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.

350HP930,

I think the important question to ask about the Irq war is what percentage of the population appreciates the US efforts and desires democracy vs. what percentage are the "terrorists". I suppose to some degree we'll have a more clear picture after Sunday's election, if a good percentage of the population actually takes place in a democratic election the case could be made that they support democracy. I do not doubt that many Iraqis long for the day that we will leave but is that longing a hatred of the US and it's policies or is it a strong desire to once again be a completely sovereign nation without the need for US security. I also do not doubt that are very presence is somewhat responsible for these terrorist attacks but I also believe we need to stay long enough the give those who want to be free a chance. South Korea and Japan are poor examples, we are in those countries at the pleasure of their governments both of which are US allies. If and when Iraq becomes a stable democracy they may allow the US to maintain bases within their country to promote stability in the region as well as protection to augment their own security forces. I do stand by what I said about casualities, the liberal media blows the bodycount WAY out of purportion. To hear them tell it you'd think we were losing thousands of soldiers a day in bloody battles against a strong military force, the truth is the terrorists are more of a nuciance than anything else. We could easily play Saddam and just roll through towns leveling everything in our way but that wouldn't help accomplish the goal now would it.

Supe,

Sure large parts of the world are liberal, it's funny that they are not military or economic superpowers either. The part of me that is conservative is conservatism at it's most pure, that is keep government out of my life and my wallet and protect me from those that wish to take away my freedom. Perhaps this is even a Libertarian point of view. "Give me liberty or give me death" what would they say about modern America where I work half the year to pay the government, slavery in disquise I say. We need a government to keep basic order and protect our homeland, sometimes that means fighting on foreign soil.

In Sadam's home town of Turkirk sic the US Amb to Iraq expects 40% of possible voters to vote. Most US elections are below that. The last US Pres election was a very mobilized vote of 60%.

They expect a possible 60% vote in Iraq overall.

if these Iraq #'s come to pass then not only does Iraq's population win, but the US President wins. If the US President wins then the US President's haters lose..

I don't think Ted Kennedy will congragulate the President with a handshake?

If George is right, and Iraq becomes a free and democratic beacon in the ME, liberty spreads across the globe, and terrorism is defeated, then we all win - though I will have lost an argument(and look quite the fool). I'll dance right alongside you - the conversation might go like this:

Ronin: "Did you support Bush?"

Me: "Nope"

Ronin: "Dumbass!"

Me: "Dumbass? Man, you have no idea. I drank the kool-aid, wore the tin-foil - the whole shebang. Can I buy ya a pitcher?"

At least, I hope it goes that well. Would you let me buy the beer, Ronin? After it's all over? Hope so. :)

If George screwed the pooch, I'll let you buy. We're gonna wanna get drunk. :(

Yes, if this Iraq thing, and our apparent agenda to bludgeon additional countries whose political agendas are not pleasing to us, if this stuff lives up to the promises I read here and world peace descends upon the planet, then I'll admit freely and humbly that Dubya is the most brilliant tactician and strategist in American political history. Yeah, right. I think I'm safe from the danger of this happening.

Christian, I'm not going to tear into you regarding my disdain for folks who think "freedom" means freedom from taxes. Taxes which are necessary for a wide variety of reasons including our Christian and moral responsibility to help take care of those less fortunate, and sometimes far less fortunate, than ourselves. Greed is really sexy these days. I'm not impressed. And if your tax rate is 50%, then you're using something other than the IRS tax tables.

Yes, many countries lack military. And I'll buy the argument that someone needs to have a strong military that is bent on world welfare, so these other countries can enjoy their peace. But I also notice that some of those countries have some of the highest standards of living on the planet. Socialism works, until you pretend that socialism and soviet communism are the same thing. That's a lie.

A friend recently said, and it was an epiphany for me, that some folks do not want to share, and that is why socialism just won't work as a national political policy. In each society, there is a group who wants to live together in harmony, and in cooperation and in Christian charity (even if they are pagans like my hippie friends). And then there is a group that wants none of that. They will pursue greed and have no intention of sharing. There is a political party in my country for those people, and greed is really valued right now. I'm embarrassed for those people, but my friend's point is that socialism will not work as a national policy for this reason. I have seen socialism and Christian charity work like magic. Unfortunately, it has been my pagan hippie friends who have performed the otherwise Great Untried Social Experiment that Jesus described to us. He said we could have a kind of Heaven on Earth, and I've seen it. He was right. But He also said he did not come here so much to convert, as to separate the flock.

Choose your flock.

I don't care who fixes the prob. I don't care if he walks around on his fingers all day. War is war. You either believe we're at war or you don't. If someone says he believes we're at war and then acts contrary to any war logic it makes me wonder.

Does anyone believe a 4yr old when he says he can cross the street all by himself? Does anyone believe that the theories of war has suddenly changed since WTC?

Gangsters, warlords, mobsters, murderers.. call them anything you want, it's the same shet. Is a gangster in townA gonna go kiss the cops in TownB when they jail their local crook? Is Syria gonna run and give kisses to US soldiers after Iraq is a done deal?

