The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
Not a day goes by without the media plumbing new depths in their sycophantic relationship with the liberal/statist values that are destroying this country. And not a day goes by without someone indignantly pointing out some new outrageous lie peddled by the journolistic (sic) class.
This indignation is misplaced. The problem with an almost monolithically biased media is not the bias - all newspapers (for example), at all times, and in all places, have always been biased one way or another. The problem is the (fairly modern) fairy tale that is told about the news media being a value-neutral source of information.
Why is this the problem? Because it lures the 'low information' participant in political life into thinking they are being given facts from which they can draw a conclusion, rather than being pitched an argument with which they can agree or from which they can dissent.
The solution is to drive home the message that the reportage on page A5 is no different to the car advertisement on page A4 - a mixture of facts and opinion concocted and colored to drive you to a conclusion. People are quite capable of seeing through advertisements. Given permission (or warning) they will see through the rhetoric of reporters.
A key part of this solution is to stop pretending that value-free reporting is possible. When pointing out the latest lie from the New York Times, don't act shocked that they are lying. Of course they are lying. Act shocked that they are pretending to be neutral.
The most outrageous behavior to come out of the White House press corps is not the softball questions, the wholesaling peddling of the administration's talking points, or the lazy lack of curiosity. It's when Jake Tapper says he really doesn't know the political leanings of his (former) colleagues. Puh. Leeze.
We can continue to play "how would this story have looked if it was about a Republican/Democrat or Pro-Lifer/Pro-Choicer or Catholic/Muslim," we can continue to make fun of the ignorance of life as it is actually lived outside the liberal coastal enclaves, we can continue to point out the credulousness and incuriosity of the media class. But let's be clear where the outrage lies: it is not in failing to live up to the impossible standard of neutrality, it is in pretending to do so.
- Comment (39)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (13)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '12
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
Well said
Sep '12
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
I agree that it is impossible for humans to have an omnipotent POV, but a fair-minded person can try. Journalists should try. It is wrong that they have given up trying. And it's been bad for them.
My husband was a very successful high school debater, which has given him a life-long ability to see both sides of an issue in a fair light. I have to admit that sometimes this is annoying (when I want him to take my side!) but in the end I appreciate it because I know I can really trust his judgment. It's served him very well in his career as a law professor writing about law and religion, because what he writes or says is always considered and reasonable.
Many, perhaps most, journalists have lost the ability to even see their own bias. What's even more annoying is the so-called "fact checkers," who tout themselves as being above the fray, when they are utterly unable to see how their biases affect their "facts." All of these people should be herded into a room and required to debate every issure from both sides.
Jan '11
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
When Chuck Toad (oops, I mean Todd) claims that media bias is a myth, it's just silly.
On the other hand, I have a problem with the idea that the "low-information voter" will penalize Republicans and conservatives. I mean, they aren't participating ... that's the whole point ... so why worry about them?
(I'll answer my own question:) That's why constant polling is a dangerous distraction. High-information voters, and obsessed political players, use polling results as weapons and cudgels for the game inside the Beltway. Polling gives low-information voters high importance, which is exactly the inverse of what should be happening. Instead of monitoring the reality, constant polling changes the reality.
The combination of
is a toxic coordination that produces the essence of corruption: the process of making decisions is tilted to the people least qualified to understand their decisions.
Sep '12
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
Yes--I agree, KC. No one can take the long view on anything because everyone is so busy worrying about polls taken of people who understand nothing, or worse, think they understand something based on highly partisan media coverage. How can this be mitigated? I have no idea.
Oct '10
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
I would argue that they never tried. For most of the history of journalism that was OK: no one expected journalists to be possessed of some kind of Olympian detachment.
At some point after the second world war the myth of neutrality/objectivity arose. Perhaps it was to do with the professionalization of journalism: those J-schools had to create some definition of journalist other than 'someone who writes ephemera for money'. But actual journalistic practice didn't change. It couldn't.
What did change was journalism's image: the image it projected to the public, and the self image of its practitioners. This myth became central to the new journalistic enterprise, which is why otherwise sensible people will say they think media bias doesn't exist.
My argument is that, since journalists have NEVER been neutral, and since they show no desire to actually, in their real practice, be neutral, we should stop expecting them to be neutral_and_call_them_out_when_they_try_to_maintain_the_pretense.
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
Well, speaking as a reporter who has long favored the American media approach -- which isn't objectivity so much as an attempt toward objectivity, I think you raise a good point.
The media have recently been acknowledging that they are unable to treat some people fairly. They don't want to, in fact. They're open and honest about this. Given this honesty, the worst thing to do would be to pretend that they're doing a good job with anything other than press releases for their given cause.
I wrote about this here at GetReligion and I think it's instructive for this discussion:
WP: Yes, we fear and loathe religious traditionalists
It's not even that the reporter and ombudsman admit their bigotry -- it's that they seem so proud about it.
