Sunday, March 3, 2013


There is a constant debate in America about which way the media bias leans. After all, shouldn’t the media be objective?




There is no such thing as an objective point of view.


No matter how much we may try to ignore it, human communication always takes place in a context.


The collective influences on a message are its bias.


Bias in and of itself does not make a message incorrect or unfair, but it is important for the reader to understand it exists.


The journalistic ethics of objectivity and fairness are strong influences on the profession. So are the views of editors and senior management, and the pressures from external forces, such as advertisers and shareholders.


The ethical heights journalists set for themselves are not always reached.


A bigger problem than bias is the media’s ability to decide what is and is not news.


Hundreds of thousands of pro-life demonstrators gathered in Washington, D.C. on January 25 for the annual March For Life, in protest against of legalized abortion.


However, judging from the "news" coverage of the major television networks and daily papers, this event never occurred.


This is NOT a post about pro-life/pro-choice positions, nor is it about gun control, although that subject gets a mention below.


Nor is it a post about liberalism versus conservatism. As I have said before, there is a time for both, when they are being practiced appropriately (which we do NOT do in the United States Socialist Republic).


What this post IS, is a post about the responsibility of the media to report the news.


Even if you are a major news outlet pushing a pro-choice agenda, wouldn’t you be hard pressed to argue that this march was not a reportable event?


The day’s event was not mentioned at all on major news broadcasts that evening.


Not a single syllable of coverage.


Do you know what was given thirty seconds?


Whether or not Subway’s “five-dollar foot-longs” were, in fact, only eleven inches long!


Thirty seconds on a half hour news broadcast, where roughly twenty minutes is news content.


That means there are forty blocks of thirty seconds each available for the news stories of the day.


And one of those forty precious blocks of time was devoted to delivering the American people from the evils of shortened hoagie rolls.


THAT is what passes for national news these days!
Granted, the Christian Bible has a lot to say about the five-dollar foot long issue.
You only have to look to the Sermon On The Mountain and the miracle of the loaves and fishes to see hoagies mentioned.
In fact, this event marks the first sighting of the hoagie sandwich, which was blessed!
But I think that the march was a little more news-worthy.


Was the omission of the March For Life the furthering of the media’s agenda against life, or was it simply a decision that the Subway “scandal” would attract more viewers?


I am sure you will find people who will argue both. Maybe it is even a little of both.


Interestingly enough, the next day, all major media covered a much smaller demonstration (1,000 marchers) looking for gun control.


Hmmm…a demonstration that was 99.8 percent SMALLER than the March For Life was given coverage by the networks, and coincidentally, the larger demonstration was for a cause contrary to the major network agenda, and the insignificant one was is alignment with their agenda.


Are you certain the media is not pushing an agenda?


Saying that half a million people were too silly to stay in out of the cold is bias.


Failing to cover them at all is something far more devious.


And I would caution any reader who is pro-choice who may be reading this and thinking, “good-screw them, pro-lifers,” to beware.


Today the media may be backing YOUR cause.


But what about tomorrow?


Will the media always be there to support your cause?


Freedom of the press carries with it responsibility. Is our press shirking theirs?


Note to Stephen T. McCarthy, who left a comment about the missing text in my original post even though it looked fine when I previewed it-it was easier to delete that post and start over, hence your missing comment. Thanks, though, for alerting me to the snafu.


  1. To answer your question: Yes. The media is without doubt shirking their responsibility. They are not even trying to be responsible "journalists." In fact, they are flaunting it in anyone's face (who is looking) they are part of a Propaganda Machine. What amazes me is the number of people who actually believe they are watching "news."

    1. Agreed, Robin, in fact the question was somewhat rhetorical.

      They hide behind a farce of "objectivity" but the extreme bias, obvious agenda (that has decided the last two elections) and (I like the way you put) disregard for responsible journalism that has them pretending certain stories that do not further their cause DID NOT EVEN HAPPEN!

      But as long as America knows what color underwear the Kardasians are wearing, their quest for knowledge is sated.


    Glad I could be there for ya!

    I was aware of the fact that the very large Pro-Life march on Washington was utterly ignored by the mainstream media. I had also heard about the (major!) Subway sandwich controversy (thanks to Arlee Bird's 'Tossing It Out' blog post).

    But what I DIDN'T know is that ON THE SAME NIGHT a segment on the (major!) Subway sandwich controversy aired while the Pro-Life march on Washington was ignored! Great catch there! Boy, does that ever tell us something.

    In truth, anyone with their eyes and ears open knew there was a significant mainstream media Liberal bias long, long before 2002. But after 2002 the argument should have completely ended thanks primarily to two books:

    'BIAS: A CBS Insider Exposes How The Media Distort The News' by Bernard Goldberg.

    Goldberg himself was a self-professed Liberal, but he had enough of a conscience to throw a harsh spotlight on the way the media deliberately distorts the news it airs and favors the Libs.

    The same year, Ann Coulter published 'SLANDER: Liberal Lies About The American Right'.

    That is definitely one of her very best books (maybe even #1, amongst those I've read). And that book just completely blew-up any remaining mythical ideas about an even-handed, objective media. It was funny (as usual); and with that book she basically just put a cherry bomb in the collective Liberal media butt and exploded it!

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    1. Stephen- I have to credit The New American with the inspiration and the research that uncovered the "Subway" crisis.

      I can live with the bias, because as my opening remarks state, there will always be some bias.

      What is going on is far more deplorable.

      Ron Paul was IGNORED by the media in the last two primaries, even though his campaign had set funding records and was a serious second place in many states. The media prevented him from winning.

      King Obama was ANNOINTED as royalty by the media-even his failures are twisted by their writers to look like a Republican plot against him.

      Maybe I am being too literalwith my use of bias, but I think Ann Coulter is more accurate-much of what the media says is nothing short of slander!


  3. I like this blog! I only wish I had found it about 12 months ago. So much to agree with, and nothing to disagree with. The only problem is, it's Hannity, only the choir sees/hears/reads it (sad). Reason? Either the liberals are not interested, or they can't read? If they can read, too dense to be logical with "independent" thinking. And, they like money from Soros?