Posted in political on October 14th, 2006
From “Uncle Walter” Cronkite’s admission that he would have done anything to keep Barry Goldwater out of the Whitehouse to Dan Rather’s recent promoting of forged documents on G.W.’s guard service, our media has shown time and time again that it is incapable of giving us unbiased news. In fact, it’s nearly impossible for any media source to give you completely unbiased news. Just the act of deciding which stories lead or the adjectives used to describe an event can have a major impact on how you view any piece.
Visuals are another tool that can be used to sway your opinions, as they tend to stay in your mind clearer and longer than any written or spoken word. For instance, most historians credit this photo of a young Vietnamese girl during a napalm attack with turning America towards ending our involvement in Vietnam, and this photo is completely synonymous with the Abu Ghaib incident in Iraq. In this post I will try my best to help you weed out the bias and hopefully get an objective view of the world around you.
The first and most important distinction you need to be able to make is between news reporting and editorializing. News reporting (which is very rare nowadays) is an attempt to give you just the facts without injecting the reporters own opinion. Editorializing is just the opposite, the facts given to you with the writer’s opinion of those facts. People like Maureen Dowd, Helen Thomas, or Cal Thomas are opinion writers, as am I (although not of their stature). There is nothing wrong with that form of media as long as you understand what you’re getting. People like Dan Rather, Brit Hume, or Charlie Gibson are news reporters and have an obligation to you the people to be as unbiased as possible. Here lies the problem, are these people doing their job? It’s my opinion that they are not.
Clinton News Network (CNN), Faux News (Fox), Never Promote Republicans News (NPR), these are just a few of the names I have heard people use to describe news services they disagree with. The list goes on and on. Most people seem to recognize that their opponents on the other side have a strong bias, but have a hard time seeing the bias in their own media source. The best thing you can do to get a fair and balanced view of the news is to have a healthy suspicion of anything you hear.
Panel discussions are an easy source to see bias in. Questions to ask yourself whenever watching or listening to one are; Is there an equal representation of each side? Are they equally passionate? (Sometimes moderate Democrats or Republicans are used to give half-hearted opposition) Are they given equal time? Who gets to wrap up the discussion?
Even more telling is the moderator of the discussion. A common tactic I’ve seen used by all sides is to have a panel discussion with a person from both sides and use the moderator (usually the shows host) to tilt the discussion in favor of the outcome they want. An example would be to allow one side’s statements, no matter how unfair or inaccurate, to go unchallenged. They may even go so far as to validate their statement with a quick “Oh, my God,” “They didn’t,” “How could they,” or “That’s terrible.” Then when the opposing point of view is given, they challenge every point, interrupt, and dismiss their points with statements like, “Are you sure?” “Where did you get that from?” or “That doesn’t sound right.” It sounds subtle, but it is very effective, particularly if you trust the host.
Another tactic is the lop-sided discussion. The trick here is to use people who are obviously outclassed on one side. For example, you would take one person who is media savvy, esteemed in their field, and very qualified, and put them up against a less-qualified, scared newcomer. I equate this to putting a featherweight boxer in the ring with a heavyweight champ. You already know the outcome and all that is left is to watch the bloodbath.
Giving one side the last word is another tactic that can’t be understated. The last comment you hear will most likely be the one you’ll be thinking about after the discussion is over. For that reason, smart moderators will be sure the discussion ends on their side’s best point. All of this can turn a panel discussion that seems “fair and balanced” into one that is anything but. You should always be aware that any “talk show host” feels no obligation to be fair. Whether it’s Rush Limbaugh or Diane Rehm, they are primarily entertainers who are trying to maintain an audience, not necessarily give you the truth. By the way, for all you younger readers, Jon Stewart is not a news source. He’s a comedian. A good comedian, (I personally find him hilarious) but not a good news source.
With partisanship and the “culture war” heating up on all fronts, it is now more important than ever that you view your media with a critical eye. I want to ask all of you to try a little exercise for me. For one day, compare your media with other media you consider to be on the “other side”. See how Fox News differs from CNN on the way they portray a given story, pay special attention to adjectives that are used. Check to see if they identify people as “conservative” or “liberal” equally. Use all the tricks to identifying bias that I gave you. Then see if your media is doing the same thing. I’ll bet you come to the same conclusion that I have, that ALL media is bias, the trick is just to recognize when they’re doing it. H.C.
