Print
E-mail
National Groups Come Together To Fight Media Bias
The Advocate
By Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin
It’s fair to say the real war against media bias has begun. A conservative leadership summit to confront media bias is meeting in Washington, D.C. this week to formulate strategy for a nationwide battle against mainstream media bias.
The invitation to the summit, sent out by Don Irvine, chairman of Accuracy in Media, a leading media watchdog, explained the summit this way:
“We all know the role a biased, leftist media played in selecting Barack Obama, who was largely a media creation. In the last election, the media’s support was worth hundreds of millions of dollars and legions of campaign workers. It seems with each election cycle, the media becomes more biased and more brazen. If we don’t act now, 2010 and 2012 will be disastrous repeats of 2008.
“The purpose of this summit is to formulate a joint plan of action to confront and combat media bias that much of the conservative movement’s leadership can endorse and participate in…
“Instead of doing the same things we’ve been doing for years, we hope to strike off in new directions, develop new techniques and try new approaches — and do so as a coalition, rather than separate organizations, with each focusing on its own concerns.”
The invitations to the event came from the invitation committee of the “Conservative Leadership Summit to Confront Media Bias.” The committee is made up by a high-powered group of nationally known figures that include Mr. Irvine, mentioned above; Gary Bauer, American Values; Bill Donohue, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights; Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America; Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum; Morton Blackwell, The Leadership Institute; Brent Bozell, Media Research Center; and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas).
The invitation-only event will bring together 50 leaders in the battle against media bias. I’m honored to have been selected to attend. In preparation for that summit, I’ve put together some suggestions on what has to be done to fight media bias. Here are a few of those suggestions:
Media Bias Can Literally Destroy The U.S.
1. The first thing that has to be done is to educate the public about the central importance of fighting media bias. In my view, the mainstream media is literally destroying the country, by coverage that is so biased, dishonest, leftist and fraudulent that the public is getting only one side of the news. It’s as though those who rely on the mainstream media are blind in one eye, and have vision that blacks out half of the news and half of the world. This is leading to decisions based on incomplete and often erroneous information and that means the decisions are often mistaken and dangerous.
The best example of that is the mainstream media selling an untested, unvetted, inexperienced candidate for the presidency with wild radical ideas and a parade of associates that include terrorists, bigots, racists, and even a crook (since convicted). If the public had the full story, President Barack Obama probably would not have been elected. And he could not be doing what may destroy our economy, cripple our national defense and national security mechanisms, and, in effect, repeal the Constitution through appointment of judges who will substitute their liberal agenda for the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and of the legislators responsible for our laws. So when the public understands what media bias means, perhaps the destruction of America, that public will be easily enlisted to take necessary action.
The Importance Of The Alternative Media
2. One major part of educating the public on media bias should consist of educating them on the alternative media. Even if they want to continue to follow the mainstream media, they should also temper that with information from the alternative media.
In the age of the Internet, everyone has free access to almost all of the newspapers of the world including such conservative standards as the Washington Times and the Washington Examiner. I’d also include Investor’s Business Daily, which I think has the best editorial and op-ed page s in the country. Of course, there’s the Wall Street Journal, which charges for complete access, but has some free access. It is one of the best conservative papers in the country. There are a few other strong conservative newspapers including The Philadelphia Bulletin and The New York Post.
When it comes to the broadcast media, there are the conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Savage, Bill Bennett and many others.
On television, there’s the Fox Cable News Network.
The leading conservative magazines are The National Review, Weekly Standard, Town Hall and NewsMax, among others.
Finally, there is a wealth of material on the Internet. I look over about a dozen newspapers every day from all segments of the spectrum. It is as if the conservative and liberal papers are reporting on two different worlds. And on occasion, it seems as if some of the leftist mainstream media are reporting fiction rather than fact. A boycott coalition could perform a valuable service by publishing lists of biased media outlets along with lists of those that can be trusted to provide more fair and balanced material.
Growing More Media Boycotts
3. One of the best ways to let the mainstream media know that their biased journalism will not payoff is to boycott them. Accuracy in Media has taken a major step in the boycott battle with its campaign to boycott The New York Times and the campaign’s Web site, www.
boycottnyt.com. I’d suggest that some organization set up a prototype of that site that can be used by other groups to boycott any media outlet they want to target.
