|
Volume CXXXIII, Number 3 |
 |
Media bias acceptable so long as the slant
is acknowledged
PAT
ROCKEFELLER
COLUMNIST
Last week's Orient contained a piece on the FCC by Ben Kreider. His final paragraphs concluded that many Americans were "frustrated with the overwhelming pro-war coverage of U.S. networks. In response, many viewers turned to such outlets as the BBC to obtain more balanced reporting."
I really didn't see the media as 'pro-war' and now I'm seeing them as very critical of actions in Iraq. This isn't necessarily wrong - criticism is important - but criticism has to be sustentative and reasoned, not just theatrical. In an ideal situation, news would always be perfectly fair and balanced (Fox News slogans aside) and get at the truth of the matter. However, news is reported by people and people are inherently biased and flawed. Therefore, news will from time to time reflect a bias. Which way that bias tilts is the question.
In 2002, Bernard Goldberg, a longtime CBS correspondent, wrote a book titled Bias, in which he implicates the network news as being remarkably biased in what it broadcasts. His conclusion is not that it is some vast left wing conspiracy, but simply a matter of how those in charge of the networks view the world. In many regards, they did not even realize their bias. Goldberg faced massive reprisals at CBS for writing an article on the matter for the Wall Street Journal, and eventually quit over the matter.
Today most of what we see in regards to Iraq is body counts and snafus. Two U.S. soldiers die when their convoy comes under attack. Several Iraqi civilians killed as soldiers respond to militant fire. Pipeline sabotage, power outages, and bandits. Is this news? Of course. Is it all the news? No way. It seems our news does an excellent job of covering the sensational at the expense of the admittedly more boring (from a spectators point of view).
Ask any reporter and certainly their publishers what sells newspapers and you'll get the same answer - bad news, sex, fights and scandal. This is why Pro Wrestling is popular, and why your local news station leads with stories titled, "Puppy Dogs: Man's Best Friend, or Baby Killers?" The purpose of this is to make you look down at your new puppy chewing on a corner of the rug and imagine your child's limp leg in her mouth. No, they get along. Couldn't happen. Better tune in, just to be sure.
Even Dan Rather, whom many find to be the most egregiously biased of the network news anchors, admits to this problem. A week ago, after a particularly negative segment on the U.S. occupation, Rather ended his broadcast with, "A reminder that television sometimes has trouble with perspective, so you may want to note that in some areas of Iraq, things are peaceful." Thanks, Dan.
The BBC, that bastion of fair reporting, came into a serious credibility issue of its own. One of its reporters, Andrew Gilligan claimed that a source from the Blair government had said that an important dossier on WMD had been "sexed up" and the government had included claims they "knew to be wrong" in order to sell it to the public. Blair disputed this claim, as did others. This was a big scandal in Britain and many thought it would do serious damage to either the Blair government or the BBC's credibility. In the end, Gilligan was forced to admit that he was in fact wrong. His source, David Kelly, killed himself.
Media bias isn't necessarily a bad thing so long as the slant is acknowledged. No one complains about The Nation or National Review. The problem is when a magazine, newspaper, or other news source passes itself off as unbiased. There will always be some bias amongst reporters, even the good ones. The worry is when there is an institutional slant, when it becomes more than an occasional slip. This is why people accuse Fox News of being more conservative and others accuse the New York Times of being more liberal.
Whenever I read the Times critique Bush or the war, I can't help but wonder how critical they would be if Clinton were in charge, or Gore. Or Howard Dean, for that matter. At that point would it be recast, not as a war of imperial conquest, but as a defense of civilization and human rights? How much of their coverage is influenced by the fact that over 80 percent of journalists vote Democrat?
Rarely do we hear about the efforts our soldiers are making to rebuild
schools and dig wells. Rarely do we hear about their successes, their
heroic acts. Complete neutrality and bias isn't a reasonable expectation
because reporters have emotions and loyalties just as the rest of us do.
In the end though, our reporters are American citizens as well, and just
once I'd like to hear one of them say, 'Gosh, I hope we win.'
|
FastCounter by bCentral |