We all know about
media bias so I’m certainly not going to preach to the choir here but I’ve
always had one simple question on this topic and it’s the underlying point of
this month’s column. After
years of seeing patently slanted reporting, it’s truly laughable how the media
in general continues to deny, deny, deny they are anything but impartial and
empirically objective. However, to
paraphrase George C Scott’s opening speech in Patton
the simple truth is, their claim of “objectivity” is a bunch of crap.
With each election that fact becomes increasingly obvious—a fact that
should be pushed right back in their collective faces.
Their charade insults our common sense as they relentlessly make these
false claims of impartiality. Of
course if you openly challenge them on this, as I’ve done many times both in
print and in person, they vehemently deny it.
But my one simple question to the press has yet to be credibly answered
by those I’ve confronted. What is
that question Colonel? How can the press claim objectivity when every
newspaper I’ve ever seen subjectively endorses candidates from city
council to President? Doesn’t
that smell just a bit tainted to you? It
also smells like they’re so arrogantly convinced of your stupidity that
you’ll never see this for what it really is.
What I’ve heard in
most cases is that their editorial staff is independent of their news staff.
While the names may be different in each of those departments, they all
answer to the same boss at the top of that publication’s food chain do they
not? So by applying common sense
and just a modicum of knowledge where human nature is concerned, I find it
impossible to believe that a newspaper can endorse a candidate on their
editorial page and then blast him with bad press on the front page!
Such reporting would undermine the validity as well as the credibility of
their endorsement wouldn’t it? And
what might this result in? Reduced
number of newspapers and advertisements sold of course. The
owner or editor-in-chief would do their level best to prevent such an obvious
conflict from unfavorably impacting revenue. Keep in mind; all forms of the
media are first and foremost a business and the editors always have the final
say about what gets published…even if the front line street reporters
themselves are trying to be evenhanded.
We saw clear evidence
of this during the last Presidential campaign.
Anything that might hint at unfavorable press for Bush was front page
news while many stories unfavorable to Kerry were downplayed or spiked.
Why? The press generally
favored Kerry.
Want an example?
Do you remember reading about the call for Bush to disclose his National
Guard records so they could see if he was AWOL?
The press went into hyper drive pushing that story—even if those
stories were based on fraudulent documents—isn’t that right CBS?
The possibility that Bush may have missed a few National Guard meetings
was too juicy to ignore. Compare
that to the issue of Kerry’s medical records concerning his three purple
hearts. There was never a similar
heated clamor from the national media berating Kerry for not making full
disclosure of his service medical records was there?
Why? Kerry was their man and the approach here was to tout anything that
might be bad for Bush and downplay or kill anything that might be bad for Kerry.
Had it not been for the Swift Boat
Vets who had eyewitness knowledge as well as the guts to unveil it, we would
have never heard about even a fraction of Kerry’s true
I see this same
philosophy applied at all levels during political campaigns from the local to
the national. The practice was
confirmed by a long time friend of mine who writes a well known nationally
syndicated column and spent a lifetime in the newspaper business.
He confirmed that newspapers routinely downplay or ignore news that might
reflect badly on their man while focusing like a laser on his opponent and
reporting anything that could even minimally be construed as bad press for the
other guy.
Watch this election
unfold and see how much your own newspaper plays up past and present
“questionable” activities of one side versus the other, how many hard
questions one candidate is asked compared to the other and how many
“discrepancies” and “colorful” escapades are printed about one party
compared to the other. Most
recently, note how many of those in the media have been treating Obama compared
to the other candidates. Just what
do you think would happen to any conservative candidate if they had attended Rev
Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years or had a “friendly” relationship
with a terrorist? It quickly
becomes clear how the media leans all the while vehemently claiming journalistic
objectivity.
Now I realize I’m just a simple old soldier, but in my mind, if newspapers were honestly sincere about their unbiased reporting, they wouldn’t endorse anyone—they’d just stick to reporting the facts about all candidates. Their claims of neutrality and objectivity might then be more believable—maybe. And if they really wanted to advocate one side over another that would be fine with me also…as long as they were up front about it and proclaimed their political leanings to the world. At least such candor would go a long way in earning the respect of respectable Americans. Either way, I’m probably asking far too much of folks who pathologically deny blatant political bias then wonder why their readership among independent thinkers continues to dwindle. My faith abounds in such independent thinkers and it’s that staunch faith that uplifts my spirits knowing that regardless of media spin and distortion, the truth will be found in the likes of SASS cowpokes for example and the millions of others where true patriotism and the spirit of love for and dedication to this country runs as deep today as it did in 1776…and in that, I’m exceedingly proud just to be counted as one of your number.
Just
the view from my saddle…
Contact Colonel Dan: coloneldan@bellsouth.net