Newspapers and television news, what is known pejoratively these days as the mainstream media, were not always “fair and balanced” in their reportage. Okay, they still are not. They do try to portray themselves in that way, of course. Nevertheless, this is, in fact, a relatively recent innovation.
Take just for an example the recent John McCain story of an alleged affair with a female lobbyist, published recently by The New York Times. Suppose the Times published this story not in this year, 2008, but in 1808. It might well read like this-
SENATOR JOHM MCCAIN ENGAGED IN IMMORAL EXTRA-MARITAL AFFAIR WITH LOBBYIST
FORMER AIDS TELL SORDID TRUE STORY OF DEBAUCHERY, SCANDAL, AND CORRUPTION
JOHN MCCANE, SUPPOSED FOE OF WASHINGTON LOBBYIST INFLUENCE PEDDLING, HYPOCRITICALLY MAKES PHONE CALL ON BEHALF OF SCANTILY CLAD, ALLURING FEMALE LOBBYIST
WHAT DID JOHN MCCANE RECEIVE IN RETURN FOR HIS EFFORTS ON HER BEHALF? MONEY? SEX?
FORMER AIDS NOW IN FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES. SAYS ONE-“MCCANE IS A DERANGED PSYCHOTIC LUNATIC”.
AIDS CLAIM MCCANE GIVEN TO ENRAGED TANTRUMS, CURSING, HITTING, AND THROWING INANIMATE OBJECTS AT BELEAGUERED STAFF. IS THIS THE KIND OF MAN WE WANT IN CHARGE OF THE NATION’S NUCLEAR ARSENAL?
MCCANE KISSES A MAN ON FLOOR OF SENATE-A MAN WHO HAPPENS TO BE THE MAN WHO ALLEGEDLY TORTURED HIM AS A VIETNAM POW. IS MCCANE A BRAINWASHED CLOSET HOMOSEXUAL?
MCCANE SAID TO HAVE BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY IN RETURN FOR SPECIAL PRIVILEGES-INCLUDING SEX WITH UNDERAGE VIETNAMESE GIRLS-BOYS TOO.
MCCANE PROVEN SEX ADDICT AND UNFAITHFUL SPOUSE-DIVORCED FIRST WIFE AFTER A CRIPPLING ACCIDENT FOR PRETTIER, YOUNGER WEALTHY PRESENT WIFE TO WHOM HE IS ALSO UNFAITHFUL ON A REGULAR BASIS-PARTICULARLY WITH YOUNGER, ATTRACTIVE FEMALE LOBBYISTS.
JOHN MCCANE SUPPORTER OF AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. DOES HE WANT SEX WITH YOUNG MEXICAN CHILDREN? OR IS HE JUST IN THE TANK FOR MEXICO THE WAY HE IS FOR VIETNAM-THE COUNTRY WHO TORTURED HIM, YET WHOM HE PUSHED FOR NORMALIZATION OF RELATIONS WITH?
All the above headings are of course sub-titles that would have contained definitive text following each one. This was the style of newspapers published in the nineteenth century. This enabled a businessman, for example, to briefly scan an article and quickly get the salient, more pertinent facts. He could later peruse at his leisure the remaining article in its entirety.
The point is, newspapers were never unbiased, nor are they now. Somewhere along the line, however, editors and publishers realized they could influence more people by pretending to be so. They could also increase their circulation and subscription rates. Now, they rarely make the pretense. People are aware of the formula, which is the reason for the popularity of talk radio, other alternative media, and blogs. Awareness of the true nature of journalistic "objectivity" has seemed to foster an increasingly corresponding decrease in sales and subscriptions. People would prefer to read sources that are open and honest in their affiliations. It is in effect more honest and above board, less manipulative and coercive.
Note in the above example the use of such terms as “proven”, and the implicit tying together of strings of unrelated facts and innuendos into one cohesive unit. Much use is made of exaggeration, hyperbole, and supposition. Yet, there is not much difference at all in the above example and the recent Times article. In both cases, it is obvious where sympathies lie and where they do not. John McCane is in fact a victim of partisan, biased coverage. It is editorializing within the context of a hard news format.
The most vocal critics of newspapers and network television news programs consider them left leaning. Why is this? It might have something to do with the influence of the various schools of journalism from whence they derived their degrees. Otherwise, it is anyone's guess. I personally have long been of the opinion that the left, particularly the Democratic Party, portrays itself, accurately or not, as more ardent supporters of the First Amendment, especially when it comes to freedom of the press.
Whatever the reason, it is hard to avoid the reality that newspaper editorial boards, even in large areas that tend to lean Republican and conservative, tend to be more liberal than not, or at least left-of-center. Moreover, we live in an age where there are seemingly but a few major conglomerates who own vast holdings of newspapers. There is little in the way of competition. Admittedly, there always seems to be, even in the most liberal newspapers, the obligatory conservative op-ed columnist or two. The New York Times, for example, has recently hired William Kristol as a conservative columnist.
Still, the overall make-up of the editorial staff of most major metropolitan newspapers is liberal. That, in fact, is acceptable up to a point, problematic though it is in it's own right. Where it becomes increasingly problematic is when editorial positions tend to bleed, as they all too often seem to do, into the major front-page news stories. In the case of those politicians and candidates a papers editorial board might be more inclined to support, any negative story concerning them might in many cases end up buried in the back pages, if not altogether ignored.
It has been validly stated, for example, that the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal might well have ended up so buried or otherwise ignored were it not for the efforts of Matt Drudge.
In what might be an attempt at damage control, the New York Times ombudsman has written this article denouncing at least the more salacious and unsubstantiated allegations of the original story. Nevertheless, damage to the Times overall credibility might be irreparable for at least the short term.
Is the Times original story author an Obama/Clinton/Democratic Party supporter? While there is no definitive proof of this, it is certainly easy to jump to that conclusion. After all, there is no definitive proof of the allegations against McCain within this front-page “news” article. Just a series of allegations, wholly unproven and unsubstantiated, derived mainly from anonymous sources said to be former aids who experienced a falling out with the Senator.
If the same author happened unexpectedly to walk into a room where Barak Obama was in the process of devouring a live infant, one wonders what his response would be. Would he write a story about the experience? Would the Times publish it? More than likely, they would. Their journalistic integrity might compel them to. By the same token, the story might well end up buried well into the middle of the paper-maybe under the gourmet food section.
