"Mitt Romney is the one in the middle. Or so we're told. Seems plausible to us."
Although the left-leaning bias of the majority of the news media is frighteningly/absurdly/amusingly/frustratingly obvious (depending on your point of view) every single day, the standard response to complaints remains, 1) “What about Fox?” and 2) “Bias? What bias?” The latter response, if not proof of dishonesty or pathological denial, is one of the symptoms of the problem: the mainstream media is so used to being biased that bias is now the status quo.
There has been plenty of evidence in 2011, however, that the problem is getting worse, and both the public and self-government are being badly served as a result. Recently there was another flutter of statements from pundits and others, like Bill Clinton, that the media obviously favored Obama over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination battle. Of course it did. That the media then went on to outrageously tilt its coverage in Obama’s favor durin the campaign for the general election is hardly capable of contradiction: Obama was on more magazine covers, got more video time, received more consistently hagiographic stories, his questionably-qualified running mate was barely criticized while the press couldn’t attack McCain’s enough…in short, it was a disgraceful abdication of professional duty. How can journalists decry the influence of Super-PACs and big money in elections when the news media, the most powerful communications factor of all ( because it has—still—the remains of a reputation for being objective, fair and accurate) is consistently biased? Not only is that a bigger problem, it is one journalists themselves have the power to fix…if they wanted to, if they cared.
Over the weekend, it was revealed that the story about Rep. Ron Paul angrily walking out of a CNN interview because of persistent questions about Paul’s racially harsh newsletters in the Eighties and Nineties was false. Raw footage showed that Paul didn’t bolt the interview; the interview was over. Yes, he was angry, but being angry after an interview is nothing unusual. For a public figure to walk away before an interview is done is both unusual and almost always damaging to the politician, especially in a high profile setting. Earlier this year, Christine O’Donnell walked out on CNN’s Piers Morgan, and it cemented her public image as a flaky and amateurish politician.
Paul’s interview took place last Thursday. CNN not only planted the inaccurate story that Paul fled Gloria Borger’s questions, but didn’t lift a finger to correct the reports in the media and blogosphere repeating the falsehood. How much lower can cable’s supposed pre-eminent news source sink? Where is its explanation? Where is the apology to Ron Paul? CNN was part of the story, owned the footage necessary to correct the record, and yet allowed a false interpretation of what occurred take hold for two days. It didn’t care, obviously. After all, this was only Ron Paul, not a politician who deserves fair treatment, like, say, Barney Frank or Barbara Boxer. You know. The good guys.
Can anyone prove that CNN treated the Paul interview story differently than it would have treated a politician whose views the vast majority of CNN reporters respected? No, of course not….especially since the people who should be challenging CNN are biased in exactly the same direction. Ask yourself—or Howard Kurtz—would the news media be collectively screaming if Fox allowed the misconception to take hold that Bill Clinton walked out on Bill O’Reilly in his recent interview when the Bloviator’s questions got too tough? Yet the sources for the Ron Paul interview clarification are The Daily Mail, a British tabloid, and Paul’s own website. CNN’s colleagues don’t care any more than CNN does.
Still, this was nothing, in the annals of outrageous media incompetence and bias, compared to MSNBC’s smear job on Mitt Romney, which was joined by the Washington Post. Two weeks ago, MSNBC reported that “you may not hear Mitt Romney say ‘Keep America American’ anymore, because it was a rallying cry for the K.K.K. group.” The graphic on the screen read, “Romney’s KKK Slogan?” The Post also reported that Romney was using Klu Klux Klan rhetoric.
- Did either MSNBC contact Romney or his campaign before reporting that he was sympatico with the white supremacy domestic terrorist organization that has a history of lynching blacks and terrorizing Jews? No.
- Did either check video footage or recordings? No.
- Did MSNBC or The Post bother to substantiate the claim, especially incendiary in a presidential race involving an African American president, and particularly troubling for a Mormon, with the faith’s strained relationship with African Americans? No.
And what was the source for this story? A progressive blog called AMERICAblog, which could more accurately be called ANTICONSERVATIVEblog or ATTACKREPUBLICANSblog. Why naturally such a website would be trustworthy…after all, it’s point of view is consistent with MSNBC, the Post. and most of the rest of the newsmedia! Why ever would it be necessary to check such a story?
And would the Post or MSNBC just repeat a report from, say, Powerline, The Blaze, pajamasmedia, or Rush Limbaugh? What do you think?
Romney didn’t say, “Keep America American.” He said “Keep America America,” which is a perfectly good slogan that carries none of the xenophobic implications of the KKK’s phrase. It is a line that could be legitimately used by either party, liberal or conservative. Once this was brought to MSNBC’s and the Post’s attention, they retracted and apologized, but apologies don’t address the real issue. What would lead two respectable media organizations (I’m being generous to MSNBC here) to engage in such sloppy and lazy journalism regarding a major presidential candidate? Bias, that’s what. The Post, NBC and every other media organization needs to own up to it, recognize the problem, which is deep, long-standing, and getting worse, and resolve to address it. Now. They can. If they care.
A fair, competent, objective and trustworthy newsmedia is essential to keeping America America.
Right now, we don’t have it.
Ethics Alarms 
We never did, Jack, and we never will. The idea of objective media is an American conceit, and a fairly recent one at that (early 20th Century).
