News has no need to be biased. There are plenty of spaces, in both new and mainstream media, for opinions to be aired and discussed. It is likely true that many news bureaus tend to lean Democrat in their staff, but it is equally true that good reporters show no personal opinion in their stories. In a perfect world, this would indicate that the news is unbiased. Many watchdog groups, from Media Matters to Crooks and Liars to the ACLU, have documented the conservative slant in our media. But I don't think this is necessarily an indication of a personal conservative bent among writers and newscasters. I think it has a lot more to do with the shoddy quality of journalism in general.
Campaigns of all stripes have sets of "talking points" which they attempt to get out through interviews, press releases, and editorials. Any current president has the ultimate chance to distribute these talking points- daily press conferences, high profile speaking events, etc. It should be no surprise to anyone that the Bush people rally around their talking points, and that these points often offer a version of events that is highly in favor of Republicans. What should surprise us all, on the other hand, is that reporters accept this rhetoric, these talking points, uncritically and serve as a free communications department for the administration.
Case in point, the recent flap over Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria. While an objective view of events might consider the visit of anyone, Republican or Democrat, to Syria as a step in the right direction in terms of foreign policy, diplomacy, and our influence in the Middle East, the conversation surrounding Pelosi's trip has consisted of her decision to wear a head scarf, her right to visit the country in the first place, and the damage of undermining the anti-Syria position of the White House. Republican talking points brought up these issues, and it was a smart, if dishonest, strategy. It was also successful Writing an article about how offensive it was that Ms. Pelosi chose to wear a head scarf, while disregarding the fact that both Condoleezza Rice and the First Lady have both chosen to wear head scarves on visits to the Middle East, is not news, but commentary. Talk of the disruptive politics of her visit, or calling it an attempt to grandstand or undermine Bush, completely ignores that the visiting group also included Republicans and offers no real reporting on the facts of the visit.
Journalism requires research. Imagine. There is a difference between reporting the facts and the analysis of events which comes in editorials. Reporting on events requires knowing something about them in the first place. I can't see how any of the recent reporting on this issue has stuck with the facts, and as such has given the public an incredibly inaccurate view of events. I like to think that being a citizen and a voter requires research as well, but that might be asking too much for many casual observers of politics. However, as most voters are casual observers of politics, stories such as the following demonstrate exactly why Republican talking points have won the day for the past six years.
From Think Progress, via Daily Kos:
This morning, NBC’s Today Show ran a biased segment casting doubt on Pelosi’s Syria trip. Every single question asked by anchor Matt Lauer was framed around conservative talking points. In his first question, Lauer claimed Pelosi has gotten off to a rough start because of criticisms from a baseless Washington Post editorial, Vice President Cheney, and the conservative editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal:
LAUER: Vice President Cheney called Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria "bad behavior," a Washington Post editorial on Thursday called it "counter-productive and foolish," and an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning goes a step further and suggests her trip may actually have been a felony, that it may have violated something called the Logan Act. Tim, is this the way the Democrats wanted to get off the mark in terms of foreign affairs?
With his second question, Lauer asserted that "a lot of people think [Pelosi] messed up on this one," and then asked "what’s the impact for the Democrats overall?" Lauer never mentioned the fact that five Republicans — Reps. Frank Wolf, Robert Aderholt, Joseph Pitts, David Hobson, and Darrell Issa — visited Syria this week.
To wrap up the segment, Lauer suggested that Pelosi may be "seen as usurping presidential power in designing and implementing foreign policy," disregarding Rep. David Hobson’s (R-OH) comments that the Pelosi-led delegation "reinforced the administration’s positions."
This kind of hack reporting has taken place on everything from wiretapping to Walter Reed to the US attorney firings, and it's just plain depressing. While there is certainly no shortage of great reporting to be found all over the web and in news journals like the Atlantic, Mother Jones, or The Nation, it would be nice to see some from our most popular newspapers and t.v. news programs.
No comments:
Post a Comment