Unfair and Unbalanced

 

Friend Xerxes laments the decline in journalistic ethics since the dawn of Fox News and talk radio. We are now increasingly vulnerable to “misinformation.”

But the problem with journalistic ethics does not start with Fox News. The original slogans of Fox News were “Fair and balanced,” and “We report—you decide.” They obviously resonated with the public; Fox rocketed to news dominance. Clearly, there was already a public perception that the media were biased. Fox was the antidote.

Fox has dropped these slogans, as more of its schedule has been taken up by commentary. But commentary is not supposed to be neutral—the opinion is why you watch. Xerxes is similarly wrong to accuse “talk radio” of bias. The shows we call “talk radio” are opinion shows, not news. The news side is still, at Fox, pretty unbiased. The same cannot be said of the “legacy media.”

News outlets must decide what to report. The legacy media tend not to report anything they don’t like politically. Even back in the 1980’s, I noticed that whenever the Toronto Star ran a report of a murder, and the suspect was not “white,” no race was mentioned. If, on the other hand, it was a “Caucasian male,” that was always reported.

I recall a few years ago, a pro-life demonstration in Washington that set new records for attendance. It was not reported anywhere I could find in the legacy media. 

The “Freedom Convoy” seemed to most of us to come out of the blue—because the media was not reporting on it as it gathered.

The bias is worse than this. 

In journalism school, you are told that, whenever you report on a controversy, you quote prominent spokespeople on both sides of the issue.

The legacy media almost never to do this anymore. You never hear two sides on issues like the climate debate, or the efficacy of ivermectin for covid, or the efficacy of wearing masks, or the possible risks of the vaccines, or anything involving Donald Trump, and so on. An obvious breach of ethics.

In journalism school, you are also told to check every fact with three independent sources. Legacy media never seems to check a fact any more if it supports the “narrative.” Things are published as fact that a simply Google search could disprove. It is charity to see this as mere negligence. One example: the Covington kids.

An egregious current example: media always refer to the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa as an “illegal occupation.” I even saw an anchor correct an interviewee who referred to it only as a protest.

In fact, whether it was illegal has not yet been determined in court. 

Properly speaking, the media should probably be sued for this. Perhaps, in the fallout, if it is ruled to have been legal, they will be.

The Trouble with Truth

The mainstream media seems not to like Bernie Sanders. He essentially was called a liar in last night’s debate—by the moderators.

He was treated unfairly in 2015 as well, by the Democratic National Committee. Then, it made sense purely on the premise that the DNC was owned by the Clintons, that they maintained great influence in the party.

This time, we need a deeper explanation. It’s not just the Clintons.

It is not that Sanders is feared ideologically and in terms of electability, for being too far to the left. For they have given the same sort of blatantly biased treatment to Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard, with somewhat different platforms. Either would probably better appeal to independents that the candidates the MSM and DNC support.

The clue is in what they just publicly accused Sanders of: lying.

They accuse Gabbard of something similar: of not really speaking for herself, but of mouthing lines fed to her by the Kremlin. Of insincerity.

This is more conspicuous because the big draw for Bernie’s supporters is that he seems so sincere. He has been consistent in what he says, pretty much throughout his career. This is rare in a politician.

This is also what he shares with the two other pariah Democratic candidates: Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang also seem sincere, consistent, and to be expressing their own real views. Gabbard seems to stand on principle. She blew the whistle, for example, on the unfair treatment of Sanders last time, even though they do not closely align ideologically.

It is this very honesty that the party poobahs and the media elite fear and hate.

It is, in fact, also what they hate so much in Trump. They endlessly accuse him of lying, just as they now do Sanders. They accused him of being a Russian puppet, as they now do Gabbard. Same phenomenon. But in fact, Trump has been conspicuous in keeping his campaign promises. And, more generally, for not bending to polls or political correctness, but saying what he genuinely thinks. For speaking the truth as he sees it.

Why do these groups, the media and the Democratic operatives, so fear sincerity? Why do they actually prefer phonies as candidates?

They might and do say, of such candidates, that they are “loose cannon.” Who knows then what they might say or do on a given issue? Seems risky.

But this again is actually the inverse of the truth. Because they do not blow in the wind, because they operate on principles, we really know better how these four will react to any given new event.

The real problem is the one outlined in the Gospel of John. Those who do evil in darkness come to fear the light for its own sake, and will oppose anyone who speaks the truth.

This is why they crucified Christ.

The DNC and the legacy media—our social elites in general--are in a very dark place.