IMO we would be better off if American media adopted more of a British model (minus the State-controlled Beeb). Yes, the wiretapping fiasco reveals the weakness therein, but in the UK the news media is one hell of a lot more vibrant than here, Internet notwithstanding.
Brit media wears its stripes on its sleeve; you know exactly where each outlet is coming from based on story selection, format and POV. If you’re interested, you can get the same story from numerous different angles. That’s healthier, IMO, than the pretense that ANY media outlet can be objective.
The media is biased and both political parties are corrupted by money. We need publically-financed campaigns and a limited length of campaigns but the Supreme Court has guaranteed that money will run our political system for the future.
Your presentation highlights a few examples but tries too hard to make up in one article by exposing examples of liberal bias while soft pedaling conservative bias. “Fair and balanced” as well as the radio bloviators makeup for network bias by the degree of their blatant constant lies and distortion. We have to look to someone like David Brooks to get some sense of fairness pointing out both parties and the way each poisons our political process. To point your finger at one party instead of clearly emphasizing that both parties are at fault contributes to the problem. If your examples are accurate, and I don’t doubt that they are, what was done is wrong. But let’s not overreach. Both sides are responsible.
A rationalization. You can’t compare the talk shows with newsmedia; this is the current dodge, I know, but it’s dishonest. When Fox is doing straight news, it’s less right-biased than CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, AP, the Times, the Post, NPR and most local news are left biased. Yet they are claiming to be objective. Rush and the gang are not journalists, and to use their clearly stated slant to justify journalistic incompetence is pure denial. Brooks isn’t objective, nor does he have too be; he’s a moderate op-ed writer you happen to agree with. He, or Will, or Krauthammer, or Krugman…they are irrelevant to this issue.
Your excuse-making and blame-shifting is exactly why the media won’t get serious and meet minimum journalistic ethics standards. And it has nothing to do with parties.
Nice try but to put in “when Fox is doing straight news” you indicate your “opinion”and your bias and state it above. By what “objective” measures is Fox less biased on the right than MSNBC is on the left? I put MSNBC and Fox on equally biased footing -news and commentary.
Is using the word “news” an indicator of “straight news”. Watch Chris Wallace interview candidates on Fox News Sunday? If anything he is at least as biased as David Gregory when he interviews candidates. Or don’t you consider the interviews of candidates “news”?
You need to acknowledge the obvious: you are arguing for your opinion. It is not an accepted fact that because you say it’s true that it is true.
I believe we will have to agree to disagree.
Sorry: I never agree to disagree, especially when a position is based on pure ideological bias. Tell me, when does MSNBC do straight news? Morning Joe? Al Sharpton? It’s all relentess partisan attacks…it’s exactly the way Progressives like to pretend Fox is. By evening, yes, there is little difference between the Fox flacks and its MSNBC opposites, though while Fox has moved toward being more measured since Beck’s exit, MSNBC has gotten even more shrill and shameless since it dumped Olbermann. The only viewers who don’t see this are those who think like Al, O’Donnell, Martin, and the rest. As I said…denial.
Before charging ideological bias, look in the mirror. You never answered my question. Objective data for your belief. You cite no facts.
I did answer your question. I monitor both stations, and have no dog in that hunt. Fox’s news with Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Sheppard Smith… and usually Megyn Kelly…is fair, certainly more right tilting than CNN et al. but not more right tilting than the competition is left tilting. Fox also often includes liberal viewpoints. There is no real news reporting on MSNBC…it’s virtually all progressive opinion and commentary, and anti-right bile. There are few objective media watchdogs that don’t agree with that assessment.
Name a single MSNBC interview of a Democrat that was as tough as Bret Baier’s interview of Mitt Romney. EVER. (There has never been one).
MSNBC uses Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews as reporters, the equivalent of Fox News using Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity—which it doesn’t.
Kevyn Kelly ….fair, well what can I say. I agree MSNBC is biased but no more than Fox. Still no objectivity cited by you, only your opinion. And to say that you have no dog in the hunt is a stretch when you only cite your impressions despite my asking you to cite some objective evidence. Enough, it’s time to move on.
What objective evidence would you accept? Your essential argument seems to be that you disbelieve Jack’s claim to be neutral and unbiased, so how could any evidence he presented be otherwise?
Let’s face it, you don’t want to believe him, and your “search” for “objectivity” is a rationalization for what is essentially a false dilemma. Better just to agree to disagree and move on.
I am afraid, Jack, that like customer service designed with no consideration for the customer, journalism has gone down the tubes. There really isn’t any readily available true journalism anymore. Everything is op-ed now. No fact checking. No editor review. Actual journalists have trouble finding jobs and practically anyone with a strong personality/voice/opinion/following, regardless of qualifcations or lack thereof, can get hired to feed us ‘news’. I find that once you accept it, it is easier to get by. This used to drive me crazy. Now I believe nothing I read unless I know a heck of a lot about the author and publisher.
There was a day when we would look to experts in their field for opinion. Sometimes, we would say the experts disagree and would have to research more to find out the details and form an opinion of our own. Now, we hear from every Tom, Dick and Harry (as my father would say) and instead of saying the experts disagree, we attack the validity of their expertise when we disagree with them.
I wonder if there is a large enough market for true journalism.