I’ve Yet
to Hear a Credible Answer.
Colonel
Dan, SASS Life# 24025
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.
Still
doubt it? Then put yourself in the shoes
of the top dog at that particular newspaper.
They endorse Moe for office claiming he is much better than Curly. Two stories come in about both candidates
that are less than favorable. Which one
do you think they would print or emphasize?
Would they blast Moe or would they downplay that story and highlight the
one on Curly? No rocket science here
just an observation based on years of watching…and as Yogi Berra, one of my favorite
philosophers once said, “You can observe a lot just by watching.”
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
Article
Archives at:
http://mddall.com/sbss/SBSShome.htm