Understanding Media Bias

  Media Bias doesn't exist as Republicans would have us think it does, as they would have us believe that there is an active liberal agenda within all facets of the media (print, TV, blog, etc).  The first thing to know is that there is a big difference between a 'bias' and an 'agenda'.  

LIBERAL AGENDA

  I don't believe in a Liberal Agenda within the media.  An agenda is knowingly going out and distorting the facts in order to promote your own personal views.  I don't believe that is happening on a mass scale, certainly not as some sort of collective agreement between different forms of media.  There are no dark rooms where Katie Couric and Chris Matthews are meeting and discussing ways to destroy Republicans.  Brian Williams is not meeting over coffee with the editors of the New York Times, planning on new and awesome ways to distort the public record and get Obama elected.  That just isn't happening, and in order to have an effective Liberal agenda you'd have to prove some organization between the different media outlets.  On the flip side, a journalist portraying themselves as un-baised while holding a personal agenda is obvious, and generally more annoying than damaging (Chris Matthews, I'm looking at you).  

LIBERAL BIAS

  Liberal Bias is something completely different than Liberal Agenda.  Every single person on this earth has a political bias, even if there is no conventional name (Republican, Democrat) for it.  If you have an opinion, you have a bias.  Bias can certainly lead to an agenda, but even an agenda isn't a necessarily bad thing.  Personally, I don't care if a journalist has a bias.  But there are questions about their bias that are important to know the answers to. 1) Is their bias publicly known, or are they pretending to be unbiased?  2) What is their bias?  3) Why do they hold that bias?   

  I believe it is important to know the answers to these questions.  As an example, lets look at this blog.

THE MILBURN GRAVY TRAIN

1) Is my bias publicly known?

  It is important for bias to be publicly known, because the pundits out there trying in vain to be completely bias-free are dangerous.  Once the perception that they are bias-free is accepted, whatever that person says or reports is much more likely to be accepted as fact.  Not only that, but people believe it to be the whole story, which might not be the case.  It would be much more powerful if we knew where they were standing from the get go.  I don't try to hide my bias on this blog.  I don't pretend to be opinion-less.  I present my case for the issues based on the opinions I have formed (my bias), and leave it at that.  I want people to take it further though, and in order to really understand where I am coming from, you have to know what my bias is.  What is it that motivates my opinions? 

2) What is my bias?

  There are certain quotes that help clarify my opinions (bias) about government, and I've mentioned most of them here before.

Thomas Paine: "That government is best that governs least."  

  "Government, even it its best state is but a necessary evil.  In its worst state, an intolerable one." 

Daniel Milburn: "If government is the answer, it must have been a stupid question."

Daniel Webster: "There are men in all ages that mean to govern well, but they mean to govern.  They promise    to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

  I am naturally inclined to be skeptical of government and those who want to take part in it.  Our first presidents, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, had to be coaxed out of retirement to take the office of President.  And when their campaigning began, the candidates themselves didn't do any of the actual leg work.  Jefferson sat at Monticello and left convincing the public to James Madison and others.  He didn't do any of his actual campaigning.  To do otherwise was actually viewed as automatically disqualifying the person for the job!  The early presidents wanted nothing to do with government, with Jefferson going as far as saying "every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone" (translated to the 20th century,  "people suck, and they'll ruin the government if you let them") and "I have no ambition to govern men, it is a painful and thankless office."  As of yesterday, Senator Obama has spent over $600 million trying to convince the American public that he is the one who can bring change to Washington.  Senator McCain hasn't spent nearly as much, but only because he isn't popular with his party's base, and no one wants to give him their money!  We're treated to campaign slogans about how one candidate is a 'Maverick' who will change things in Washington, while the other candidate has already designed his own presidential seal!  Who wouldn't be skeptical of these people?

  I make no effort to hide my bias because I am not biased towards a particular candidate or a party.  I do not try to be objective when it comes to the politicians themselves, but I do try very hard to be objective towards truthful positions and policies, whatever they may be.  I hold the positions I do because I think they have proved trustworthy over the history of our country.  Since I try to be objective when it comes to policy decisions, I am not against changing my mind if I think the truth lies outside my current understanding.  Having this type of mindset frees me to discuss both candidates with honesty.  So if when reading my blog you come the the conclusion that I favor one candidate over the other, you know that I got to that position not because of a loyalty I owe to a party, but because of my loyalty to my underlying theory on government.  To be clear, I don't like either one of the candidates.  I do think one is wrong less often than the other, but I base that belief not on my bias towards a political party or tendency to being swayed by a beautiful political speech, but my bias towards small government and skepticism of political leaders.

3) Why do I hold that bias?

  I believe it holds merit, based on these certain points.  I think our Founders were wise men, certainly more wise than most of our current leaders.  As a result, I believe it would be wise of us to listen to what they believed and how they set up this country to operate.  I also believe God didn't design government,  but our broken relationship with him necessitates it, so the smaller the better.  And perhaps most basic, I believe human beings are imperfect even when well meaning.  We screw stuff up, so the less power we give them the better.  I believe all of this is very well documented throughout history, repeated time and time again, and is something that can be relied on in the future.  

