Is media bias a liberal myth?
 

Fourth estate or fifth column
Thomas Sowell

January 25, 2005

There are still people in the mainstream media who profess bewilderment that they are accused of being biased. But you need to look no further than reporting on the war in Iraq to see the bias staring you in the face, day after day, on the front page of the New York Times and in much of the rest of the media.

If a battle ends with Americans killing a hundred guerrillas and terrorists, while sustaining ten fatalities, that is an American victory. But not in the mainstream media. The headline is more likely to read: "Ten More Americans Killed in Iraq Today."

This kind of journalism can turn victory into defeat in print or on TV. Kept up long enough, it can even end up with real defeat, when support for the war collapses at home and abroad.

One of the biggest American victories during the Second World War was called "the great Marianas turkey shoot" because American fighter pilots shot down more than 340 Japanese planes over the Marianas islands while losing just 30 American planes. But what if our current reporting practices had been used back then?

The story, as printed and broadcast, could have been: "Today eighteen American pilots were killed and five more severely wounded, as the Japanese blasted more than two dozen American planes out of the sky." A steady diet of that kind of one-sided reporting and our whole war effort against Japan might have collapsed.

Whether the one-sided reporting of the war in Vietnam was a factor in the American defeat there used to be a matter of controversy. But, in recent years, high officials of the Communist government of Vietnam have themselves admitted that they lost the war on the battlefields but won it in the U.S. media and on the streets of America, where political pressures from the anti-war movement threw away the victory for which thousands of American lives had been sacrificed.

Too many in the media today regard the reporting of the Vietnam war as one of their greatest triumphs. It certainly showed the power of the media -- but also its irresponsibility. Some in the media today seem determined to recapture those glory days by the way they report on events in the Iraq war.

First, there is the mainstream media's almost exclusive focus on American casualties in Iraq, with little or no attention to the often much larger casualties inflicted on the guerrillas and terrorists from inside and outside Iraq.

Since terrorists are pouring into Iraq in response to calls from international terrorist networks, the number of those who are killed is especially important, for these are people who will no longer be around to launch more attacks on American soil. Iraq has become a magnet for enemies of the United States, a place where they can be killed wholesale, thousands of miles away.

With all the turmoil and bloodshed in Iraq, both military and civilian people returning from that country are increasingly expressing amazement at the difference between what they have seen with their own eyes and the far worse, one-sided picture that the media presents to the public here.

Our media cannot even call terrorists terrorists, but instead give these cutthroats the bland name, "insurgents." You might think that these were like the underground fighters in Nazi-occupied Europe during World War II.

The most obvious difference is that the underground in Europe did not go around targeting innocent civilians. As for the Nazis, they tried to deny the atrocities they committed. But today the "insurgents" in Iraq are proud of their barbarism, videotape it, and publicize it -- often with the help of the Western media.

Real insurgents want to get the occupying power out of their country. But the fastest way to get Americans out of Iraq would be to do the opposite of what these "insurgents" are doing. Just by letting peace and order return, those who want to see American troops gone would speed their departure.

The United States has voluntarily pulled out of conquered territory all around the world, including neighboring Kuwait during the first Gulf war. But the real goal of the guerrillas and terrorists is to prevent democracy from arising in the Middle East.

Still, much of the Western media even cannot call a spade a spade. The Fourth Estate sometimes seems more like a Fifth Column.

Ah, another 'we would have won vietnam if not for the press and the hippies' argument.

I guess stoner thinks that if he keeps chanting this worn out right wing myth it might somehow apply to vietnam II in iraq.

Less than 20% of the article mentions Vietnam….less, in fact, than discussion of WW2…..yet 150HP930 interprets it as an article about Vietnam and somehow makes the a pitiful attempt to describe the Vietnam war and the war in Iraq as similar. LOL…No matter what an article actually says…liberals read it as they would like it to be. Makes me wonder if a liberal media is really necessary.

Reminds me of the old story about the speed contest between the American and Russian jet. The American jet was faster.

The Russian newspaper reported that in the speed contest the Russian jet came in second place while the Americans finished next to last.

Current traditional mainstream media hasn't yet adjusted to the many new news outlets available in the past 5yrs. The huge expense of "news" to ABC, CBS, and NBC is cramping their bottom line. CNN also has a huge web to float, but they seem to be very cost effective in their model of news gathering.

There's a reason Fox News is stomping butt in the ratings, especially in the military.

whtever the reason is they seem to have the model others are attempting to copy.

Yep..CNN has found it a lot cheaper to just "make up" the news or buy it from Al Jazeera than to actually investigate and report the facts.

if the listeners don't mind the bs, why should the advertisers.

The Fox model is really rather simple, appeal to the majority. Let's face facts even if it's a slim margin conservatives still out number liberals, with the vast majority of the media being biased towards the left Fox News right bias makes them the only game in town for many Americans. I'm a moderate conservative and I watch Fox, while they do at least attempt to be "Fair and Balanced" it is obvious that many on their staff are conservative. Fox's approach targets the conservative to moderate market very effectively. I particularily like Neil Cavuto's and Brit Hume's shows in which they often have a panel of moderates from both sides of the aisle. It is also true that if WW2 were to be reported on today things would be much different. Not to degrade the loss of American lives in Iraq but there were battles in WW2 where the Allies lost many more troops in a single day. Same with the Korean War with Heartbreak ridge and all. Let's look at the facts for a minute, the US and it's coalition conquered a country the size of California in record time with very few casualities, now we have managed to secure a large portion of that country against terrorist attacks and continue the offensive in the more dangerous areas all the while keeping our casualities relatively low. I'd say that given the situation we are doing a fine job in Iraq yet I never here that reported by any other station than Fox News.