Should your local church minister be in charge of finding the local rapist killer or do you want the meanest smartest most impatient guy in town to be in charge?

as long as I'm on a roll here.. Those spineless jello ass hole Congressional Reps have yet to take charge. They'll follow Bush if they have to, but that's it. They are wimps in doing anything themselves.. They're afraid to "disturb" their voters by starting any action in Congress that will ruffle the feathers of the Dems or other Reps..

Tax Reform?
"Huh! Duh, it's ok that Congress's Joint Tax Committee is always wrong. It don't matter that capital gains tax rates have become dynamically modeled for projections. Really, the Rep voters understand if we static model them 'cause they're stupid and will believe us. Ways and Means can just start another investigative committee so it'll look like we know what's happening. They gotta believe us because we're the Reps, right? Bush is busy elsewhere so we can just hang out and have a circle jerk. Hey you, Bill Thomas, keep look'en out the door to make sure Bush isn't sneaking up on us. Dam, if we have to produce credibility we're All in trouble."

Freedom from tyranny...

Who defines what?

Geesh....Same old tired rationale for the war, against the war.

Some folks don't like the following, but there is some validity..

There is your side of the story, his side of the story and somewhere in between is the truth.

Re: Is media bias a liberal myth?
 

Very simple perspective shift, isn't it?

What is your point? You can change a couple of words and make the Emancipation Proclamation a proslavery speech too. What would that prove? I cannot imagine that anyone would honestly attempt to make such a connection....How could one compare murderers who torture and murder their own women and children with folks in the resistance against Hitler? Sorta like making a comparison between Jeffery Dahmer and an ordinary bloke having a meal...after all..both are eating...

You are aware that the french resistance did commit terrorist acts against french civilians who collaberated with the nazis, right fint?

I guess that made their entire cause wrong then, didn't it?

To quote one of the leaders of the french resistance . . .

Makes no sense to me. The french resistance and "french civilians who collaborated against the nazis" were on the same side. Why would one kill the other? Better recheck your facts.

Whoops, typo fixed, now you can let your cognitive dissonance kick in.

You would have assumed from my quote you could have figured there was a typo in my post.

Even with youyr correction...it make no sense to me. Seems to me that there is a big difference between those who called for "execution of those responsible for the crime" of "assassination of any French patriot" and terrorists randomly blowing up innocent civilians to make a point. I cannot understand how you see them as similar.

Iraqi Police stations, Iraqi Army recruitment stations, US Army checkpoints are "innocent civilians"? Yes, they do also bomb Iraq leaders and various other targets. These guys don't want elections nor a stable US led government. Get it?
They want us out and then to let the chips fall where they may, most likely a Muslim Extremists Cleric government.

Geoff

No, but reporters, aid workers, and ordinary people in schools and mosques are clearly innocent civilians. Even a police station is a civilian target....Would you condone blowing up a Police station, a civilian leader...or a Mosque in the US because you do not agree with the govt? Boy anti-war folks sure have some violent ideas/sympathies. Sounds a lot like Tim McVeigh did.

Supe, The American Revolution was a tax revolt against the British. The tax rate was something like 10 percent. Sure there were many other reasons for the revolt but taxes was a biggie. Now let examine our paychecks for a minute, I take home about 70 percent of what I make after I've paid Federal, State, Local, SS, Medicare etc. Now once I have that money I get the privilege of paying sales tax on everything I buy, gasoline, liscense and insurance tax for my cars, real estate tax on my home, taxes on most utilities coming into that home, if I buy cigarettes or alcohol I pay an additional tax. The amount I can earn is reduced in part by the taxes my company must pay as part of the overhead of running a business. Some days I feel like a tax slave, let's take last week for example. I went down to the local grocer at lunch to get a loaf of bread and lunch meat for my lunches at work, I get in line behind a rather well dressed woman with a tacky amount of gold jewelry (might have been fake, I can't tell) and a cart load of groceries, she whips out the welfare card and the wic card and pays basically nothing for the groceries, then comes the two cartons of cigs, case of beer, two bottles of cognac, she whips out a wad of cash, peels a hundred off the top and pays for the stuff that welfare won't cover. Meanwhile I make a decent salary and am the sole supporter of my family, I've got 10 buck in my pocket to buy my lunch for the week, how do you think I felt? It's gets a little better though, on the way out of the store I see her loading up the back of a relatively new Caddy while the jerk male in the drivers seat can't even bother to help as he's talking on his cellphone. Do I not have the right to feel a little abused by the tax system at this point. Is it greedy to think that people my tax dollars are supporting should have to struggle like I do from time to time. I see this all the time and I wonder why welfare can't be set up to encourage the able to work instead of encouraging them to sit on their butts and collect a check. There is a line between helping the less fortunate and perpetuating the welfare state and I believe we crossed it years ago.

As for choosing my flock, i contribute what I cn to charity, put money in the basket when I go to church, give money or time to friends in need, my wife volunteers at my daughter's school. Suggesting I'm greedy because I feel the tax laws are ridiculous is outright wrong. I don't blame the woman in the checkout line, I blame the screwed up system we have.