Commentary:

A simple question rarely has a simple answer

    By Jack Grant

Blackfive asks:

So what would it take to get the Main Stream Media to change it's spots?

(And, ergo, what would it take to get the Main Stream Public to change their desire for car wrecks and disasters?)

I think he has the question inverted.

As I wrote a while back:

They wouldn't publish "biased" news if no one read it...

They wouldn't pay the high salaries of sports starts if no one paid to see the games...

They wouldn't make more "reality TV" or shows filled with gratuitous sexual innuendo if no one watched...

They wouldn't play schlocky, manufactured music on the radio if no one listened...

They wouldn't mud-sling if it didn't win votes...

"They" are after a buck, or votes, or power, and "they" use the most expedient way to gain the goal.

"They" pay attention to the collective choices that the public makes.

Ultimately, who is responsible?

Think about it...

I think this is just as valid now as it was last September when I wrote it. However, there is another aspect to this. From an email exchange I had last week discussing media bias, I wrote (note - edited for readability):

I work in the sciences, routinely reading technical papers and evaluating them for their accuracy and reliability. We have a mantra of "get your own data," which is another way of saying "trust, but verify." I deal with presentations of cherry-picked data every day, and I inherently mistrust all sources of information unless I have independently verified the data. That goes for what is reported in the news media, where I inherently mistrust them (not the least because I have seen them make egregious errors when reporting on science and technology). Therefore, regardless of any protestations by the media to the contrary, I have no expectation of lack of bias. I do take it on faith that they do try to be unbiased, just as I take it on faith that the administration is indeed doing what they feel is best for the country, even when I completely disagree with their actions (see my post on Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq for an example). As a consequence, I do not react when the media present themselves as trying to be balanced. Recall that Fox News uses as its slogan "Fair and balanced" although by any reasonable measure the editorial stance of that network is definitely leaning right, just as other networks can be said to lean left, or in my view more properly said lean anti-administration.

Therefore, to me, even if there is a bias in the media, I do not see an issue, because everything is biased. A savvy administration can get their message out despite any bias, and I do strongly feel it is entirely their responsibility to get their message out. The administration's message is ALSO biased. Since there is nothing in the Constitution that I can recall about the role of the free press other than "no restrictions on freedom of the press" it is difficult to justify a statement that the press/media is not fulfilling their proper role. The government is powerful, and the Constitution was written with that in mind, with the Bill of Rights explicitly listing limitations of the powers of the government. The opposition to the government, in this case the media (with the possible exception of Fox News, which while not in unquestioning support does not appear to be in opposition), while having an apparent power, does not have the moral authority that I believe the vast majority of people do still assign to the government in general and the bully pulpit of the Presidency in particular. Therefore to me, again, the proper role of the press/media is to present a view contrary to that of the administration/ Congress/ judicial system, each of which have real power in varying degrees to actually enforce their views, whereas the media only has the power to influence (not control) public opinion.

The "unbiased media" chimera is a relatively recent development, with most of the history of the United States filled with highly partisan newspapers that published material that makes even some of the most extreme bloggers of the recent election madness look tame by comparison. While I understand the reaction in anger at the contention by the mainstream media that they are unbiased when in the view of many they are not, in my view they do try to be unbiased, even if they don't recognize their bias. In me, that does not generate anger or contempt, but instead annoyance with a bit of sadness. As I said, I have railed against the media being intellectually lazy, and part of that intellectual laziness is that even when they do self-examine it is superficial and the biases are not truly recognized. Intentions do matter, though, even if they cannot be truly divined and must be taken on faith, otherwise I would be frothing at the mouth continually at some of the actions I see coming out of each and every administration.

On cultural issues, I would say there is far more of an unambiguous bias in the mainstream media than there is on political issues. Again, the issue will eventually become self-correcting, because if an alternative source arises along the lines of Fox News, then it will succeed in taking the ever-valuable eyeballs away from the mainstream media and eventually BECOME the mainstream. There is a reason for the continued existence of the religious oriented cable networks despite the scandals of the 80s, and revulsion against the left-leaning cultural bias in the mainstream media must almost certainly play a role.

Simply saying the media is biased with no deeper analysis any time bad news arises and is reported with emphasis over and above what is dedicated to good news brings to mind images of a little boy sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!!!", and sadly this act is repeated constantly on both sides of the political spectrum. Bad news must be met head-on and explained in the larger context, not simply dismissed as something from a "biased media." Ignoring bad news by blaming the messenger for his bias does not make it go away, nor does it help in making the right decision.

Posted by Jack Grant at 15:16 on 27 December 2004