Similar boycotts should be launched against all the leading mainstream media outlets such as The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, PBS, Time, and Newsweek for starters. Another approach would be to establish a national boycott site, with sections on each of the major outlets. It goes without saying that this is the perfect time for boycotts, as so many of the mainstream media are in financial stress. The boycotts should also be directed at advertisers, and that may be a more potent device with the mobilization of a national boycott. Some newspapers are already in bankruptcy such as The Philadelphia Inquirer, and others may be close to it ... hopefully The New York Times.
The national boycott site could contain tips and recommended approaches for boycotting newspapers and other media outlets. I actively participated in a boycott of The Philadelphia Inquirer, and all of those involved learned lessons that would be invaluable to others. This suggests a site where everyone could send suggestions and ideas on fighting media bias.
Bringing Together All Victims Of Media Bias
4. Those leading the national boycott should bring together all the interest groups that have been victimized by the bias of the mainstream media. These groups should be brought together to form a common front against the bias of the mainstream media.
Among such groups are Republican Party organizations, conservative groups, veterans’ and other military organizations, the National Rifle Association, various groups that fight the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic bias of the mainstream media, law enforcement organizations, and many other.
Opening Up Presidential Press Conferences And Briefings
5. Two of the most pathetic examples of the mainstream media can be found at Presidential press conferences and the daily press briefings in the White House. There should be an attempt to get more reporters who will challenge the president with questions rather than cheerlead for him with softballs.
Any media outlet can apply for credentials and most are accepted, according to an e-mail I received from the White House. This could begin to change these press events from virtually scripted campaign commercials into real press conferences. Another useful device would be for some group to grade the quality of each reporter’s question after each conference. Perhaps this grading organization could make a special award, perhaps called the Chris Matthews Cup (or perhaps the MSNBC Cup), to the worst reporter of each conference.
Publicizing The Media Watchdogs
6. The public should be educated on media watchdogs and the kind of information they can provide. Among the leaders are AIM, already mentioned several times, and the Media Research Center. In addition there are two media watchdogs that focus on news out of the Middle East, Camera and Honest Reporting.
All of these groups can make valuable suggestions on how to mount letter-writing campaigns and take other action. For example, I find Camera’s periodic reports on corrections they’ve been able to bring forth from the media to be valuable. They show all those involved that their work is productive.
A Drudge-Style Report On Media Bias
7. I’d also suggest that one of the media watchdogs create a Web site for media bias along the lines of the Drudge Report. The site would link to all the reports, columns, and other publications on media bias. Perhaps some of the reporters and columnists linked on such a site would provide permission for other outlets to reprint their work without charge.
Bringing Everyone Into The Anti-Bias Campaign
8. Of course, we need the public to play a major role in the battle against mainstream media bias. For starters, they can start boycotting some of the mainstream media. I always recommend, for openers, boycotting The New York Times (and sign the petition on www.boycottnyt.com). We need these people to write letters to the editors and make calls to broadcast outlets when they encounter media bias. They can also press reporters to do some stories on media bias. In addition, they ought to lend their support to some of the excellent media watchdogs, such as those named above.
Reminding The Media And Everyone Else Of The Role Of The Media
9. Finally, perhaps what is needed most of all to get back to some of the basics of the great American democracy. It depends on the media for the information needed to make a democracy properly function. We have too many mainstream media outlets not performing, as our system requires. This is not a liberal or conservative perspective, but an American perspective. And for the sake of our national survival we better pay attention to that perspective.
Media Bias As Part Of A Larger Problem
10. The strategy to fight mainstream leftist bias should take into account that we face a broader problem caused by leftist college and universities that are often in the business of brainwashing rather than educating students and this problem now extends down into primary and secondary education.
The people battling this educational disease perhaps should be brought into the coalition that fights media bias. That’s because those fighting the leftist bias in colleges and universities are engaged essentially in the same battle as the media coalition and they would also have much to teach the media people about tactics and strategy.
For example, David Horowitz, founder of the Freedom Center, and author of such books as The Professors and Indoctrination U, has special expertise in understanding the mental disease of liberalism and in getting action to reform a broken system.
Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.
The invitation to the summit, sent out by Don Irvine, chairman of Accuracy in Media, a leading media watchdog, explained the summit this way:
“We all know the role a biased, leftist media played in selecting Barack Obama, who was largely a media creation. In the last election, the media’s support was worth hundreds of millions of dollars and legions of campaign workers. It seems with each election cycle, the media becomes more biased and more brazen. If we don’t act now, 2010 and 2012 will be disastrous repeats of 2008.
