Conservatives Take Note: Media Bias Doesn’t Explain Everything

Rep. Akin and his fans.

Pervasive media bias against them has the added affect of making Republicans and conservatives both paranoid and less likely to perceive their own flaws. In this it is like racism: that black Americans know that elements of society refuse to treat them fairly makes it difficult for them to assess their own accountability when they fail. Given the opportunity to blame failure on ourselves or others, most of us are inclined to choose the latter: psychologists call it the fundamental attribution error. That tendency, however, undermines our ability to evaluate areas where we need to improve, and to improve them.

The news media’s leftward bias warps public opinion, tilts elections and distorts public policy. A few candid  journalists acknowledge this, like ABC’s Jake Tapper, who opined to Laura Ingraham yesterday that the media “helped tilt the scales” against Hillary and John McCain in 2008, saying that “Sometimes I saw with story selection, magazine covers, photos picked, [the] campaign narrative, that it wasn’t always the fairest coverage.” Weasel words for unethical media bias, true, but for a member in good standing of the liberal Beltway media like Tapper, an admirable confession. This is justly frustrating to conservatives, but they can’t let it drive them stupid, for this is the Catch 22 of all pervasive bias. If a group blames everything on bias, it begins to make the bias look justified.

Hypervocal, a snazzy blog that delves into such matters and much else, has an excellent analysis of a current example of this phenomenon, as conservatives complain that the news media is ignoring a juicy Minnesota scandal involving a gay Democrat while overplaying Rep. Todd Akin’s self-outing as an ignorant fool regarding rape, abortion, and female biology. This is such a regular refrain now any time an embarrassing event occurs involving a Republican that it is both predictable and laughable, and it is always unseemly. It happens on Ethics Alarms—as soon as I mentioned, for example, that a supposed expert on the Founders like Michele Bachman shouldn’t get John Adams and John Quincy Adams mixed up, I was deluged with e-mails and comments chastising me for not criticizing President Obama when a brain cramp caused him to say that there were 57 states. (Of course, Obama did not then try to claim that there were 57 states, while Michele argued that John Quincy, who was all of 8 when his father signed the Declaration, was still a “Founding Father.”)

If you missed the Minnesota scandal, it involves 56-year-old Minnesota State Rep. Kerry Gauthier, a Democrat, who was recently was arrested by police at an interstate rest stop for engaging in oral sex with a 17-year-old boy whom he had contacted via Craig’s List. This is not a proper or dignified activity for a lawmaker, to be sure, and as with Republican U.S. Senator Larry “Wide Stance” Craig and former Democratic Congressman Anthony “Pecs” Weiner, I would hold that such conduct on the part of a public official shows wretched judgment and a deplorable lack of appreciation for the image public officials must project, and warrants resignation. Still, there are many features of the Gauthier story that make it less newsworthy from a national perspective than Akin’s idiocy, as enumerated by Hypervocal:

  • The age of consent in Minnesota is 16, so this was no sex crime.
  • Gauthier is openly gay.
  • There will probably be no charges filed.
  • He’s a state legislator, not a national one,  is not running for a closely contested U.S. Senate seat, and his conduct, while icky, does not implicate his competence, only his judgement.

That’s more than enough to justify the national media’s news priorities. (Hypervocal also sees nothing wrong with gay state legislators having late night hook-ups with boys less than a third their age in public places, but that misjudgment is a separate issue. On that score, Hypervocal is wrong.)

On sounder ground are Republican complaints that the Gauthier incident is being squelched while the national news media has a field day with GOP Kansas Congressman Kevin Yoder’s 2011 nude swim in the Sea of Galilee, along with other (more clothed) colleagues and members of a Congressional “fact-finding” mission to the Holy Land. Is the fact that Yoder is a Republican fueling some of the media ridicule? I’d guess yes, but again: he’s a U.S. Congressman, not a state legislator, and such conduct while a U.S. official is representing his country on official business abroad is so irresponsible and disrespectful (especially at a holy site like the Sea of Galilee, where Christians say Christ walked on the water) that Gauthier’s roadside hummer doesn’t compare.

The news media is largely biased against Republicans and conservatives, but Republicans and conservatives begin to justify that bias by reacting to their own misconduct with a reflexive “Why don’t you look over there?” and complaints of double standards, rather than serious self-criticism, accountability, and contrition.

______________________________

Sources:

Graphic: Daily Kos

Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at  jamproethics@verizon.net.

6 thoughts on “Conservatives Take Note: Media Bias Doesn’t Explain Everything

  1. Jack,
    I think I understand your post and believe you are correct in your premise but am I to take it you don’t believe republicans reacted correctly to the Rep. Todd Akin incident? From what I saw it was swift and appropriate. If you do not believe it was what do you think would have been the correct response?

    • They had two reactions, both defensive. One was to immediately demand that he quit, to distance them and the part from him. The other was to blame the media for not going after Democrats. The last part was an attempt to change the subject, and should have been left out of the equation.

  2. So is your verdict that the Republican Party acted correctly in their response demanding that he drop out and condemning his comments? I think I am with you on the rest.

  3. All of you guys are missing the point. The only difference today is “outing” leaders — for any reason — is the Internet. E.g., it took almost 200 years for anyone to admit that Thomas Jefferson — a bright light in our intellectual and formative history — had a long affair, and children, with one of his slaves; that, much later, the press suppressed FDR’s longstanding affair of the heart and body with his childrens’ nanny; that JFK’s serial non-marital affairs were “protected” by the Secret Service; that it took five years for the press to admit that Spiro Agnew was a thief and a felon; that Martin Luther King, our civil rights hero, slept with anyone who would allow him to, despite his place in history and his heroism for his cause; that Bill Clinton was a workplace harasser, a cheater in his marriage, and a perjurer, despite his ability to lead, etc., etc.

    Democrats, Republicans (and a lot of others) despise Johnson and Nixon for a variety of reasons. Johnson, because of Viet Nam (and I am sure he will be vindicated by history… listen to the NPR tapes… and despite his strong-arming Congress to pass the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and ’65), and Nixon because he subverted the US Constitution because of his innate paranoia, lack of confidence, and fear. On the other hand, Nixon eventually will not be disparaged totally: time will tell. Neither has been accused of personal malfeasance.

    These are only a few examples. What the Internet has done has brought every single faux pas (really egregious or otherwise) to front and center. In a split second.

    The conundrum for me is the division between the public leader and the actions of the personal man/woman. I haven’t figured that out yet. But I DO know completely honorable men; my father-in-law, for example, who was a WWII hero and raised a wonderful family despite what he had gone through during the war (leading to a Silver Star and many other honors); and despite the many resentments I have for my own now deceased father, whose one comment he made will stay with me always:

    He was a Ph.D. philosopher who decided to attend seminary, and rose through the ranks of a Protestant Church where he could have successfully “campaigned” to be a bishop. One time I asked him why he just didn’t just “play the game” and be elected bishop — a great way to end a career. His response to me was: “I’m just afraid that if I play the game long enough to become a bishop, I will have forgotten what I wanted to do in the first place; I will have forgotten my goals for that leadership.” A lesson learned. Few are honest enough with themselves to admit it.

    Politics is shit, and unfortunately, that’s why our really “best and brightest” stay out of it.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.