The Objective Media Myth

I am always amused by many of my progressive friends who insist that the media is not liberally biased, or at worst are products of corporate and not progressive bias.  The fact that so many of these well-meaning people don't even recognize the intrinsic liberal bias in the mainstream media based on what they report, how they report it, and what they choose NOT to report is quite telling.  

I saw a recent article that is further damning to the notion that the mainstream media is objective.  A few points of interest in particular are the following:

·        96 percent of the donations given by journalists in the 2016 presidential election as of August were to Hillary Clinton, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

·        7 percent of journalists identify as Republican, while 28 percent identify as Democrat, according to an Indiana University School of Journalism study conducted in 2013.

·        “Of the major newspapers that endorsed either Clinton or Trump, only 3 percent (2 of 59) endorsed Trump,” noted FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver.

Just some more evidence of the "objectivity" of our mainstream media -- but then us true conservatives already knew these truths.

A Joke and the Mainstream Media

A decidedly left-of-center political bias by the mainstream media is a well-known fact by nearly all Americans with the exception of those hyper-left partisans, and of course by the media itself who still cynically claim to be objective.   With that said, and in light of the disgustingly sycophantic coverage of Obama in this election cycle while portraying Romney as Beelzebub himself, I thought the following story was appropriate.  While the story is fictional, of course, and meant as a cynical joke, one almost wonders if it is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility that this is something that could theoretically be broadcasted on MS-NBC or printed in the New York Times to further denigrate those of us that refuse to kowtow to the progressive ideology.  

 A Harley Biker is riding by the zoo in Washington, DC when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the collar of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage, and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.

Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back thus letting go of the girl.  The biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A reporter has watched the whole event.

The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, "Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole life."

The Harley rider replies, "Why, it was nothing really; the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right."

The reporter says, "Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page... So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?”

The biker replies, “I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican.”

The journalist leaves.

The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions and consequently reads on the front page:

"U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH"

...  and THAT pretty much sums up the media's approach to the news these days.

The Society of Professional Journalists Calls on Members to Not Use the Term "Illegal Alien" in Their Reporting

Note: It would seem that a "clarification" that I either missed or more likely which was added after my having read the original source material for my posting states that the Society of Professional Journalists has not endorsed the restraining of the usage of this terminology.  Rather, the clarification states that a member of the SPJ has written an opinion piece encouraging such  constraints on members of the SPJ in their reporting.  The Society as a whole has not endorsed this at this date.

It would seem that the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) is trying to improve their "objectivity" as their Diversity Committee is calling on news reporters nationwide to drop the term “illegal immigrant” and "illegal alien" from their news coverage in an effort to “inform and sensitize” people on how “offensive” the phrase is to Latinos.

I would submit to the SPJ that their current efforts to restrain journalists' usage of the terms "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" only goes to show their distinct bias and lack of objectivity in their own reporting.  First, the fact that they claim that the need to change these "pejorative labels" to the milder term "undocumented worker" as the former terms are offensive to Latinos strikes me as quite stereotypical and subjective of the SPJ.  Are all illegal aliens in this country only of Latino heritage?  Are they they the only sub-group of illegals that are offended by these terms?  I am quite certain that there are tens of thousands of non-Latino people in this country that would also accurately be classified as "illegal aliens" and similarly take offense.

Further, the fact that the SPJ finds it necessary to have a "diversity committee" smacks of having a pre-disposed bias in protecting or being supportive of minority groups.  I rather thought it was a journalist's professional obligation to report without editorial comments or implications only the facts of a story.  Who, what, where, when, and why should be the guiding principles to any stories, not changing a "label" (particularly an accurately used label) in order to offer no offense to a certain person or group of people in a story.

Indeed, it would seem that we are further losing our language in America and political correctness has driven us to the point of fearing to use "labels" on people at all.  I would suggest that accurately descriptive labels are a part of our language and are necessary for conveying an explanation or dissemination of a given characteristic of a person.  Of course, it is imperative that such labels be accurate in their attribution towards a given person or group.  It would seem that political correctness has indeed run amok though when fear of "labeling" anyone, particularly of a minority status, is deemed not only inappropriate but exceptionally rude.

Ironically quoted, “[T]his is not about being politically correct,” SPJ Diversity Committee chairman George Daniels says, but about aiming to “minimize harm” when reporting.  I find it interesting that the altruistic SPJ group has concerns about "minimizing harm" to politically-correct-protected sub-groups of people but seemingly show no such similar restraint when it comes to interviewing grieving parents about the loss of their child in combat or other similar situations.

It has been painfully obvious that objective and accurate journalism has long been on the decline and indeed may be close to death.  The SPJ's latest pronouncement places one more nail into the coffin of the once venerable journalistic watch dog for the people.  Is it any wonder why most major newspapers, magazines, and news broadcasts in the mainstream media continue to hemorrhage consumers of their "news"?