“The purpose of this summit is to formulate a joint plan of action to confront and combat media bias that much of the conservative movement’s leadership can endorse and participate in…
“Instead of doing the same things we’ve been doing for years, we hope to strike off in new directions, develop new techniques and try new approaches — and do so as a coalition, rather than separate organizations, with each focusing on its own concerns.”
The invitations to the event came from the invitation committee of the “Conservative Leadership Summit to Confront Media Bias.” The committee is made up by a high-powered group of nationally known figures that include Mr. Irvine, mentioned above; Gary Bauer, American Values; Bill Donohue, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights; Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America; Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum; Morton Blackwell, The Leadership Institute; Brent Bozell, Media Research Center; and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas).
The invitation-only event will bring together 50 leaders in the battle against media bias. I’m honored to have been selected to attend. In preparation for that summit, I’ve put together some suggestions on what has to be done to fight media bias. Here are a few of those suggestions:
Media Bias Can Literally Destroy The U.S.
1. The first thing that has to be done is to educate the public about the central importance of fighting media bias. In my view, the mainstream media is literally destroying the country, by coverage that is so biased, dishonest, leftist and fraudulent that the public is getting only one side of the news. It’s as though those who rely on the mainstream media are blind in one eye, and have vision that blacks out half of the news and half of the world. This is leading to decisions based on incomplete and often erroneous information and that means the decisions are often mistaken and dangerous.
The best example of that is the mainstream media selling an untested, unvetted, inexperienced candidate for the presidency with wild radical ideas and a parade of associates that include terrorists, bigots, racists, and even a crook (since convicted). If the public had the full story, President Barack Obama probably would not have been elected. And he could not be doing what may destroy our economy, cripple our national defense and national security mechanisms, and, in effect, repeal the Constitution through appointment of judges who will substitute their liberal agenda for the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and of the legislators responsible for our laws. So when the public understands what media bias means, perhaps the destruction of America, that public will be easily enlisted to take necessary action.
The Importance Of The Alternative Media
2. One major part of educating the public on media bias should consist of educating them on the alternative media. Even if they want to continue to follow the mainstream media, they should also temper that with information from the alternative media.
In the age of the Internet, everyone has free access to almost all of the newspapers of the world including such conservative standards as the Washington Times and the Washington Examiner. I’d also include Investor’s Business Daily, which I think has the best editorial and op-ed page s in the country. Of course, there’s the Wall Street Journal, which charges for complete access, but has some free access. It is one of the best conservative papers in the country. There are a few other strong conservative newspapers including The Philadelphia Bulletin and The New York Post.
When it comes to the broadcast media, there are the conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Savage, Bill Bennett and many others.
On television, there’s the Fox Cable News Network.
The leading conservative magazines are The National Review, Weekly Standard, Town Hall and NewsMax, among others.
Finally, there is a wealth of material on the Internet. I look over about a dozen newspapers every day from all segments of the spectrum. It is as if the conservative and liberal papers are reporting on two different worlds. And on occasion, it seems as if some of the leftist mainstream media are reporting fiction rather than fact. A boycott coalition could perform a valuable service by publishing lists of biased media outlets along with lists of those that can be trusted to provide more fair and balanced material.
Growing More Media Boycotts
3. One of the best ways to let the mainstream media know that their biased journalism will not payoff is to boycott them. Accuracy in Media has taken a major step in the boycott battle with its campaign to boycott The New York Times and the campaign’s Web site, www.
boycottnyt.com. I’d suggest that some organization set up a prototype of that site that can be used by other groups to boycott any media outlet they want to target.
Similar boycotts should be launched against all the leading mainstream media outlets such as The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, PBS, Time, and Newsweek for starters. Another approach would be to establish a national boycott site, with sections on each of the major outlets. It goes without saying that this is the perfect time for boycotts, as so many of the mainstream media are in financial stress. The boycotts should also be directed at advertisers, and that may be a more potent device with the mobilization of a national boycott. Some newspapers are already in bankruptcy such as The Philadelphia Inquirer, and others may be close to it ... hopefully The New York Times.