Jan '12
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
genferei
What did change was journalism's image: the image it projected to the public, and the self image of its practitioners. This myth became central to the new journalistic enterprise, which is why otherwise sensible people will say they think media bias doesn't exist.
My argument is that, since journalists have NEVER been neutral, and since they show no desire to actually, in their real practice, be neutral, we should stop expecting them to be neutral_and_call_them_out_when_they_try_to_maintain_the_pretense. · 17 minutes ago
Your article states the case exactly!
Are the following two factors more at play today?
*Those liberals who work in journalism, operate on the premise that 'the end justifies the means', in their efforts to influence the 'unwashed masses', and
*these same journalists smell blood; they believe that this is the time for that last push to get their cause over the finish line (Rush Limbaugh said as much last week).
I await your reply!
Sep '12
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
Fine article, Mollie. What is your solution? I mean, in a way, if they really would acknowledge their bias openly and inform everyone that they are biased, it might be good. That's what genferei advocates.
What they do is infinitely worse, however. As you point out, they are proud of their bias. They regard themselves as heros for taking the "moral high ground." In essence, they are preaching their secular religion with great zeal, and the irony is that they are exactly what they accuse those who don't agree with them of being--self-righteous zealots who deal with only straw man arguments from opponents.
They nevertheless count on the ideal of unbiased reporting to give them cover for their shameless and shameful bias. Your average voter doesn't think too much about the bias because they are accustomed to the idea of unbiased reporting. People on the right complain, but we have been stereotyped as "extreme" and are easy to ignore.
As I pointed out in another thread yesterday, a press that refuses to do its job is worse than one controlled by government, because at least then everyone knows that they can believe nothing they read.
Nov '10
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
Just so.. and well stated, genferei. How do we combat this, though? I've found myself rather hopeless on this front. Media liberal bias and pretended objectivity is one problem. But it is joined by two other important public institutions being largely leftist in their sensibilities: academia and entertainment. The result of this post-modern tripartite alliance is that the default public sensibility becomes leftist. Conservatives and libertarians are what they have always been, but the public sensibility fostered by these three instutions creates an atmoshphere where anything to the right of Piers Morgan is deemed "extremist". Throw in myriad media formats with which people are hit forcing them to declare opinions on EVERYTHING, and it makes for a largely misinformed public that is, nonetheless, very judgmental about parroting the popular position on every important issue. There simply are no other informed opinions than the ones held by entertainers, journalists, and professors. Everyone else is a rube against whom every logical fallacy is employed as proof. The challenge is how to step back from this. I don't know if we're capable of it as a people anymore. I'm sick about it, but there it is. Thoughts?
Jan '12
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
Copperfield: Just so.. and well stated, genferei. How do we combat this, though? I've found myself rather hopeless on this front. Media liberal bias and pretended objectivity is one problem. But it is joined by two other important public institutions being largely leftist in their sensibilities: academia and entertainment.
Throw in myriad media formats with which people are hit forcing them to declare opinions on EVERYTHING, and it makes for a largely misinformed public that is, nonetheless, very judgmental about parroting the popular position on every important issue. There simply are no other informed opinions than the ones held by entertainers, journalists, and professors. Everyone else is a rube against whom every logical fallacy is employed as proof. The challenge is how to step back from this. I don't know if we're capable of it as a people anymore. I'm sick about it, but there it is. Thoughts? · 23 minutes ago
History may refer to this period as our re-entry into the 'Dark Ages'.
Dec '12
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
That is precisely the problem. I have a liberal friend who is devoted to Jon Stewart's show, which he cites in political arguments as a non-partisan source of information and analysis.
Armed with this viewpoint, my friend assures me that Stewart spends at least 90% of his time attacking Republicans because "they deserve it." In same vein, Stewart needs to spend only 10% or so of his time attacking (gently) Democrats because he, in his non-partisan wisdom, has not discovered anything about them worthy of attack.
Needless to say, it's impossible to have an intelligent political discussion with this friend, because he views himself and his sources as impartial, which means (to him) that my sources and I are dangerously fascist.
Oct '12
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
What is more tiring is the constant whining by Republicans about the bias.
Everything is biased. And the media, historically, have been very biased. In the early part of the 20th century most major US papers were owned by one person who ran the paper and dictated the bia of the paper. Papers, and their owners, were either pro or anti-Roosevelt in the 30s and 40s.
And the tradition of the British Fleet Street is the same, papers were allied with one of the other parties, or with specific causes (e.g. labor unions).
Bias exists, it always exists, stop complaining and find a way to get your ideas out to the people.
Apr '12
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
Several years ago Micky Kaus suggested that the New York Times would gain greatly in credibility if it simply changed its masthead motto from "All The News That's Fit To Print" to "A Crusading Liberal Newspaper".
Jun '11
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.:
The media have recently been acknowledging that they are unable to treat some people fairly. They don't want to, in fact. . . .
I wrote about this here at GetReligion and I think it's instructive for this discussion:
WP: Yes, we fear and loathe religious traditionalists
It's not even that the reporter and ombudsman admit their bigotry -- it's that they seem so proud about it.
