Or was it? Whenever I bring up the topic of liberal bias in the media with one of my many Democrat friends I tend to get a response not unlike one you'd give a wild-eyed man who just told you that aliens took him up for a probe on the Mother Ship last night. They vary in tone but the gist is usually "You're crazy and you're imagining this." Now, I have very few arguments against my lack of sanity. I was just talking to myself about it this morning. In fact, four out of the five voices in my head agree that something is wrong with me. But I know I'm not imagining the leftward tilt of the mainstream media in this country.
Up until now, if you trotted out facts in support of bias claims you would run into the same problems. First, Democrats are allergic to facts. This allergy enables them to ignore global terrorism and spend their lives in a panic about Manhattan being swallowed by the Atlantic ocean. There's a better chance that Manhattan will be swallowed by Al Gore during a business lunch than by a melting glacier.
The second problem is that the sources of media bias facts would be questioned. You'd be told that Brent Bozell is conservative, so he just finds what he wants to find. Or that Bernard Golberg is disgruntled and has an ax to grind. Sooner or later, they'd find a way to say it was all funded by Big Oil.
But look at who just published the latest set of facts supporting the bias claim. Newt Gingrich? No. Me? I told you I'm busy talking to myself a lot lately. Darth O'Reilly over at Fox News? Nope. That renowned conservative think tank, Harvard University, gives us today's numbers to chew on. Not even your most ardent left wing conspiracy nut will be able to downplay the news by claiming that Harvard suddenly drank the Kool-Aid.
Here are the results of the joint survey done by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. To those of us who have been paying attention to reality instead of cartoons about drowning polar bears, none of these results are surprising. CNN is the most hostile to Republicans. Really?!?!? Next you'll be telling me that Joan Rivers has had some work done on her face. Seriously, people.
PBS (American Pravda) threw up a big goose egg in the percentage of stories favorable to the GOP. NPR (American Pravda Morning Edition) went negative on Republicans almost four times as much as they did Democrats. The article doesn't mention Katie Couric because, well, nobody mentions Katie Couric any more. Naturally, according to most of the media, Barack Obama should skip the presidency altogether and go right to sainthood. Every time we see him stumble in his own b.s. he seems to land in halo polish as far as the press is concerned.
What I've never understood is why the modern media can't just own up to its political leanings. A New York Times reporter who feigns objectivity is either a phenomenal actor or abusing Xanax. It's like parents pretending they think all the other babies are as cute as theirs. I used to avoid contact with other parents when my daughter was little just so I wouldn't have to fake a compliment about some little troll baby. When you're a parent you think none of the other children measure up to your own and when you work at the New York Times you think all Republicans are the spawn of Satan. Let's admit it already!
Hey, let's use one of the liberals favorite arguments against them: they do it in Europe! Remember, according to the Left, if it happens in Europe it's even more awesome than Obama. Newspapers all over Europe, especially England, not only proclaim their political leanings, they boast about them. Let's stop pretending that the New York Times is ever going to endorse a Republican for president again and get on with the business of the day. I don't see why the Left is against this, it makes perfect sense...oh...
Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell
|