The national boycott site could contain tips and recommended approaches for boycotting newspapers and other media outlets. I actively participated in a boycott of The Philadelphia Inquirer, and all of those involved learned lessons that would be invaluable to others. This suggests a site where everyone could send suggestions and ideas on fighting media bias.
Bringing Together All Victims Of Media Bias
4. Those leading the national boycott should bring together all the interest groups that have been victimized by the bias of the mainstream media. These groups should be brought together to form a common front against the bias of the mainstream media.
Among such groups are Republican Party organizations, conservative groups, veterans’ and other military organizations, the National Rifle Association, various groups that fight the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic bias of the mainstream media, law enforcement organizations, and many other.
Opening Up Presidential Press Conferences And Briefings
5. Two of the most pathetic examples of the mainstream media can be found at Presidential press conferences and the daily press briefings in the White House. There should be an attempt to get more reporters who will challenge the president with questions rather than cheerlead for him with softballs.
Any media outlet can apply for credentials and most are accepted, according to an e-mail I received from the White House. This could begin to change these press events from virtually scripted campaign commercials into real press conferences. Another useful device would be for some group to grade the quality of each reporter’s question after each conference. Perhaps this grading organization could make a special award, perhaps called the Chris Matthews Cup (or perhaps the MSNBC Cup), to the worst reporter of each conference.
Publicizing The Media Watchdogs
6. The public should be educated on media watchdogs and the kind of information they can provide. Among the leaders are AIM, already mentioned several times, and the Media Research Center. In addition there are two media watchdogs that focus on news out of the Middle East, Camera and Honest Reporting.
All of these groups can make valuable suggestions on how to mount letter-writing campaigns and take other action. For example, I find Camera’s periodic reports on corrections they’ve been able to bring forth from the media to be valuable. They show all those involved that their work is productive.
A Drudge-Style Report On Media Bias
7. I’d also suggest that one of the media watchdogs create a Web site for media bias along the lines of the Drudge Report. The site would link to all the reports, columns, and other publications on media bias. Perhaps some of the reporters and columnists linked on such a site would provide permission for other outlets to reprint their work without charge.
Bringing Everyone Into The Anti-Bias Campaign
8. Of course, we need the public to play a major role in the battle against mainstream media bias. For starters, they can start boycotting some of the mainstream media. I always recommend, for openers, boycotting The New York Times (and sign the petition on www.boycottnyt.com). We need these people to write letters to the editors and make calls to broadcast outlets when they encounter media bias. They can also press reporters to do some stories on media bias. In addition, they ought to lend their support to some of the excellent media watchdogs, such as those named above.
Reminding The Media And Everyone Else Of The Role Of The Media
9. Finally, perhaps what is needed most of all to get back to some of the basics of the great American democracy. It depends on the media for the information needed to make a democracy properly function. We have too many mainstream media outlets not performing, as our system requires. This is not a liberal or conservative perspective, but an American perspective. And for the sake of our national survival we better pay attention to that perspective.
Media Bias As Part Of A Larger Problem
10. The strategy to fight mainstream leftist bias should take into account that we face a broader problem caused by leftist college and universities that are often in the business of brainwashing rather than educating students and this problem now extends down into primary and secondary education.
The people battling this educational disease perhaps should be brought into the coalition that fights media bias. That’s because those fighting the leftist bias in colleges and universities are engaged essentially in the same battle as the media coalition and they would also have much to teach the media people about tactics and strategy.
For example, David Horowitz, founder of the Freedom Center, and author of such books as The Professors and Indoctrination U, has special expertise in understanding the mental disease of liberalism and in getting action to reform a broken system.
Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.
 |
 |
|
| O.J. Simpson Murder Case Not As Bizarre As Leopold And Loeb | How To Get Off Obama's Path To America's Destruction |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
howard5 wrote on May 8, 2009 5:49 PM:
" Thank God somebody gets it. I think that media bias is the most dangerous problem our country faces followed by communist and leftists propaganda in our schools. Without media bias and with an informed citizenry, the sad state of affairs in academa could not exist.
Yes, lets go to all out war against media bias. "
Yes, lets go to all out war against media bias. "
jawn wrote on May 11, 2009 12:49 PM:
" To Mr. Denenberg:
The situation is much more complicated than you make it out to be. First of all, the media does not tell people what to think -- it tells people what to think about. This is known as agenda-setting. So, for instance, during the Presidential campaigns, the media will cover the stories it finds important (the economy, the war, etc...) and people will focus more on these issues.