Oh dear, Mollie. I was doing so well on my Lenten vow to give up all alcohol, and then I read the WP reporter's dialogue with a reader in your Get Religion piece.
Now where did I put that Basil Hayden??
Jun '11
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
genferei
Why is this the problem? Because it lures the 'low information' participant in political life into thinking they are being given facts from which they can draw a conclusion, rather than being pitched an argument with which they can agree or from which they can dissent.
This is an excellent observation.
I will say that I have begun making a point like this in conversations I'm having with the low information political participants in my life (and we need to be mindful that some very high IQ people can be some of the lowest information participants).
And it is beginning to sink in. They are beginning to understand that the perky Ms. Couric, the handsome Mr. Lauer, the professorial Mr. Blitzer or the hot Soledad might not be completely objective on every issue. Progress.
Oct '10
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
Barbara Kidder
Are the following two factors more at play today?
*Those liberals who work in journalism, operate on the premise that 'the end justifies the means', in their efforts to influence the 'unwashed masses', and
*these same journalists smell blood; they believe that this is the time for that last push to get their cause over the finish line (Rush Limbaugh said as much last week).
I wonder if it is just that the cocoon is so much stronger for the modern journalist.
In the past, when journalism was a trade, you would no more expect a random journalist to have a particular political outlook than you would a random electrician.
Now that journalism is a 'profession', and everyone involved goes to college, and a great number of them study 'journalism', an ideological groupthink emerges. It is quite possible that the average journalist has never, ever, during their adult life, known anyone that doesn't believe the liberal pieties. It is, quite literally, unthinkable to believe anything else.
So it takes little persuading to write such opinions off as invalid, and those that hold them as in- or sub-human. Swatting a republican is like swatting a cockroach: morally_neutral.
Dec '10
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
Agreed with everything above. Excellent article Mollie.
I think we're headed for Mark Steyn's outposts of civilization -- those few remaining communities where faith and reason abide. Peter Kreeft talks about totalitarians' understanding that when you take over the language -- redefine the terms -- then you win the culture. The Left has been doing this for a hundred years.
Someone who is illiberal (for authoritarianism) is called a "liberal." Couples of the same sex with no natural complementarity and no natural procreative ability have the "right" (another abused word) to "marriage." And someone who propagandizes for his cause and mischaracterizes his opposition to achieve his ends is a "journalist," or worse, a "reporter" (as if what he's doing has anything to do with "reporting" the facts).
Without some external moral authority (God), everything is subjective and becomes relativistic. That's why I agree with Kreeft's assessment that only the marriage of faith and reason can save Western Civilization. Unfortunately, I don't see how the marriage can be saved in the wider culture at this point. I hope I'm wrong.
Jun '11
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
Western Chauvinist: Agreed with everything above. Excellent article Mollie.
I think we're headed for Mark Steyn's outposts of civilization -- those few remaining communities where faith and reason abide. Peter Kreeft talks about totalitarians' understanding that when you take over the language -- redefine the terms -- then you win the culture. The Left has been doing this for a hundred years.
Someone who is illiberal (forauthoritarianism) is called a "liberal." Couples of the same sex with no natural complementarity and no natural procreative ability have the "right" (another abused word) to "marriage." And someone who propagandizes for his cause and mischaracterizes his opposition to achieve his ends is a "journalist," or worse, a "reporter" (as if what he's doing has anything to do with "reporting" the facts).
Without some external moral authority (God), everything is subjective and becomes relativistic. That's why I agree with Kreeft's assessment that only the marriage of faith and reason can save Western Civilization. Unfortunately, I don't see how the marriage can be saved in the wider culture at this point. I hope I'm wrong.
C'mon WC, now I'll have to make that a double shot of bourbon.
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
Barbara Kidder
Copperfield: Just so.. and well stated, genferei. How do we combat this, though? I've found myself rather hopeless on this front. Media liberal bias and pretended objectivity is one problem. But it is joined by two other important public institutions being largely leftist in their sensibilities: academia and entertainment.
Throw in myriad media formats with which people are hit forcing them to declare opinions on EVERYTHING, and it makes for a largely misinformed public that is, nonetheless, very judgmental about parroting the popular position on every important issue. There simply are no other informed opinions than the ones held by entertainers, journalists, and professors. Everyone else is a rube against whom every logical fallacy is employed as proof. The challenge is how to step back from this. I don't know if we're capable of it as a people anymore. I'm sick about it, but there it is. Thoughts? · 23 minutes ago
History may refer to this period as our re-entry into the 'Dark Ages'. · 1 hour ago
Yes. Assuming we survive all this and go on for centuries more, I have no doubt that this is absolutely true. Looking forward to the Renaissance!
Sep '10
Re: The Problem Is Not The Reality Of Media Bias; The Problem Is The Fantasy Of Media Neutrality
Political/historical tests given to people before they are registered to vote?