Connecting the dots: biased main stream media

Your thoughts, please...

Generally, the main stream media more than treats the Church unfairly, they attack us. Little effort is made to get and understand facts, context is misrepresented, opposing views completely ignored. There is an obvious agenda to marginalize us. It is not about journalism but promotion of an agenda.

Why? I believe the root cause is their out-of-control leftist, liberal biases. We oppose their core values so we are enemies. Those core values are things like contraception, remarriage, homosexual marriage, abortion. They have other "issues" with us too, such as male only celibate priests.

In the US, the latest round of attacks was spurred on by (1) Easter (we are often their targets at Easter and Christmas) and (2) opposition to their abortion-friendly healthcare bill.

We are not their only target! It had not occurred to me before, but they treat other groups who are hostile to their agenda this same way. I was reading about the media's treatment of the Tea Party today and was struck by how similar it is to their treatment of the Church. Check-out these 2 links for a sample: The Teaparty Movement, The Democrat Party, Racism and Incitement! and Newsweek Covering Tea Parties With Unusual Restraint.

I am not sure how to address the problem, but I think trying to give them the facts and asking for fairness is naive. The best idea I have is to loudly boycott them and their advertisers. In particular the New York Times and Newsweek. This should not be on the basis of Catholicism, the Tea Party, or anyone else but on the basis that these publications no longer represent journalistic ideals.

What do you think?

The Easter bunny, Santa, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and the liberal media…myths.

makethemaccountable.com/myth/LiberalMedia.htm
webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html
thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2
salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/05/28/mcclellan
mydd.com/users/paul-rosenberg/posts/liberal-media-myth-goes-scientific

It’s also important to know just what role the news media is supposed to be playing in a free society.

passionateprogressivepatriot.blogspot.com/2008/10/role-of-free-press-in-free-society-by.html
firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=12047

You can write to the authors of articles that are clearly biased. I’ve done it.

You can find out how the media operates in a historical context. Pick up a copy of The Creation of the Media by Paul Starr.

You can write to advertisers, and (a) tell them you are boycotting their product and (b) tell them of your concerns, politely, about biased reporting in whatever media outlet you are referring to. Often media decisions are made with regards to statistics and not so much content. So, if you wrote to an advertiser and make him aware of biased reporting, it could have an impact. I know that some organizations respond to this, but don’t be discouraged if they don’t respond.

People at large organizations do review complaints from the public, and if no complaints come in, they can assume or believe that nothing is wrong with what they’re doing. While I respect the role of the media, it is primarily designed to make money today. It’s second function is to publish Press Releases from Washington and Hollywood, along with occasional bits of propaganda. The media is owned by human beings with certain political views. We should never forget that.

God bless,
Ed


Choose Jesus.

They’re just becoming more and more irrelevant as time goes on anyway and as it is they’re already knocking on death’s door. That is, excluding the possibility that Glorious Leader will bail them out with our tax money, push for the passing of a “fairness doctrine”, etc…

It’s always so weird to see everyone hating on the media then loving Fox news and affiliates. Generally, the media has a progressive bias as is the nature of the beast. As much as the media is biased against conservatives, conservatives are biased against the media, generally speaking.

“progressive”? Progressive for who?

God bless,
Ed


Choose Jesus.

Who else? The masses.

Put a human face on this. Media people are doing what they have to do to keep working and earn a paycheck.

Miscreants and troublemakers in media tend to get blacklisted for their “controversial” views, and then they don’t find work, and then they don’t make an income, and then they and their families suffer.

Some, like Hannity and Limbaugh, keep working because they manage to keep barreling through the barriers by sheer talent and determination and chutzpah. When all is said and done, network heads will pay attention to ratings, and these guys definitely bring in the listeners, which brings in the sponsors, which brings in the money. Same for writers like Krauthammer and Thomas–their views are so far to the right (love them both!), but since people read them, they continue to write and get published.

But so many young, local journalists in all media (print, broadcast, etc.) face opposition from older peers who have formed very liberal views over the years. If these younger media people insist on continuing a “conservative” pathway, they can very easily find themselves terminated, and when they try to find work elsewhere, they won’t be hired because the word has gone out about their “troublemaking tendencies.”