Everyone has personal views. These cannot be eradicated. The issue is being as objective as possible in reporting. However, people often pursue stories that interest them. Here is another issue -- even if someone is objective in their reporting, their choosing what to cover also conveys a certain bias.
This makes sense: if the media ignores an issue, it becomes almost invisible. If you look around, you will also see a lot distrust in terms of the media. People do not trust journalists anymore, and for plenty of legitimate reasons! Now, if people do not trust journalists, does it make sense that they would blindly adhere to the information given to them on a news program, changing their own personal views? No. Rather, I propose that people seek out news stations that reinforce opinions they ALREADY hold. Thus, more conservative viewers seek out Fox News, for instance, while more liberal viewers seek out MSNBC. (For the record, I try to take in equal amounts of all the stations, but cross-reference, double-check and gather most of my information online).
You mention the media's hand in the 2008 election. I believe you are overlooking some key points. First of all, from what I understand, media coverage was mostly balanced for both candidates (Obama and McCain) until the economic crisis hit. From then on, coverage was definitely slanted in favor of Obama. While I agree, it should have been fair throughout the entirety, I think this also disproves a certain notion that media was out to perform a hitjob from the beginning. Actually, I would suggest that the media follows public opinion more often -- and once the economy crashed, the tax cuts Obama professed began to appeal more and more to middle and lower classes.
Also, I don't know what kind of bubble you lived in during the campaign, but I couldn't seem to escape the constant coverage of Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and other such "associates" of Obama. Covering such trivial and misrepresented issues as these, I felt, detracted from the real issues at hand. And not for nothing, but many of the people I talked to during and immediately after the campaign had many more misconceptions about Obama than they did about McCain. Perhaps the liberal media is putting these misconceptions out there about the Democratic candidate? May I suggest that people trust friends more than anything they hear in the media, and many false email forwards circulated the internet perpetuating lies about both candidates, but from what I have seen, mostly about Obama. http://snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp and http://snopes.com/politics/mccain/mccain.asp seek to correct or confirm these myths. Some of these rumors about Obama were perpetuated by commentators you support in your article.
To make a blanket statement that the entire mainstream press has a liberal bias I find to be a bit misleading. It simplifies a more complex reality. People hold complicated views -- someone may be liberal socially, but economically conservative. Many studies have been done to examine such possible biases. One study I've read (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447) says that journalists are mostly centrist. The ones that are not tend to sway socially liberal, and economically conservative. To me, this seems intuitive. However, there are many studies out there people may refer to.
Unfortunately, while I found the basis of your opinion article interesting, I also thought it was incredibly biased itself. In my opinion, you seem to present conservative programming as a bastion of truth amidst the lies of the rest of the mainstream media, when this is not the case. Conservative programming engages in untruths and misrepresentations as well. Take the study from 2003 that said that viewers of Fox were the most likely to have misconceptions about the Iraq War (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102).
You are right when you say that we should temper our opinions. I completely agree. But your opinion article and, indeed, the newspaper it was run in, are biased as well. I only had to read the Bulletin once to realize it was a conservative newspaper (though I do read it often since, as I've said, it is good to read every perspective on every issue). Advocating a boycott of mainstream news except for the ones that fully agree with your views does not do anything except exacerbate the issue. If we are going to get a full perspective on the issues at hand, we must take every view into account, do our own research (Google is your friend, is easy to use, and can yield wonderful results), and then arrive at our own conclusions. This will minimize the chance of misinformation and maximize our knowledge of current events and issues. "
The situation is much more complicated than you make it out to be. First of all, the media does not tell people what to think -- it tells people what to think about. This is known as agenda-setting. So, for instance, during the Presidential campaigns, the media will cover the stories it finds important (the economy, the war, etc...) and people will focus more on these issues.
Everyone has personal views. These cannot be eradicated. The issue is being as objective as possible in reporting. However, people often pursue stories that interest them. Here is another issue -- even if someone is objective in their reporting, their choosing what to cover also conveys a certain bias.
This makes sense: if the media ignores an issue, it becomes almost invisible. If you look around, you will also see a lot distrust in terms of the media. People do not trust journalists anymore, and for plenty of legitimate reasons! Now, if people do not trust journalists, does it make sense that they would blindly adhere to the information given to them on a news program, changing their own personal views? No. Rather, I propose that people seek out news stations that reinforce opinions they ALREADY hold. Thus, more conservative viewers seek out Fox News, for instance, while more liberal viewers seek out MSNBC. (For the record, I try to take in equal amounts of all the stations, but cross-reference, double-check and gather most of my information online).