From “Uncle Walter” Cronkite’s admission that he would have done anything to keep Barry Goldwater out of the Whitehouse to Dan Rather’s recent promoting of forged documents on G.W.’s guard service, our media has shown time and time again that it is incapable of giving us unbiased news. In fact, it’s nearly impossible for any media source to give you completely unbiased news. Just the act of deciding which stories lead or the adjectives used to describe an event can have a major impact on how you view any piece.
Visuals are another tool that can be used to sway your opinions, as they tend to stay in your mind clearer and longer than any written or spoken word. For instance, most historians credit this photo of a young Vietnamese girl during a napalm attack with turning America towards ending our involvement in Vietnam, and this photo is completely synonymous with the Abu Ghaib incident in Iraq. In this post I will try my best to help you weed out the bias and hopefully get an objective view of the world around you.
The first and most important distinction you need to be able to make is between news reporting and editorializing. News reporting (which is very rare nowadays) is an attempt to give you just the facts without injecting the reporters own opinion. Editorializing is just the opposite, the facts given to you with the writer’s opinion of those facts. People like Maureen Dowd, Helen Thomas, or Cal Thomas are opinion writers, as am I (although not of their stature). There is nothing wrong with that form of media as long as you understand what you’re getting. People like Dan Rather, Brit Hume, or Charlie Gibson are news reporters and have an obligation to you the people to be as unbiased as possible. Here lies the problem, are these people doing their job? It’s my opinion that they are not.
Clinton News Network (CNN), Faux News (Fox), Never Promote Republicans News (NPR), these are just a few of the names I have heard people use to describe news services they disagree with. The list goes on and on. Most people seem to recognize that their opponents on the other side have a strong bias, but have a hard time seeing the bias in their own media source. The best thing you can do to get a fair and balanced view of the news is to have a healthy suspicion of anything you hear.
Panel discussions are an easy source to see bias in. Questions to ask yourself whenever watching or listening to one are; Is there an equal representation of each side? Are they equally passionate? (Sometimes moderate Democrats or Republicans are used to give half-hearted opposition) Are they given equal time? Who gets to wrap up the discussion?
Even more telling is the moderator of the discussion. A common tactic I’ve seen used by all sides is to have a panel discussion with a person from both sides and use the moderator (usually the shows host) to tilt the discussion in favor of the outcome they want. An example would be to allow one side’s statements, no matter how unfair or inaccurate, to go unchallenged. They may even go so far as to validate their statement with a quick “Oh, my God,” “They didn’t,” “How could they,” or “That’s terrible.” Then when the opposing point of view is given, they challenge every point, interrupt, and dismiss their points with statements like, “Are you sure?” “Where did you get that from?” or “That doesn’t sound right.” It sounds subtle, but it is very effective, particularly if you trust the host.
Another tactic is the lop-sided discussion. The trick here is to use people who are obviously outclassed on one side. For example, you would take one person who is media savvy, esteemed in their field, and very qualified, and put them up against a less-qualified, scared newcomer. I equate this to putting a featherweight boxer in the ring with a heavyweight champ. You already know the outcome and all that is left is to watch the bloodbath.
Giving one side the last word is another tactic that can’t be understated. The last comment you hear will most likely be the one you’ll be thinking about after the discussion is over. For that reason, smart moderators will be sure the discussion ends on their side’s best point. All of this can turn a panel discussion that seems “fair and balanced” into one that is anything but. You should always be aware that any “talk show host” feels no obligation to be fair. Whether it’s Rush Limbaugh or Diane Rehm, they are primarily entertainers who are trying to maintain an audience, not necessarily give you the truth. By the way, for all you younger readers, Jon Stewart is not a news source. He’s a comedian. A good comedian, (I personally find him hilarious) but not a good news source.
With partisanship and the “culture war” heating up on all fronts, it is now more important than ever that you view your media with a critical eye. I want to ask all of you to try a little exercise for me. For one day, compare your media with other media you consider to be on the “other side”. See how Fox News differs from CNN on the way they portray a given story, pay special attention to adjectives that are used. Check to see if they identify people as “conservative” or “liberal” equally. Use all the tricks to identifying bias that I gave you. Then see if your media is doing the same thing. I’ll bet you come to the same conclusion that I have, that ALL media is bias, the trick is just to recognize when they’re doing it. H.C.
No comments:
Post a Comment