CURRENT MEDIA BIAS

  Those in the media are like you and me, they talk about things that interest them.  Because of that, the pertinent question isn't whether all media is conspiring to sink one candidate or another, but how each individual journalist is motivated to report on a particular story or not.  

Example 1:

  Recently Governor Palin made a pretty ridiculous comment about loving to visit certain parts of the country because they are more "pro-American" than others.  Of course she is referring to her like of Republican areas, which I would imagine some left-leaning Americans would take issue with.  Jon Stewart heard this comment, and replied in his own way by saying "F*$& You" and lamenting about it on The Daily Show.  A lot of Americans heard about this story, as it was reported on most major news networks.  The odd thing is, Jon Stewart didn't make a mention about Senator Obama's speech in San Francisco, where he said small town Americans "are bitter, clinging to their guns and their God with antipathy towards those not like them."  Antipathy means a dislike or hatred, and hating those not like you is called bigotry.  On one had you have a Governor calling certain Americans unpatriotic, and a Senator calling other Americans bigots.  Jon Stewart focused on the story that interested him, which I have no problem with (other than studies have shown most 20-somethings get their news from places like the Daily Show, so perhaps some bias would negatively affect the campaign).  

Example 2:

  Everyone has heard of Dan Quayle misspelling Potato.  Has anyone heard of Joe Biden saying, "For Obama, this election is about a three letter word: J-O-B-S, Jobs!"?  We all know how Governor Palin didn't mention which magazines she reads when interviewed by Couric, and she was thusly portrayed as aloof because of it.  She is also portrayed as a redneck with her accent and little colloquialisms.  Does everyone know about Joe Biden saying "When the stock market crashed, FDR got on Television and said, "Look, here's what happened."  Never mind the fact that the market crashed in 1929, Hoover was president, and there was no television.  Had Governor Palin said that, we would still be talking about it.  Why do we believe Governor Palin is a moron when she says those things, but just assume it's "Joe being Joe" when he screws up?

Example 3:

  Charlie Gibson interviewed both Senator Obama and Governor Palin.  Here is a list of the questions he asked each candidate.  

Questions asked to Senator Obama:

 - How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?

 - How does it feel to "win"?

 - How does your family feel about your "winning" breaking a glass ceiling?

 - Who will be your VP?

 - Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?

 - Will you accept public finance?

 - What issues is your campaign about?

 - Will you visit Iraq?

 - Will you debate McCain at a town hall?

 - What did you think of your competitor's (Clinton) speech?

Questions asked to Governor Palin:

 - Do you have enough qualifications for the job you're seeking?

 - Specifically, have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?

 - Aren't you conceited to be seeking this high level job?

 - Questions about foreign policy:

 - Territorial integrity of Georgia

 - Allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO

 - NATO treaty

 - Iranian nuclear threat

 - What to do if Israel attacks Iran

 - The motivations of Al Qaeda

 - The Bush Doctrine

 - Attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan

 - Is America fighting a holy war?

  Now, I think all the questions asked of Governor Palin were legitimate.  But, what was going on with the questions Gibson asked Senator Obama?  Palin isn't running for president, but Obama is, and I think here Gibson exhibits a perfect example of how a bias will affect a journalist.  We know that the Gibson and Couric issues had a very profound affect on people's views on who Governor Palin is, so in this case Gibson's bias (or, playing devil's advocate, perhaps he is just really bad at his job) had a really potent affect on Senator McCain's candidacy.  

  The issue isn't collusion between media outlets, it is rather each individual journalists bias and how it affects their reporting.  If you get enough liberal or conservative journalists, their bias will lead to a trend towards more negative stories about one candidate than the other.  

  A recent study by the Project of Excellence in Journalism, after comparing stories in print and on TV, found that stories about McCain are more often negative on a 2-1 margin compared to those about Obama.  Additionally, late night comedians malign Republicans more than Democrats on a 7-1 margin.  How dangerous this is is really in the eye of the beholder.  I would hope that people read more than just one paper, watch more than just one news organization, and actively read political papers from both Republican and Democrats in order to get a well rounded view.  This only becomes a real problem if most voters don't follow due diligence, but are rather convinced to vote for someone based on what they hear in the every day media.  In reality that might be more the case, as Churchill has said "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."  I doubt he would have been so skeptical if the average voter was more informed than they are.

CONCLUSION

  Bias isn't that big of a deal, I just want to know what people are biased towards.  I started this blog referencing the sad fact that most aren't biased towards the truth or even a theory on government.  Most people are biased towards a political party, and by extension a particular politician.  That leads to more emotional debates, as people are now defending "my guy" rather than trying to get to the heart of the matter.  If taxing corporations more actually generates more jobs in a real world application, and someone can give an example of that, then lets talk about it.  If someone can demonstrate that a move towards socialistic policies (including those passed by President Bush recently) are a good thing, then please demonstrate that.  Until that time, I feel very comfortable resting on the side of our Founders, whose political philosophies have produces the most prosperous nation with the best standard of living in the history of the world.