You mention the media's hand in the 2008 election. I believe you are overlooking some key points. First of all, from what I understand, media coverage was mostly balanced for both candidates (Obama and McCain) until the economic crisis hit. From then on, coverage was definitely slanted in favor of Obama. While I agree, it should have been fair throughout the entirety, I think this also disproves a certain notion that media was out to perform a hitjob from the beginning. Actually, I would suggest that the media follows public opinion more often -- and once the economy crashed, the tax cuts Obama professed began to appeal more and more to middle and lower classes.
Also, I don't know what kind of bubble you lived in during the campaign, but I couldn't seem to escape the constant coverage of Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and other such "associates" of Obama. Covering such trivial and misrepresented issues as these, I felt, detracted from the real issues at hand. And not for nothing, but many of the people I talked to during and immediately after the campaign had many more misconceptions about Obama than they did about McCain. Perhaps the liberal media is putting these misconceptions out there about the Democratic candidate? May I suggest that people trust friends more than anything they hear in the media, and many false email forwards circulated the internet perpetuating lies about both candidates, but from what I have seen, mostly about Obama. http://snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp and http://snopes.com/politics/mccain/mccain.asp seek to correct or confirm these myths. Some of these rumors about Obama were perpetuated by commentators you support in your article.
To make a blanket statement that the entire mainstream press has a liberal bias I find to be a bit misleading. It simplifies a more complex reality. People hold complicated views -- someone may be liberal socially, but economically conservative. Many studies have been done to examine such possible biases. One study I've read (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447) says that journalists are mostly centrist. The ones that are not tend to sway socially liberal, and economically conservative. To me, this seems intuitive. However, there are many studies out there people may refer to.
Unfortunately, while I found the basis of your opinion article interesting, I also thought it was incredibly biased itself. In my opinion, you seem to present conservative programming as a bastion of truth amidst the lies of the rest of the mainstream media, when this is not the case. Conservative programming engages in untruths and misrepresentations as well. Take the study from 2003 that said that viewers of Fox were the most likely to have misconceptions about the Iraq War (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102).
You are right when you say that we should temper our opinions. I completely agree. But your opinion article and, indeed, the newspaper it was run in, are biased as well. I only had to read the Bulletin once to realize it was a conservative newspaper (though I do read it often since, as I've said, it is good to read every perspective on every issue). Advocating a boycott of mainstream news except for the ones that fully agree with your views does not do anything except exacerbate the issue. If we are going to get a full perspective on the issues at hand, we must take every view into account, do our own research (Google is your friend, is easy to use, and can yield wonderful results), and then arrive at our own conclusions. This will minimize the chance of misinformation and maximize our knowledge of current events and issues. "
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
Xavier171 wrote on May 8, 2009 7:04 AM:
Media Bias Can Literally Destroy The U.S.?
Did the media focus on Bush's ties to criminals (Such as Elliott Abrams and John Poindexter)? Did the media focus on McCain's ties to a terrorist (G. Gordon Liddy)? No? OK, then.
The Importance Of The Alternative Media?
You talk about bias in the media... and then you select forms of media that, you admit BTW, have a conservative bias?
Growing More Media Boycotts?
Interesting that the successful boycott of the Sinclair Broadcast Group gets no mention.
Bringing Together All Victims Of Media Bias?
Didn't Valerie Plame get outed in the end by a media figure? Where are the 28 million Iraqis on this list? The media just stood by and cheered Bush into war.
Opening Up Presidential Press Conferences And Briefings?
That's right. We don't want any more Jeff Gannon style "reporters".
Publicizing The Media Watchdogs?
Don't forget about Media Matters for America, FAIR, ConWebWatch, and others.
Bringing Everyone Into The Anti-Bias Campaign?
Let's start a boycott of Fox News!
Reminding The Media And Everyone Else Of The Role Of The Media?
Too bad this wasn't said while the media just stood by while Bush invaded Iraq, right?
Media Bias As Part Of A Larger Problem? Educational disease? David Horowitz?
You just said it all right there. Conservatism depends upon ignorance and psychopaths like David Horowitz. "