I want to be fair to the news media; I really do. They work hard, and it must be maddening to hear themselves being described as biased, state-controlled Obama toadies when they feel they are making a good faith effort to cover all the important news with objectivity. So when there is an incident that seems to scream liberal media bias, like the almost complete failure to report or criticize Attorney General Eric Holder’s stunning admission that he had still not read the Arizona illegal immigration statute despite already going on record as believing it could lead to racial profiling, I believe that it only fair to search hard for legitimate, ethical reasons for their surprising handling of the story.
The story, you may recall, is this: Attorney General Eric Holder, while under questioning by a Congressional subcommittee this week, disclosed that he had not read the Arizona statute despite making several derogatory comments about its impact, saying on “Meet the Press, for example, that the law that the law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” Now, while shooting off one’s mouth about something before one knows what one is talking about is standard practice among bloggers and TV pundits, but the highest legal official in the land is supposed to hold himself to a higher standard. The Attorney General is supposed to render opinions about the law based on expertise, analysis and facts, not, as Holder admitted in this instance, reports in the media. By doing what he did, Holder misused his position to circulate incorrect information about the Arizona law, turn public opinion against it by the weight of his office and presumed integrity, and in essence, lied to the American people.
Attorney General Holder, in my opinion, should be fired or should resign for doing this, which I believe proves him to be him untrustworthy for his high office. You may think that is too harsh, but certainly you must agree that his conduct deserves to be reported, discussed, and criticized. The public has a right to know that its Attorney General can’t be bothered to read a short statute that is the object of boycotts and demonstrations before registering an opinion about it. And yet, with the notable exception of the Washington Post, only the Fox network, the Wall Street Journal, Arizona media and various conservative publications and websites took any immediate notice of Holder’s admission.
This, of course, automatically marginalizes the event as a “conservative story.” Fox News, in this case the only network actually reporting the news, appears to be digging for Obama administration dirt by the mere fact that it is covering a story the other “objective” networks are not. Fox is out of step, so it must be biased. But the incompetent conduct is really by the networks and newspapers that aren’t covering the Holder story. They report the news unethically, and as a result, Fox looks biased. Perfect.
Can anything but liberal bias, pro-Obama Administration cheer-leading and proactive burying of unflattering stories about Obama officials explain this behavior?
- Is it because those in the liberal media naturally agree with Holder’s assessment of the Arizona law, so they view the fact that his opinion was based on their own reporting as an example of “no harm, no foul”? Quite possibly. But this is bias in all its wretched glory. It shouldn’t matter whether they think Holder was right or wrong; the issue is that he gave an opinion that was irresponsible and misleading.
- Is it that the media ignoring his admission felt that it wasn’t newsworthy? How could it not be newsworthy that opinions those same media outlets broadcast and printed when Holder first expressed them were based on second-hand information rather than the Attorney General’s own analysis? They have an obligation to set the record straight, and if they don’t do it, it can only be that they don’t want the record set straight.
- Perhaps the other media outlets, as a collegial gesture to the oft-maligned network, wanted to prove to the public why Fox News exists and is a necessary counterbalance to their disgraceful news manipulation. Could that be possible?
Naaa.
This is bias. It is also terrible journalism. The next person who tells me how slanted Fox News is had better be prepared to explain why we shouldn’t care that we have an Attorney General who cannot be trusted to speak with genuine authority when he is discussing laws. Then that person can explain why any citizen can afford to only get their news from the “balanced” mainstream media, when it avoids reporting outrageous stories like this one. Of course Fox is slanted. What does it say about our nation’s journalists when only a “slanted” network can see the importance of reporting a significant story?
It says that the others are slanted in a different direction.
Ethics Alarms 
It could also be even worse, Jack.
It could be that most of the mainstream media sees Obama as the savior that this country “needs,” and something like the Holder testimony makes his administration look incompetent and reflexively ideological.
It is one thing to be sympathetic to the viewpoint that a law encourages racial profiling — that’s understandable, if unprofessional when allowed to color reporting rather than opinion section.
But a deeper desire to minimize any damage the Obama administration does to itself in the “best interests of the country” is more likely to blame — and far more troubling.
For a story like this to be buried this deeply requires much more than simple left-leaning reporters and editors. Combined with the questionable reporting of the Obama administration’s response to the oil spill in the gulf, a pattern begins to emerge — protect Obama’s personal reputation at all costs, even by ignoring his professional shortcomings.
Why? His personal reputation is the only thing standing between this country and what center-left sees as an electoral calamity.
Jack,
I think it’s too quick to assume a direct bias when, I would argue, the failure in reporting has more to do with overall apathy. Like it or not, we live in an age where individuals make grand pronouncements on issues they’re minimally informed about. Only a handful of Congressmen read the contents of the PATRIOT Act before voting on it, with similar such stories reported all the time.
None of this is meant to justify Holder’s actions or even argue that they shouldn’t be reported on and punished, only that the “bias” involved may be motivated less by politics and more by laziness. Sadly, we’ve reached a point where stories like this no longer amaze people, nor do they trigger ethical alarms because, frankly, everyone does it (again, not an excuse). The only reason Fox made the decision to run with the news is because it does cater to their “righter than most” bias and makes the Obama administration look foolish.
Fox is no more biased than CNN or, worse, MSNBC, there’s just happens to run opposite to most others. However, they’ve been willing to overlook similar stories which made Republicans look just as foolish or unethical. The sad thing about this story is the the ethical issues run far deeper than political loyalties ..
-Neil
Yikes…I believe you are on to something, Neil, which is indeed worse that bias: an internet-driven culture change in which shooting off your mouth and expressing opinion without actually having any knowledge or expertise is deemed acceptable, even among professionals, because “everybody does it.”
And media pundits are the worst of all. No wonder this is no big deal to them.
And yet, any number of liberal or libertarian pundits appear regularly on Fox- some having their own shows. While some may deride it as being too right wing, I’d contend that this is a matter of perspective. I’d also contend that, among Fox’s competitors, it’s also a matter of jealousy. They’re getting their clocks cleaned in the ratings! This is because citizens- regardless of political stripe- nonetheless recognize that they’re more liable to get fair and comprehensive reporting from Fox then they are from any other TV outlet.
SMP –
I’d support the following:
1) Anyone that gets their news from 1 vendor isn’t being honest to themselves or respecting “Knowledge/Information”.
2) It’s almost to the point that unless you verify the raw data personally, a news story is just “entertainment”.
3) Given that “news” outlets are more prone to being opinion and “entertainment”, as a populace, we need to recognize the pitfalls of “Historical Fiction”. By this I mean something very complex but struggle to find the convincing words to eloquently make my point. So I will just say this:
Saving Private Ryan isn’t a documentary and neither is Tarantino’s latest “Inglorious Bastards”. They are set in World War II but that is the extent of their historical accuracy. With that said, it seems that the majority of news stories run by any of the MSM (which includes FoxNews) is simply “Historical Fiction in Real Time”.
Tim: is it really that bad? I fear it is, but I’m looking for hope.