The Partisan Press

LJWorld.com weblogs Devin Lowell's Community Journalism Blog

Posted by Dlowell October 26, 2009 at 3 a.m.

The issue of media bias is certainly not a new one to be discussed in the public forum, but in recent years it has been increasingly mentioned, during both political campaigns and major policy battles. Last year, we saw spokespeople for Senator McCain's campaign claiming that the New York Times is no longer a legitimate news source, and now we see it again in the Obama administration's recent tiffs with Fox News. Some people are concerned with the alleged press bias one way or the other, and have grown cynical toward the media as the fourth estate. I acknowledge that many media outlets do have an editorial bias, but Americans should analyze the reporting done by places like the Times as wholly separate from the (quite-existent) bias.

First off, we should not immediately discount news sources based on their biases, because the idea of a partisan press is not new in American democracy. In fact, the concept of objectivity is the newcomer to the political press arena. It used to be that newspapers were published specifically in favor of one candidate or set of ideals, and these biases were stated. Now, in the case of television outfits like Fox News and MSNBC, they might as well come right out and say who and what they advocate for, because viewers already know. However, I have been involved in more than one political discussion in which I would reference a New York Times or other newspaper story to support my claims, only to have it decried as being lies fabricated by the liberal media. Now, while I know that yes, the Old Grey Lady has a left-leaning agenda, I have enough faith that it does not compromise the professional integrity or ethics of the reporting staff. In fact, much integrity has been sacrificed in the name of objectivity over the last decade or so. There was the admittedly poor work of Judith Miller, the Times, and really most American media during the run-up to the Iraq War. As the fourth estate, they should have been asking questions about the war instead of cheerleading it. Also, reporters sometimes work too hard in an attempt to show "both sides" of an issue like climate change, when in fact one of those sides is composed only of kooks and "scientists" on Exxon's payroll.

Also, this facade of objectivity and the alleged necessity of it is purely an American concept. In the United Kingdom, newspapers have preset and publicly-known political allegiances. The Guardian leans left, the Times of London is the centrist paper, and The Daily Telegraph is the Tory rag. Everybody knows it, and often your political affiliation is made known to your fellow Tube riders on the way to work every morning by what paper you've got. The British still seem to hold some faith in the capability and truthfulness of their media, even if it's publicly politicized.

So I guess what I'm saying is that political bias in the media shouldn't be a big deal. It's been around forever, and is still the main modus operandi in most other countries. Those media outlets should just come right out and say who or what they root for. Now what readers and consumers of media in our American democracy should do is assess the quality of the reporting as something wholly independent of that paper, television network, or website's partisan links. I'm certainly not saying that every media outlet has good reporting. They most certainly do not. It might be my own political bias, but my assessment of Fox's reporting is that it's atrocious.

Copy and paste the link:

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

ashleym (anonymous) says…

I would argue that MSNBC's reporting is atrocious, while Fox's problem is that it does too little reporting and too much opinion.

Otherwise I completely agree with you. Readers should be (and I sincerely hope they are) capable of seeing past biases. I also think it is good for people to read or watch news from sources with a bias opposite to their own. The differences often further illuminate bias and the similarities strengthen the weight of facts in readers' minds.
October 26, 2009 at 11:40 a.m.
jimmyjms (anonymous) says…

"Readers should be (and I sincerely hope they are) capable of seeing past biases."

I'm afraid you're destined to be disappointed there.

I think MSNBC's reporting is no better or worse than any other news as entertainment outlet.

The thing that kills me about Fox is their meme in which one of their opinion people will say something outrageous, and then the news people report on it with some nonsense like "people are saying...". That's a violation of the basic tenants of journalism.
October 26, 2009 at 11:59 a.m.
lauren_keith (Lauren Keith) says…

I really dislike television "news," unless it's the likes of Jon Stewert or Stephen Colbert, but then we're into a whole different conversation. The Internet is still on the 24-hour news cycle, but no one is desperately posting stuff to the Web like msnbc/cnn/Fox broadcast stories full of nothing.
October 26, 2009 at 5:28 p.m.
autie (anonymous) says…

the fourth estate and yellow journalism..nothing new here.
October 26, 2009 at 5:40 p.m.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

Objectivity in journalism is overblown as a goal. So what if a paper or newscaster leans one way or another? If their bias colors their reporting too much then they will lose readers or viewers. In other words, the free market helps to keep them in line. Especially with the internet, where information is so cheap and easy to access, overly biased reporting--to the point where it's an out-and-out lie--will be quickly uncovered.
October 26, 2009 at 5:59 p.m.
ashaw (anonymous) says…

I think the unfortunate thing about media outlets with political bias is that it gels too well with what people naturally do. Studies show that people read and retain what they already believe. So if someone already thinks that climate change is a hoax, then they will pick up a paper or turn to a station that will affirm this for them. Which goes against the nature of journalism - to inform the public. Instead we're just spoon-feeding them exactly what they want to hear.
October 27, 2009 at 11:44 a.m.
avossen (Adam Vossen) says…

It's been shown that people already seek out journalism that supports their own opinions. If newspapers did state their allegiance, it could be assumed that this would only happen more. Wouldn't this only further narrow people's information input?
October 28, 2009 at 12:51 p.m.