By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
January 9, 2004
There appears to be a bit of a war going on in the American media, fueled and focused by books written by Bernard Goldberg, a thirty year veteran of CBS News and an Emmy Award winning reporter. In his first book, "Bias" he shared with the public what has been obvious for more than a generation to many of us in the writing business - there's a whole lot of reporters out there who are not reporting the facts of a story. They are writing their personal views INTO stories. Goldberg's first book reported on the liberal bias he saw at CBS over the years.
A couple of months ago his second book, entitled, "Bias? What Bias?" was released in which he tries to explain, again, the problem as he sees it. There is no "liberal conspiracy" to misinform the public. It's just that the reporters he has worked around really do sincerely believe that their views are normal and those they label as "conservative" are not normal.
My more than 50 years experience as a political writer prompts me to say that Goldberg's observation is exactly correct. However, the problem I think is more deep seated than Goldberg realizes. Writers today have grown up in an educational philosophy that presumes that the public is too stupid to think for itself and must be guided in their thinking by journalists. It's not just the so-called "liberals" who write biased material. Conservatives are just as bad as liberals in ignoring, changing or spinning facts to fit their point of view.
Since Goldberg wrote "Bias" the argument has shifted from flat out denying ANY Bias on the part of the liberal media to a childish "Well! YOU are biased TOO!" being flung at Fox News, Talk Shows and newspapers dubbed as "conservative" by the networks, Washington Post, New York Times, etc. Often the problem for both groups is not just bias - it is inaccuracy. They don't report facts. They report opinions. Fox News is just as bad as CBS News in failing to search out the facts and report them.
The root of the problem, it seems to me, is the inability of the current crop of journalists to (1) actually understand what news IS in the fast changing and volatile world we live in and (2) getting the facts related to the news before they write about it and especially before they make a comment about it.
For example, for months the media, both liberal and conservative, have used as their daily news peg the War on Terror. Since 3000 people were killed on 9-11 in a matter of a few minutes, the media has made the number of people who have died in confronting the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq the lead story. During more than two years the fewer than 400 actual fighting deaths of our military men have been headlined on almost a daily basis. In fact, it has been assumed by those on the "liberal" side that those deaths and the anti-Bush commentary on this will somehow lead to the Democrats regaining the White House in 2004.
Once upon a time the "Big Story" on a war, any war, would have been how that war was changing the country or countries and the world. For example, America's involvement and the final victory in World War II meant that the German army had to withdraw from all the nations Hitler had overrun and Japan had to return to its base and get out of the Philippines, Korea, etc.
It was assumed, in the mid 1940s, that the American public wanted to know the results of its years of fighting which resulted in a victory over tyrants and the liberation of whole populations of people. New governments, and new constitutions had to be created and trials of war criminals conducted.
In two years time America has liberated 50 million people from murderous tyrannies, and saved millions from starvation; a new constitution based on the rights of the people, not a dictator, has been written and adopted in Afghanistan and Iraq is on the road to adopt a new Constitution in 2004; there have been no new terrorist attacks on the American mainland since September 11, 2001 and the casualty rate of our soldiers is a mere one-tenth of 1% of what it was during World War II; under President George W. Bush, the gross domestic product (GDP) has almost doubled from its peak years of 1996, 1997 and 1998 to an 8.2 growth rate and the stock market average is 1000 points higher than it was during the early weeks in March of 2000, when the media was telling us about how wonderful the Clinton Economic Boom was.
That's not a bad record. You'd think that both liberal and conservative journalists might find an upbeat tidbit in there somewhere to write about rather than the steady dose of doom and gloom we seem to be fed on a daily basis from both groups, wouldn't you?
To comment: Mary@bannerofliberty.com