So many of them tone down conservative “bent” and attempt to present a “middle of the road” POV. Or they cave entirely and report what they have to report to keep their jobs. Maybe at first, they hope that by continuing to work and build up a following, eventually they will be able to return to their conservative roots and start reporting the “truth.” But more often than not, they start believing the junk. When everyone around you is saying something and saying it often and saying it in an intelligent, well-spoken way, it begins to sound like the truth, and those who speak the truth begin to sound like extremists.

Propagandists (e.g., Goebbels) know how easy it is to sway someone’s opinion by a continuing barrage of information (lies) and by presenting graphic images that appeal to a person’s emotions rather than logic. (e.g., the Jews = vermin) Add to that a fear of retaliation toward those who don’t “toe the line.”

I personally think it’s too bad. I would love to see people stick with their convictions even if they get fired. But I can’t say that I wouldn’t do the same thing in these tough economic times, especially if I was trying to support a family. No one wants to lose their job and work at Taco Bell. What would you do?

It seems to me that news outlets when looking for religion reporters take less care in finding them then they would other reporters.

In my opinion it seems the only thing that qualifies a person to report on religion is the fact that they were raised as x, y, or z. No knowledge based assessment or understanding of history is required. This is plainly obvious in the way the latest sex scandal articles have been covered. We’ve seen words like de-frocked use or they scream about why a certain priest wasn’t laicized. De-frocked as a Catholic or even canonical term is meaningless and it’s a word an outsider or somebody that doesn’t understand Catholicism would use to describe something they don’t understand. Another article I’d read talked about how the process of laicization for a priest has been misunderstood. Many in the media think that the best way to protect children was to laicize the predators. In some instances this would’ve just turned them loose into general society without any supervision, at least if they were still in the clerical state they would be under some authority and hopefully watched more closely.

I’ve found that if the reporters can’t get the small details right, like using terms in the way a Catholic would, then they often times miss the big story.

Unfortunately many of these writers are up against hard deadlines and it’s difficult for them to spend the time and energy to do the legwork necessary to get it right. Yes, we should demand more from our news sources, but in a society that demand instant access to information it’s hard always spend the necessary time. Perhaps what media outlets should do is instead of having full time religion reporters have reporters covering different things but proven to already know the stuff cover the occasional religion story. It might not be ideal, but the more I see from full time religion reporters the more I realize they don’t even know what they are talking about.

Afterall would we read the science section of a paper if all their articles about space exploration were written by poets or philosophers? I doubt it, so we should demand more from religion writers also.

ChadS

Being in that line of work for some 20-plus years. I can honestly tell you that you've missed the target on just about all of the assumptions above.

To me, it seems that the major news networks have trend to lean left. Local networks tend to be more centrist due to not having as much money and politics involved. There is some research that says that the media has been biased towards a conservative end, but that can be expected. The country is undergoing a cultural revolution right now. The media has been conservative in the past. Now although, there is a shift in that paradigm. So, the media can be expected to start becoming more liberal. It just due to the slow shift in the paradigm that it has not been as obvious to some as others.

[quote="UnworthyApostle, post:11, topic:194575"]
To me, it seems that the major news networks have trend to lean left. Local networks tend to be more centrist due to not having as much money and politics involved. There is some research that says that the media has been biased towards a conservative end, but that can be expected. The country is undergoing a cultural revolution right now. The media has been conservative in the past. Now although, there is a shift in that paradigm. So, the media can be expected to start becoming more liberal. It just due to the slow shift in the paradigm that it has not been as obvious to some as others.

[/quote]

I think you have some good points but I'm a little confused when you write:

There is some research that says that the media has been biased towards a conservative end, but that can be expected.

What do you mean by that? Is it that the research is flawed somehow or that you can find research that pretty much says what you want or that the research was carried out by liberals so of course they'll say the media is conservative?

The "media is liberal" meme has been around since at least the 1960s and I'm sure well before that. Heck it's been a default position for Republicans to claim that since Goldwater was running for president.

For a long time though a lot of newspapers were controlled by either political parties or their owners had definite opinions they made sure got onto the editorial page. Then it would've been difficult to characterize the media as either liberal or conservative since it depended on which paper you were reading.

I've noticed today that among commentators and opinion writers there seems to be two sets of facts -- one for conservative and one for liberals. I'd prefer to read commentators that even if they disagree can agree on the facts. Sometimes that doesn't even seem to be possible. Then of course there are commentators that get their analysis of an issue confused with the facts and write their opinion as fact -- which of course it isn't.

I don't see the media changing anytime soon so I guess we're stuck with it for the time being.

ChadS

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.