A reader responds to "The biases of journalists" :
The fact that more members of the mainstream media are progressive or liberal than are conservative or libertarian doesn't prove bias. It merely proves that there are more liberals or progressives in the media than there are libertarians or conservatives.
During my career with Pulitzer Prize-winning organizations, I noticed that reporters, copy editors, makeup editors went to great lengths to avoid bias in their work. Didn't notice the same for publishers or owners.
Examples of bias:
The executive editor at the major metropolitan paper where I worked told us on the news desk not to use Washington Post or New York Times articles on the Watergate investigation because "they take us down roads we don't want to go." i.e. Richard Nixon (whom newspaper had endorsed in all his political campaigns) was looking like the crook he claimed not to be. That is bias; Republican bias.
Al Gore was constantly reported, virtually everywhere, as "stiff" or "wooden" or "robotlike" in his demeanor when he held his emotions in check. But when Howard Dean used emotion trying to rally his supporters he was described as "ranting" or "raving" or "maniacal." That is bias; Republican bias.
Fox News (and other sources) reported that, at the change of administrations, Clinton staffers had left wide-spread destruction to government property when they removed the "W" from computer keyboards and glued a few desk doors shut to vex the incoming Bush administration. Fox purposely avoided reporting that the incoming Clinton administration had received the exact same pranks from the outgoing Bush the Daddy's administration. That is bias, right-wing bias.
Those who claim a liberal bias in America's newspaper industry conveniently ignore the fact that America's newspapers have always endorsed the Republican or conservative candidate much more than the Democrat or liberal candidate in presidential (1964 excluded), senatorial, congressional and governor races. They also overlook that the majority of publishers and owners contribute heavily to Republican candidates' campaigns while virtually ignoring Democrats.
They also ignore the fact that the campaign of character assassination against Bill Clinton (most of it lies) was funded mostly by a newspaper publisher and widely published as if it were all true. George Bush the Baby hasn't received the same poisoned coverage.
Let's get off this kick about there being a "liberal bias" in the news industry based on one fact (but no acts) while ignoring the "conservative bias" that could be shown by several facts and acts.
Written by a STop reader.
Respond to this posting