MEDIA BIAS MYTH? Blogger Jeff Jarvis, a longtime journalist at some big publications, has been posting a lot about media bias recently. I generally like Jeff's stuff, but I've got to disagree with his premise. Basically, he says media bias is a big myth. Well, I work at a big newspaper, too, and have worked at newspapers of various sizes for the past 12 years. As a former liberal who has become more  "conservative" (actually libertarianish), I can report that it ain't no myth. Jarvis himself explains why:

"They say that the bias hounds are merely arguing that most reporters are liberal, rather than being part of liberal cabal."
That's what I say, too, and sometime I'll get around to posting some real-world examples I've encountered. In light of all that's been written about media bias, it certainly seems like a reasonable, real-world explanation. After all, reports and surveys indicate that something like 93 percent of journalists vote Democratic.

"But I still say that is an indication of a conspiracy mentality, of paranoia."
So pointing out that there's a large group of people (journalists) who shape public opinion and hold very similar views is a "conspiracy mentality." Interesting. When "the media" pointed out that a lot of President Bush's appointees happened to be members of the Federalist Society, that was considered quite a scoop because it indicated a certain level of "bias" among a group of people who are supposed to be objective.

"I still say that is a simplistic view of the world that does not take into account the intelligence, sincerity, professionalism, independence, and stubbornness of both reporters and their audiences. It is essentially insulting to both."
Well, I say you can be intelligent, sincere, professional, independent and stubborn and STILL be biased. In fact, some of the most biased people in history were wildly successful at getting their message out BECAUSE they had all of those traits.

"The media neighborhood is crowded with conservative bastions once you get past the NY Times and Washington Post: Tribune Company, Dow Jones, Time Inc., News Corp., Hearst, to name a few."
Come on. Tribune Company, Time Inc., Hearst are NOT especially conservative (especially TIME); News Corp.'s newspapers are mostly in England and Australia. I noticed he failed to mention two of America's biggest chains: Gannett and Knight-Ridder. Most definitely liberal. He also should have included the L.A. Times and the Boston Globe with the NY Times and WaPo in his short list of big-time bastions of liberalism.

"In the end, liberal media bias is still a conspiracy theory and it is born out of one simple fact: Conservatives are by nature paranoid."
Let's see: Who's trying desperately to find a vast conspiracy in this Enron mess? Or the "military-industrial complex"? Or the "prison-industrial complex"? Or the JFK assassination? Or the CIA selling crack cocaine? If there's one hallmark of liberal investigative journalism, it's unwavering faith in the conspiracy theory. That's partly because Marxist-influenced thought (face it, that's what's taught in universities; it's certainly what I was taught and once accepted) is in many ways the mother of all conspiracy theories.

"The truth is that everyone -- reporters, editors, executives, newsmakers, and most especially readers -- has a perspective (a nicer word than bias) and inevitably view(s) the world through or around that perspective. That is not bias. That is the free give-and-take of democracy and individual expression."
Trevor Butterworth, in a "Washington Post" review of William McGowan's "Coloring the News," answers this one: "Certainly, no journalism conference is complete without some genius making the objective claim that there is no such thing as objectivity. But while a God's-eye-view of how the universe really works is beyond the reach of mortal thought, the idea of journalistic objectivity never resided in such grand epistemological goals; its aim was fairness -- to ensure that readers hear both sides of an issue. Skepticism -- the permanent itch of the fourth estate -- derives from the corruptibility of facts and people, and not from academic unease with the metaphysics of being. It's a fair bet that (Jacques) Derrida expects fair and factual reporting in his morning newspaper -- otherwise, what use would news be?" Makes sense to me.

So just as I decry the PC fundamendalists, I decry the MB (media bias) inquisitors; they all assume that we, the audience, we the people, are too stupid to be able to judge on our own what is true and what is sensible and what we believe. That is a bias shared by the media and anti-media alike, by left and right alike; that is an undemocratic and essentially insulting bias."
It seems to me that there wouldn't be "media bias inquisitors" if some folks in the "audience" hadn't pointed out the media bias in the first place (i.e. the Smartertimes guy). Judging by Bernard Goldberg's book sales, there's obviously an "audience" for this sort of thing. But in Jarvis' view, Goldberg's whistleblowing is equated with an undemocratic paternalism, when in fact Goldberg should be applauded for being the watchdog of the watchdogs. Jarvis also assumes that the media have no real-world consequences, when they clearly do. Just one example: Statistics that grossly inflate the number of women who are assaulted each year have been (with few exceptions) accepted without question by the media. This drumbeat of false information, widely disseminated in the press, led to the passage of the Violence Against Women Act that sought to federalize certain crimes. (For a more thorough discussion, see Christina Hoff Summers' "Who Stole Feminism?")