Media Bias: Yes, West Virginia, It Is the Messenger

Media Bias: Yes, West Virginia, It Is the Messenger
Written by Gabriel Garnica
Saturday, March 25, 2006

snip

Just The Facts, Man


There is no shortage of examples of just how the MSM distorts reality through its blatantly biased coverage of issues and events. People like the Media Research Center (MRC) have done an excellent job of compiling and listing this bias in all its forms. The MSM can argue that the MRC has its own agenda, but quotes, videos and public perception do not lie.



According to The Pew Research Center for The People and The Press, 5 out of 6 journalists describe themselves as “liberals” rather than conservatives. A 2005 American Journalism Review poll showed the two-thirds of the public believe that the MSM has a liberal bias and nearly half of all respondents strongly felt that this was so. Simply put, most journalists are ardent liberals who cannot keep their politics out of their podiums.

How ironic that people who usually argue for separation of church and state cannot even separate politics from their job.



One feels like the spouse of an alcoholic who has been caught red-handed hiding a bottle of whiskey in the pantry. Lots of denials and cries of injustice mixed with accusations of conspiracy even in the face of overwhelming evidence is the soup of the day. From downplaying the Rather fiasco to describing Pro-lifers as anti-choice to the handling of the papal election and Alito confirmation to the whole tone of abortion and stem cell reporting to Katrina coverage to the Cheney accident to Iraq, the MSM’s blatant bias and liberal agenda is as plain as Hillary’s infamous fence riding.



Pathetic Defensive Metaphor


Russert, Mitchell and Olbermann, among others, have argued that conservative criticism of the MSM’s coverage is simply a diversionary tactic from a desperate White House out to “shoot the messenger.” In view of the parade of clear examples of MSM bias regarding many issues, it seems that the messenger is suffering from self-inflicted wounds.



This is not just about Iraq, although that issue is certainly a key example in this debate. This is about every key and many collateral issues that run across the MSM’s desk. Maureen Dowd calls Bill Clinton’s lies “endearing” and ABC’s GMA wants him to lecture Cheney on honesty. Russert advises that Alito’s best confirmation hearing tactic is not to “come across as a zealot.”



Ginsburg is labeled a “moderate” while her conservative critics are ignored. We hear more about Saddam’s courtroom antics than the evidence of his war crimes. Cindy Sheehan is portrayed as a cross between Gandhi and Mother Theresa. Matt Lauer depicts the high school teacher caught ranting against Bush as a “set up” by a backstabbing student. Chris Matthews describes Bush’s visit to Pakistan as “sneaking…like a drug dealer.” Washington journalist Bill Sammon has described the MSM’s coverage of the Bush’s so-called smoking gun conference on the New Orleans levees “journalistic fraud.” ABC probes the ethics of a Scalia trip while ignoring inquiry into the conduct of liberal justices.



Simply put, if the debate on whether or not the MSM’s coverage of many issues is blatantly biased in favor of liberal positions was held in a courtroom, the point would be a slam dunk for conservative critics. Despite this clear and overwhelming evidence of such bias, people like Russert, Schieffer and Rather continually deny the facts. Rather has denied being biased and claims that people are out to get him for being “independent.” Apparently Mr. Rather and all of his liberal media cronies still do not know “what’s the frequency.”

More @ http://tinyurl.com/h2wop ChronWatch

Hearken back to days of yore and Walter Cronkite's draconian pronouncement concerning V/Nam, "America has lost the war in V/Nam." The every so glib Mr. Cronkite uttered his pronouncement around the time of the Tet offensive in Nam and he was believed by a vast majority of Americans. (It was of course a complete lie as after Tet we were as close to winning in Nan as we ever would be)

We have made some strides in separating facts from reporters agendas as Walter would not have the backing today he had in 1968. However now the media simply ignores criticisms and proven bias's and goes blithely along to their next distortion of lie.