With all due respect to those of you who think Fox News is "objective" and all the other news organizations in our Solar System are "biased," it seems obvious to most of the rest of us that news organizations have figured out that their maximum revenue lies in entertainment, not objective news reporting. That's why folks are clamoring to see who can air the least objective "news" program.

Hate to keep saying this, but it's about money and free markets. How do you like it now?

Wait a minute. I guess I know the answer to that. You like your news Hollywood style. Nevermind.

?????What was it before? Did we have a choice?

Also, you guys think Fox is much more slanted than it is because you refer to the commentators, not the reporters. Hannity, O'Reiley, etc... are not reporters, nor do they claim to be. The problem is when someone claims to be a reporter (Rather) and is in fact a commentator. Sell your opinion all day, live it up that's fine. Just admit you're selling an opinion and not news........that's all we ask.

There was a time when you could find objectivity in television news reports. I tended to lean toward public TV, but then public TV is probably considered by many of you guys to be communist. Years ago, I noticed that Peter Jennings was making the silliest, most inappropriate facial expressions on television, even including non-news shows. It looked to me as though he could not report a story without spinning it. I think he was trying to be subtle, but it was not working at all. I certainly do not need to see smirking to get the information I'm after.

So I noticed that print media not only is FAR more objective, but it also contains FAR more detail. Today, I simply do not have time to sit in front of a television, almost for any reason. But I eat lunch almost every day and I like to spread a newspaper out on the table for that. Oh, I forgot. Newspapers are all liberal propaganda outlets.

What guage of tin foil do you guys use?

14 guage, any thicker and the corners will cut ya:)

Years ago you could find objective reporting?!? Try 1946.

Conservatives have been putting up with the MSM since 1960. Now Fox and the internet come along and everyone needs a label, i.e. Fox and Limbaugh are conservative and the rest are needed for balance.

I think it was Dick van Patten or Kierkegard who said "if you label me, you negate me." Party on Pelicans!

Anyway, the MSM has been negated, so liberals are lamenting the former monopoly by waxing nostalgic about how objectivity has gone the way of the hippie and bra burning (btw, feminists are officially dinosaurs, but not as lovable).

As far as the print media goes, the ink-stained wretches are also seeing their influence declining. Never mind just making things up (Jason Blair), these bittermen are not even trying to hide it anymore (see article above).

Also Supe, I prefer aluminum foil to tin!

Aluminum is apparently not working for you, Craig. As always, you guys need to imagine me grinning broadly as I compose these posts. I think Len perhap does, and that helps him see better.

I hope you're wrong about a decline in the popularity of the written word, at least as it applies to objective information. I wonder what newspaper readership trends look like. In fact, as some of you know, I also wonder what reading patterns look like between groups. Like, well....let's see.....what would be a good example....hmmmm....well, like liberals and conservatives. I honestly do not know what to expect, but I do know that my community (Seattle) is known for four things. Liberalism. Coffee. Microbrews. Reading. We are voracious readers, apparently. Which makes you wonder how we got so stupid as to be liberal thinkers. And then there's college professors. But then, we've been over that and unless you guys have a new amusing excuse for why educated people are liberal...perhaps you should just "save it."

Supe,

Education or even being well read is not a measure of intelligence. If you practice doing something wrong you'll eventually become perfect at doing it wrong. It's the same with reading and education, if you immerse yourself in liberal literature you become a better liberal without benefit of having both sides of the story. The truly intelligent are neither liberal nor conservative, they make their own decisions based on as many facts as they can get and often windup being somewhat moderate. Aside from that I usually equate professors as people who would fail in the real world. The vast majority of successful professionals are good teachers, how many good teachers are sucessful at anything but teaching?

Re: Is media bias a liberal myth?
 

The so called "terrorists" do think of themselves as Freedom fighters for their cause so they are more like "insurgents" than terrorists. They are not in some foriegn country as most are Iraqi or Islamic. They do target police stations, US Army convoys, Checkpoints and yes some civilians. We did attack and conquer Iraq and it wasnt like they asked us to over there. So we are occupying Iraq and some want the US out at ANY COST.
The US still has troops in Korea, Japan which are countries we occupied years ago! So our track record speaks for itself on that matter to the rest of the world.
I do watch the all news stations, Fox, CBS,ABC and BBC. They report whatever they want to report and that will keep you watching for the ratings.

I would have asked what kind of fantasy land you are living in to have made the above statement, but since you have made clear that you get your 'information' from fox 'news' I can understand how your views could be so far from the truth.

The fact is that the US occupies almost no territory in iraq with the exception of several large and well secured bases, the 'green zone' in bagdad being a prime example.

The facts are that insurgent and terrorist attacks have been on a constant increase since the war and occupation started and so has the US and civilian bodycount.

Not only can our forces not protect any area or iraq from attack but even our most secure base in iraq has been infiltrated and attacked by the iraqi resistance.

The fact that fox either spins these daily news stories into oblivion or ignores them and your use of this pap as your primary source of information perfectly explains your stated blissful ignorance about the true nature of the iraq war.

True, Christian. Those who really understand, are typically circumspect in their judgements.

And it's also true that certain professors who lack outside work experience are a bit myopic. And it's additionally true that immersion in a particular literary propaganda will fool you into making judgements that are "colored" by the writer(s).

That being said, the world appears to be liberal, compared to the political thinking in America. In many other countries, their conservatives look like communists compared to our liberals. And so, it's just possible, that literature which makes American conservatives feel very justified in their thinking......may not be objective. Satisfying, yes. Simple, certainly. Objective, probably not.