We all remember when Dan Rather didn't do his homework on Bush just before the election. He was then still anchor at CBS and irresponsibly aired a story about Bush being AWOL during the Vietnam War. They toasted him for it, and eventually he had to leave off being anchor.
Well, we have the first instance of it in this election. First Steve Doocy of Fox News reported that Baruch Obama had spent the first decade of his life raised by a Muslim father. This itself was a garbled version of the original article in Insight, claiming that Hilary Clinton's camp had found out that Obama had attended a madrassa or fundamentalist Muslim school during the time his mother and step-father lived in Indonesia in the 60's. Double whammy--get Clinton and Obama in one swoop.
Then Gibson repeated it on his program, still without doing his homework.
It turns out that Doocy, Insight, and Gibson were skewed on several points. Obama had only met his father once in his life, and he was an atheist. CNN actually did their homework and contacted the school, which apparently was no different from any other "public" school in Indonesia at the time.
But in the end, none of this matters in the slightest. Obama had a conversion experience in his 20's. He was only 6 at the time he was in Indonesia.
Gibson has not apologized for getting his facts wrong. Doocy at least made some correction.
I am quite comfortable with my sense of bias among the media. Fox clearly leans to the right. Even here, I respect some more than others. O'Reilly, bless his soul, is arrogant and clearly has a right inclination, but I do believe he is honest. I can't think of anyone at Fox who leans to the "liberal."
There are clearly those who lean left at CNN and MSNBC. Keith Olbermann immediately focuses on the negative of any speech Bush makes. He is a kind of left version of O'Reilly. He's honest, but clearly has a "liberal" inclination. But frankly, I can't think of anyone at MSNBC who is as skewed liberal as, say, Anne Colter or Rush Lindbaugh is to the right. And I don't see how anyone sane can really consider Joe Scarborough a liberal. He regularly features Pat Buchanan and vigorously supported the Iraq War.
My favorite media people are those that really seem to try to listen to both sides--and who really seem to listen. I can't think of any of the main reporters for NPR who wouldn't fit in this category, although clearly some of the side program hosts are liberal. I consider Chris Matthews of this sort. His brother holds local Republican office and I honestly couldn't figure out during the election whether he was Republican or Democrat.
And certainly Tim Russert is so fascinated as an observer that I have no idea what his views are. I mean this as a compliment--he is so nerdily fascinated to watch the politics that who knows what he thinks!
Is David Greggory a liberal, like Snow and Fox have accused? I don't know if he is, but there is a point where the data is so clear that a person would have to be skewed even to give time to some possibilities. When the MSNBC correspondant says that the manner of Saddam's death has caused a big PR among Iraqis, isn't it possible that there is no bias here? What if it is so obvious to someone on the ground in Iraq that it would be skewed to pretend the other is even a possibility?
5 comments:
Ahh... NPR. I usually go straight to www.npr.org/environment and listen to all the stories straight-away(half of which seem to be on global warming :)
I can't believe anyone with at least a college degree actually thinks Anne Coulter makes any sense... at all.
You're pointing out some common misconceptions regarding reporting. Good for you.
Good, accurate, fair, unbiased reporting does not require balance. When the facts clearly suggest one angle it is not necessary to mention all other possibilities. Doing so would be misleading.
Is there really a bias in news reporting? Perhaps. One veteran reporter observed that after years on the city beat it was impossible NOT to sympathize with the poor, the downtrodden, the disenfranchised. It didn't make his reporting any less accurate but it definitely guided his pursuit of a good story.
One thing that really irks me is when right wing commentators use this bias, real or otherwise, to justify their own partisanship. When asked about the lack of balance on his show Rush Limbaugh retorts with something like "I am the other side!" But it's just not symmetric. The so-called "liberal media" are nowhere near as intentionally and unapologetically doctrinaire as the right wing. The New York Times has columnist David Brooks while the Washington Post has George Will and Charles Krauthammer. These are not liberals! When Jon Stewart interviewed former Attorney General John Ashcroft on the Daily Show last year it was funny but not adversarial. I listen to NPR a lot, and their news interviews are polite with plenty of opportunity for the subject to respond at length. Quite the contrast to the badgering and interrupting that is so common on, say, O'Reilly.
Personally, I don't really care whether someone is liberal or conservative, whatever those labels mean. What matters is that they are fair, open-minded, and willing to listen to other points of view fairly and with respect. That's good advice for ourselves as well. After all, why should someone hear us out if we refuse to do likewise?
For what it's worth, Insight is sticking with their story. Their story being that HR Clinton's camp does opposition research. Insight reported what HR Clinton's camp was preparing for release. That's Insight's story, old news really. (Remember the FBI files of so many key Republicans that ended up at the White House? Insight's story essentially says, "Nothing's changed.")
The details of BH Obama's childhood, relationship with his father, type of school he attended, prior and current religious affiliation/beliefs, while far from incidental, were part of the on-going opposition research from HR Clinton, and presented as such. (The Insight article is still available for reading online, as is BH Obama's response -- no acceptance or denials, just a response.)
That CNN tried to carry water for both HR Clinton & BH Obama is notable. I saw their piece on the medrassa. It didn't appear to be investigative in the sense that multiple views were presented or that people associated with the school at the time BH Obama was enrolled were interviewed. And it didn't address Insight's re-hash of HR Clinton doing what HR Clinton is good at -- muddying the waters by attempting to soil her competition.
CS Lewis called it Bulverism. Why bother to discuss the relative merits of another's perspective when you can simply de-fame them instead? (My quick interpretation of his essay in God in the Dock.)
And yes, I still believe Steve Moore will eventually be named the next president of ATS.
This would be suicidal, I think, for the Asbury board to try to appoint Steve Moore. How could they possibly get the votes?
Things sure aren't looking good though. See this post from the Lexington paper:
http://www.biblebeltblogger.com/biblebelt/2007/02/asbury_seminary_2.html
I can confirm most of the material, but not necessarily all the connections he makes and I didn't know about Bechler cancelling his Feb. 28 meeting with the faculty.
Hi, Im from Melbourne Australia.
Please check out this reference on the function of the media. It especially applies to Fox so called "news".
1. www.dabase.net/popdisgu.htm
This essay is one of a selection of profoundly conservative (but not wing) essays on politics & culture.
The themes of these essays are summarised at:
2. www.coteda.com
Plus 2 related essays on the origins & consequences of the universal insanity.
3. www.dabase.net/spacetim.htm
4. www.dabase.net/2armP1.htm#ch2
Critical essays on Christianity.
5. www.dabase.net/proofch6.htm
Plus you might like to check out this scathing critique of the current USA administration.
www.valenzuelasveritas.blogspot.com
And a scathing critique of the Reagan years at:
www.psychohistory.org/reagan/rcontent.htm
Post a Comment