« The Pledge of Allegiance in Our Schools: Are judges violating our Constitutional freedoms? | Main | How Katrina Turned me Republican »

September 18, 2005

See No, Hear No, Speak No Bias: Liberal Bias in the Mainstream Media

The mainstream media in America owes us all an apology. Coverage of Hurricane Katrina down south has been the most glaring example of liberal bias in the media to date. It was journalism without the “J.” It was “our”nalism; they were giving us what they thought “our” version of events should be. The liberal left was waiting for an opportunity to pounce on the President, and pounce it did.

Here are some words that you would expect to hear in the wake of a huge natural disaster: disaster, storm, flood, destruction, relief, water, aid, emergency, mobilization, National Guard, Coast Guard, search and rescue, etc. Instead, these are the words we heard: President George W. Bush plays guitar, Condoleeza Rice shops for shoes, Vice President Dick Cheney vacations, Halliburton gets contracts, etc. In the wake of a disaster, the only reports we typically hear of any President are two things: 1) “The President has declared “”“disaster location”” a state of emergency,” and 2) “The President flew out to survey the damage today.” Most of us have witnessed a few disasters (of course, none comparable to this) and we are aware of the role the President normally plays in the aftermath. A President that had exhibited panic in the face of this disaster would have transferred that panic to the public. I have to feel that regardless of the President's, or any one on his his Cabinet members', actions after this catastrophe, the media had a predetermined scapegoat. The President did everything in his power correctly in this situation, yet the media and the left wing elite began this attack on President Bush before this storm's dead were even cold. Any blame, if you can find blame after a natural disaster, remains firmly planted on people and circumstances wholly out of our President's control.

This is not about deflecting blame from the President. This is about responsible, unbiased journalism. In Hurricane Katrina reporting we were fed an Alphabet Soup full of capital “L's” for liberal. What upsets you more as an American... as a media consumer? Being fed news that has been plagiarized, or being fed news with blatant, unashamed bias? Personally, I would rather read something that someone felt worthy enough to repeat, than a report that the media considered me too ignorant to draw my own conclusions from the facts. And lets talk about facts. The media is very quick to excommunicate anyone who fabricates or plagiarizes, yet what of the convenient omission of facts pertinent to the story? What of twisting words to suit liberal opinion? What of flagrant attacks on our President thrown into “factual” event updates? These abuses offend me more, and should offend good journalists more, than any borrowed story line.

Without freedom of the press, we would be silenced. There would be no opportunity for discourse. All of our criticisms would be stifled. Keeping the dialogue open between parties is a healthy and important part of the democratic process. However, all this said, the mainstream media needs to seriously consider whether it truly wants to remain mainstream. The who, what, when, where and why are critical to reporting – feelings and opinions are for editorializing. As an American, when I want editorializing I will BLOG, watch or participate in a debate, listen to talk radio or read the editorial page. When I want the news, I look to the news pages and listen to and watch news reports. It is this part of the process that I am finding increasingly difficult. Where can I find the news without hunting it down myself? The media owes us an answer to this question.

Posted by capecodcyclist at September 18, 2005 06:28 PM

Comments

Post a comment