Published: October 23, 2009 10:47 am      

Half the story is never enough

By Kelly Young

Guest Columnist

A recent poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports reveals that nine out of every 10 Americans believe that the mainstream media’s coverage of the 2008 presidential election helped candidate Barack Obama secure the win last November. Which begs only one question – where can we get protective foam helmets for the other 10 percent?

These polling results should come as no surprise to anyone who has sat through Brian Williams, Katie Couric and their ilk gushing about Obama’s newest “bold,” “daring” or “refreshing” initiative to reshape America, anyone who has witnessed the regular evisceration of conservative leaders by “impartial” mainstream news outlets, anyone who has been appalled by the repeated use of a vulgar sexual term to describe the tea party movement or anyone who has laughed their way through the softball questions tossed by supposedly serious-minded, career journalists during fawning interviews with Our Great Leader.

Rasmussen’s numbers go on to indicate that 70 percent of likely American voters feel the press is actively promoting the Obama presidency, and 56.4 percent of respondents believe the MSM is pushing the president’s healthcare reform plan “without objective criticism.” A majority, 57.6 percent, also felt that the news media is coordinating efforts in a bid to delegitimize former Alaskan governor and vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin.

The bias in American journalism is so blatant that it can only be explained either by a rhetorical conspiracy to denigrate conservatism at every turn while ignoring stories which paint liberal policy in a less than sterling light or by rampant, staggering incompetency.

In a recent editorial the New York Times came down on the issue on the side of ineptitude. After responding to the ACORN video scandal with glacial slowness and failing to report on the numerous indiscretions of ex-Obama staffer Van Jones until he had been forced to resign, NYT said the shortcomings had nothing to do with bias, just “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.”

I feel that Mike Baker of the People’s Weekly Brief would know just how to respond to such a denial. What a load of crap.

The Business & Media Institute did a great article last week that illustrates just how much the messenger can twist the news to fit their own message. The piece contrasted two stories by ABC’s Charles Gibson, both done when the nation’s unemployment rate was at the exact same level of 9.4 percent.

The first story was done in 1982, and focused on how Ronald Reagan’s (conservative) economic policies had injected a spirit of “hopelessness” into the nation. Yet in 2009 under Our Great Leader (liberal), Gibson announced identical unemployment numbers with an air of optimism, saying “sometimes a bad jobs report can look good.”

According to BMI, the media was 13 times more critical of the administration under Reagan than under Obama. Ninety-one percent of stories done in 1982 regarding employment levels were negative, compared to only seven percent this year. It’s silly to try defending a discrepancy of that magnitude while steadfastly touting one’s own impartiality – and yet boy does the MSM try.

As a journalist who worked for years in a bullpen that did it’s level best to avoid political bias, I can’t imagine what it’s like at one of the flagship liberal newspapers when it comes time to hand out assignments.

Do they all stand around and have a good laugh before throwing pro-conservative stories in the trash? Even the staunchest liberal bastions include the rare pro-republican article amidst their waves of liberal dross as a very transparent and ultimately failed attempt at the illusion of parity. Are those sporadic pieces treated like booby prizes amongst the editorial staffers – forced upon the newbies as a form of office hazing? Or is it rather viewed as a badge of honor for social progressive writers to convincingly produce a piece that so fundamentally conflicts with their personal ethos? Or in their self-deluded heart of hearts do why honestly believe they are objective?

Nearly half of the respondents in the Rasmussen poll (45.9 percent) said that they have permanently stopped watching specific media sources, either electronic or in print, because of their perceived bias.

From a purely fiscally pragmatic viewpoint that stat would perk up my ears if I were a network executive because viewers are leaving mainstream media sources in droves and are immigrating into the Fox News Nation. Viewership for all three of the major networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) has gone down precipitously in the past year, and the latest Abritron ratings indicate that the so-called “cable wars” have evolved into a massacre.

The ratings show that 13 of the 15 most-watched cable news shows are on Fox News, including each of the top 10. FNC now boasts nearly double the daily viewership of CNN and MSNBC combined.

For decades Americans have been getting only one side of the story, which explains why Fox News has been able to ascend to cable dominance over such a short period of time. Conservatives have been starving for a news product that doesn’t belittle their beliefs or demean their values.

It would behoove the networks to take a long look at their recent losses in viewership and to ponder what those numbers say about the make-up of America. So far only 46 percent have changed their watching habits due to political bias, but I have no doubt that the defections will continue for as long as the press continues to marginalize voices it disagrees with.



Kelly Young is a former reporter for the Jacksonville Daily Progress