One more note about media bias: It’s all in the mind of the beholder.
As I was writing the previous post about the new M-F-C (I keep hearing that in my head like the old WWF announcements, and it makes me laugh), I came across the most recent column from liberal stalwart E.J. Dionne Jr., a syndicated writer with the Washington Post Writers Group.
I’ve grown used to the strange phenomenon of finding things that I agree with and disagree with in the same article. But Dionne’s work doesn’t hit me that way.
I almost never agree with his stuff. And I say “almost” because until this morning, it would have been just “never.“
Here’s what changed my mind:
Democrats are complicit in building up Gingrich and Limbaugh as the main spokesmen for the Republican Party, since Obama polls so much better than either of them. But the media play an independent role by regularly treating far-right views as mainstream positions and by largely ignoring critiques of Obama that come from elected officials on the left.
That is true, and Dionne and I agree that it is a function of media bias.
But our agreement was as fleeting as it is unusual.
Dionne, inexplicably, believes that the media is biased TO THE RIGHT. As proof, he offers the near-ubiquitous coverage of Newt and El Rushbo in the mainstream press.
As I noted in my e-mail to Dionne (written about 90 seconds after I read what he wrote), just because a reporter quotes someone in his article doesn’t mean the reporter is sympathetic to the political leanings of the source.
Indeed, a biased reporter could quote someone on the extreme and play the quote as if it is indicative of the mainstream.
Wait—that argument sounds familar ... oh, yes; that’s because Dionne had just made it.
So Dionne is saying that the media shows its bias by quoting those on the extreme as if they are mainstream, and then he uses heavy coverage of Newt and Rush as evidence of conservative media bias.
Awesome.
I went on to point out to Dionne that the increased focus on Newt and Rush is a function of the reality that President Obama occupies the White House. The media has to provide a critique of the party in power, and since Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress, Newt and Rush are natural places to look for ... um ... prolific critique.
If you doubt that, think about this: Do you remember hearing much from Newt and Rush when President Bush was in the White House? And I’m not talking about the last two years he was in the White House, when basically everyone was speaking out against his policies. From whom did you hear during those first six, seven years? MoveOn.org. Kerry. The Clintons. Dean. And on and on.
So since that’s true, if you believe the media is biased to the right, then it must also be true that the media has shifted its bias to the right from the left in the last 24 months.
Of course, that hasn’t happened.
I can’t think of flimsier evidence for conservative media bias than frequent and prominently displayed quotes from Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. If these guys weren’t in politics, they would have found their way into the entertainment industry, somehow.
Actually, considering their work in politics, they already have.
Just when you thought House Republicans couldn’t make themselves any more irrelevant, Newsbusters brings us this:*
A dozen Republican members of Congress have formed the “Media Fairness Caucus,” the group’s chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) announced this morning on FNC’s America’s Newsroom.
The MFC (I’m taking the acronym for a spin) is meant to ... drum roll, please ... FIGHT LIBERAL BIAS IN THE PRESS!!
How? you ask. Oh, you’re going to be glad you did.
Newsmax’ Ron Kessler wrote about the formation of the new group yesterday: “The Media Fairness Caucus will point out unfair stories, meet with members of the media, and write op-eds and letters to the editor to highlight media bias.“
OK, let’s break this down.
The MFC will point out unfair stories. But Republicans individually and as a group through the House Minority Office are already doing that ... prolifically.
The MFC will meet with members of the media. Wait; aren’t Republican members of Congress already doing that? If not, maybe that’s the answer to the bias problem. It’s hard to quote someone who won’t call you back.
The MFC will write op-eds and letters to the editor to highlight media bias. Again, Republican members of Congress are already doing these things. But that aside, consider this: How do you feel about the MFC’s chances of getting that opinion page content published, especially since it will be produced as the result of a coordinated effort to highlight and fight liberal media bias?
Yeah. Not too good.
But wait! There’s more! From the Newsmax report, via Newsbusters:
For the past two years, Smith has conducted his own campaign against unfair coverage in weekly one-minute speeches on the House floor. The caucus is intended to broaden and fortify the effort.
Well, let’s hope it’s going to be broadened. If they only have enough material to cover 60 seconds a week, those are going to be some short op-eds.
I’m poking fun at this, but of course, liberal media bias isn’t a myth. It’s a fact. Smith mentioned that journalists’ donations to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign outnumbered those to John McCain’s campaign 20 to 1.
I wrote about this issue, as well as the broader issue of media bias, in a column nearly two years ago. In it, I said that the solution to media bias lies with the reporters, not with those charging the bias:
Journalists need not check their personal opinions at the doors of their jobs. Indeed, no one is without bias; that’s a simple fact of humanity. What sets journalists apart is their ability—and commitment—to recognize their personal leanings and account for them when telling a story, so that the story is as fair and accurate as it can be.
Back to Smith, his most controversial statement was the line about his belief that liberal media bias was the biggest threat to America – graver than the economic crisis currently facing this country or even the possibility of another terrorist attack.
And Smith acknowledged that the idea sounds “radical.” “And I don’t mean for it to,” he said.
He went on to explain his point, and when you think about it, it is a valid one: Americans must make the decisions about their governance based on the best possible information available. That means the timeliest, fairest, most complete and accurate reporting possible. Bias hampers that effort. It crimps the flow of good information between government and the people that government is supposed to represent.
In that way, bias – in either direction – is more than an annoyance. It’s one of the gravest dangers to democracy itself.
But wouldn’t it be a better approach for these concerned members of Congress to organize an effort to speak to journalism students about the importance of remaining vigilant against bias? Because I really don’t see them sitting down with a hardened news veteran of, say, 15 or 20 years, making their case and getting the reporter to say, “You know, you’re right. I’m a big banner-bearer for bias. Thanks for pointing it out. I’m going to change my ways!”
And all of that aside, if it’s partisan activity these members of the Media Fairness Caucus are looking for, they have enough on their hands—like trying to rebuild their party and figure out who their leader is—without trying to police the press.
But is this really their place at all? How would you feel if you found out your member of Congress was spending his time writing letters and op-eds to fight liberal media bias, instead of working with the majority to find ways to craft good policy and take care of your district?
In other words, what’s more important to you: Having an effective representative in Washington, or having your representative in Washington moonlight as a media watchdog?
Exactly.
*Yes, I’m well aware of the irony of Newsbusters and Newsmax reporting on efforts to fight media bias. Funny, no?
Today marks the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre.
If you need a refresher on what this event was all about and why it’s important to you as an American, click here.
This six-minute news report about the violence is just as riveting and relevant as it was when it was produced in 1989. Watch as it takes you into Tiananmen Square; stand alongside the workers and students as the violence escalates.
Thank God, once again, for the freedom you have the luxury of taking for granted.
Finally, on this day, the thoughts of billions around the world turn to a peaceful protestor we know only as “Tank Man.“ His determination and courage crystallized in one moment all that Tiananmen was about.
We don’t know who he was, and we don’t know what happened to him. Many believe he was executed by Chinese authorities shortly after this event. Some think he is still alive and in hiding in mainland China.
We may never know his name. But we can never forget him.
When will the warm wind of freedom blow through China? It is the legacy of those who died in Tiananmen Square, and it will not be denied forever.
