better off.
if the media simply reported the facts
ReplyDeleteWhat is fact? Every bit of reality is based on perspective and perception. Every person has bias. What you may call fact, I might call conjecture and vice versa. The reason the Left doesn't get trashed by the mainstream media is because the media IGNORES the Left. It's hard to criticize a perspective that the media refuses to acknowledge.
Hm...that response reeks of side-stepping. But, whatever...
ReplyDeleteFact:
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
The media refuses to acknowledge the left? Now there's some conjecture. Okay, so Fox News does, but not everyone. Just because there aren't as many left-leaning talking heads doesn't mean the viewpoints are ignored.
And that isn't even the basis of the claims of people making allegations of liberal bias in the media. They're talking about the way the "facts" are reported. A prime example is the difference in accounts of a particular incident in Afghanistan from a "news source" and the blogs of soldiers actually on the ground. Before you say anything about how they're brainwashed and not free-thinkers, don't. I knew plenty of soldiers in my service days who were quite the opposite. So if the media was reporting fact, why would there be a difference in the reports?
Additionally, there are so many reports in the mainstream media that make it sound like there's so little progress being made in Iraq, but if you read the accounts of the soldiers and marines over there who are witnessing it all at street-level and point-blank range, you'd see a different story entirely. Who's got their story straight?
If it's so hard to criticize a perspective that the media refuses to acknowledge, how come there are so many right-wingers doing it?
What facts do you have to prove your assertion that the left is ignored by the mainstream media?
Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
ReplyDeleteAah, yes, but will genetic engineering be a fact in 50 years? Yes, we know a man named Chaucer lived, but was he the genuine author of the works ascribed to him? Re this latter question, for centuries people believed (accepted as fact) that the Christian Gospels were written by the men each book is named after. Today, biblical scholars don't believe ANY of the books of the Gospel were written by the 4.
Just because there aren't as many left-leaning talking heads doesn't mean the viewpoints are ignored.
There are lots of left-leaning talking heads out there, but NONE OF THEM get invited on the panels OR as guests. Consequently, you have conservative, moderate and a few liberal talking heads explaining left-leaning ideas. What would you think about socialists explaining conservative strategies? I bet you would think they were providing biased coverage and NOT expressing the merits of such ideas in a good light.
And that isn't even the basis of the claims of people making allegations of liberal bias in the media. They're talking about the way the "facts" are reported. A prime example is the difference in accounts of a particular incident in Afghanistan from a "news source" and the blogs of soldiers actually on the ground. Before you say anything about how they're brainwashed and not free-thinkers, don't. I knew plenty of soldiers in my service days who were quite the opposite. So if the media was reporting fact, why would there be a difference in the reports?
There are different stories coming from the front lines. Michael Moore has recieved hundreds of letters from soldiers in Iraq that contradict what we hear from the Bush Administration. Robert Fisk of the UK Guardian has spent much of the past decade in Afghanistan & Iraq reporting on the "behind the scenes" stories. By and large, the mainstream media receives its information from the Pentagon & the White House.
Many soldiers on the ground feel we're justified being in Afghanistan & Iraq and there seem to be just as many that don't. Many soldiers believe we're making tremendous progress, yet many believe we're not making ANY progress. It's not a situation in which one group is lying and the other is telling the truth. Each soldier is basing their analysis on their own experience and perceptions.
What facts do you have to prove your assertion that the left is ignored by the mainstream media?
When tens of millions were in the streets protesting the initiation of the Iraq War, there was scant coverage in the press. The media made it seem like their were a few rabble rousers inciting small crowds here and there. Over 1 million marched in London and in Paris. I think they got a 5 second soundbyte on the US national news.
In Portland, over 10,000 turned out to protest. There were about 200 counter protestors (in favor of the war). The 200 received more press coverage than the 10,000.
Here in Salem, I sponsored an anti-war resolution before our City Council. We brought so many supporters (nearly 200) that the city council chambers filled up and they had to set up an overflow room. Twenty people testified in favor of the resolution and only 3 against it. Which side received more coverage in the local newspaper the next day? Of course, it was 3.
Now, that's what I consider biased coverage!
Well, until there is evidence to invalidate what we know today to be fact, it remains so. But you asked what "fact" was, so I gave you the definition. You want to dispute the examples given by dictionary.com, go for it, it's your blog. :)
ReplyDeleteI don't trust Michael Moore. Nobody should, on either side, to be honest with you. Too many times has he chopped up interviews to suit his views.
Gotta throw the flag on your response to my request to prove your assertion that the left is ignored by the mainstream media.
I can't speak for your experience in Salem, but from where I sat, (stuck on the MAX just shy of Pioneer Courthouse Square, on my way home), there was plenty of coverage of the anti-war demonstrators. So much so, that my wife called me to ask if I was delayed by it all - because she saw it on the news. As I recall, the only coverage of the rally supporting the President and the troops was to point out how small a group it was compared to the throng at Pioneer Courthouse Square.
Thinking about the 20-to-3 thing you mentioned, doesn't it seem more likely that the media was again pointing out the weak turnout of the opposition of your resolution? Isn't it more sensational that only a small number of people opposed it? If it was more even, do you think the opposition would still have had "more coverage"?
BTW, thanks for visiting Gone Ronin. I like your blog (you might have guessed, since I've visited rather frequently lately :) ). I have read the Tao Te Ching (The Victor H. Mair translation) and The Tao of Pooh, as well as Vitality, Energy, Spirit: A Taoist Sourcebook (but in each case, it's been a while), and am also highly critical of Christianity (and most of the "organized religions" - all they've really contributed to world history is war, persecution, and some fantastic architecture and art).
BTW, What does "Gone Ronin" mean?
ReplyDeleteThinking about the 20-to-3 thing you mentioned, doesn't it seem more likely that the media was again pointing out the weak turnout of the opposition of your resolution? Isn't it more sensational that only a small number of people opposed it? If it was more even, do you think the opposition would still have had "more coverage"?
The City Council voted it down 8-3, I believe. Despite the fact we had 10 times more supporters there, the 3 who spoke against the resolution were quoted 3 times more than us. Consequently, for the average reader, it appeared as if the for and against sides were fairly even.
As to the coverage of the PDX march, maybe our differences in perspective has to do with which TV station we watch and the amount of coverage provided by each.
Oh, and I'm STILL upset about my football :-<
In Japan, under the feudal system, samurai who had renounced his clan or who had been discharged or ostracized and had become a wanderer without a lord were called "ronin".
ReplyDeleteI was in the Army from 1989 to 1997; and was honorably discharged. I think it's over-romanticizing my situation to say I am a wanderer without a lord, but in a sense, I am. I still believe in many of the things that made me a soldier, yet I serve no one as such.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the media bias bit. Sorry about your football.
Ghost Dog,
ReplyDeleteI look forward to future discussions with you. In this highly argumentative and polarized world, it's always nice to find others who are willing to agree to disagree. My wife & I struck that agreement over 20 years ago and we're still going strong!