Skewering the Los Angeles Times
There's an extremely thorough two-part post on Patterico's Pontifications exposing the blatant left-wing bias of the Los Angeles Times. This is a definite must-read!
Once you've read it, you may share my view that the New York Times, the East Coast equivalent of the LA Times, deserves the same kind of scrutiny.
It's easy to simply ignore biased mainstream media sources. However, they're dangerous in that many people believe them, and that includes people in other countries. It could be that foreign perceptions of the U.S. might be much less distorted if our own major media outlets weren't so determined to trash most things American.
And consider what might have happened if the mainstream media had operated with professionalism and objectivity during the last election. Despite their best efforts, Bush beat Kerry by well over three million votes. Absent their negative influence, Bush most likely would have won by a much larger margin.
It's not enough to ignore them. They have to be exposed, and people like Patterico are doing a good job of it.
Once you've read it, you may share my view that the New York Times, the East Coast equivalent of the LA Times, deserves the same kind of scrutiny.
It's easy to simply ignore biased mainstream media sources. However, they're dangerous in that many people believe them, and that includes people in other countries. It could be that foreign perceptions of the U.S. might be much less distorted if our own major media outlets weren't so determined to trash most things American.
And consider what might have happened if the mainstream media had operated with professionalism and objectivity during the last election. Despite their best efforts, Bush beat Kerry by well over three million votes. Absent their negative influence, Bush most likely would have won by a much larger margin.
It's not enough to ignore them. They have to be exposed, and people like Patterico are doing a good job of it.
10 Comments:
Kevin, just because he's the Pope wouldn't mean that his criticism of Southern Baptist theology and practice would be wrong. In fact, given that he's made himself something of an expert on religion in general, his views would merit considerable respect. Besides, you couldn't trust Jerry Falwell's views on Southern Baptists, since he's part of the problem.
John, thanks for your comment.
I don't mean to get in a measuring contest with you, but for many years I've lived in (not simply visited) 11 countries on four continents and traveled in many other countries. Right now I live in southeast Europe.
I've seen quite a bit of foreign media reporting, and it's certainly no better than the U.S. media. In many cases, it's even more strongly influenced by partisan political considerations or simply corrupt. Moreover, there's a strong tendency to report as fact the wildest kinds of rumors and conspiracy theories. Much of the British media, in particular, regularly goes from being biased to outright hysterical.
Criticizing the LA Times and the New York Times these days is valid, given the objective facts. But overall, the U.S. media is like U.S. democracy--it may be broken in a lot of ways, but it's better than all others.
I also have to note that I've been reading the IHT for many years, undoubtedly longer than you have. It was reasonably good in the past, when it was jointly owned by the Washington Post and the New York Times. When the NYT assumed sole ownership, the IHT became exactly like the NYT, reflecting a strong leftist bias.
Kevin, I didn't say, or mean to imply, that the foreign press takes its lead from the U.S. media. That's an oversimplification. The international influence of the U.S. media is based on a number of factors. First, people in other countries read our press, as we read theirs; second, stories carried in the U.S. mainstream media are picked up by foreign media, and vice-versa; and third, there's a significant interlocking of U.S. and foreign media through organizations such as CNN, BBC, etc. So in effect, everyone is feeding off everyone else. However, the U.S. mainstream media is the filter for perceptions about the American people and our government. That means, to an unfortunate extent, opinions and attitudes among foreign citizens and journalists alike are filtered through a somewhat distorted lens.
If you read the two-part post at Patterico's Pontifications, you see that he has carefully documented his criticisms of the L.A. Times. From what I know personally, and from the logic of his discussion, I take him seriously. You shouldn't dismiss an argument like his critique of the L.A. Times with the ad hominem counterargument that he, too, is biased. Of course he is. We all are. And if he didn't hold an opinion different from that of those who run the Times, why would he bother? Are the Pope or priests the only people allowed to criticize the Church because they aren't biased against it?
Read this latest post on Patterico's Pontifications. It's a comparison of L.A. Times and Washington Post coverage of the upcoming Iraqi elections. He makes a compelling case.
Kevin, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) are parallel organizations that have field operations in a number of developing countries, with a significant amount of development assistance funding from USAID. I've worked with both of them in the field, and I know how they operate. Both are involved in democracy and governance programs, with NDI focusing somewhat more on elections and IRI on building political parties, developing parliamentary procedures, etc. Both are outstanding organizations with well-deserved reputations for professionalism and non-partisanship. I would accept the fairness and balance of anything either of them does.
You need to move beyond this robotic belief that anything associated with conservatism or Republicans is bad and anything associated with liberalism or Democrats is good.
My apologies if I misread your sympathies. However, I do see a certain tendency to dismiss arguments based on the views of the proponent rather than the facts he offers. I also have to wonder about your readiness to dismiss the IRI poll simply because they are a Republican-sponsored group. IRI and NDI both are good organizations.
That said, Peace!
Patterico, I don't think you're ever going to see that counter-analysis. I think all you'll get are continuing claims that you couldn't be right because you don't agree with those who disagree with you. In other words, you're "partisan." Facts hardly matter in circular arguments like this. I've read your analysis of the LA Times in detail, and in my opinion you've nailed them to the wall. Apparently huge numbers of people agree with you, given the Times' slide in circulation and public approval.
For whatever little it might be worth to you, Tom and Pat, I would be and have been equally skeptical of claims from the other side of the isle vis-a-vis the media being biased in favor of Conservatives. And there most certainly are those on the Left who make that charge - my co-blogger Carla being one of them. Neither side goes out of their way to criticize those aspects of the American media which spin their way 'cause, viewed thru their partisan lenses that's not spin. Which I would think you could understand, Tom, given your recent post about your political label. It's the exact same dynamic.
If either of you had the time or inclination to do so... if you dug thru the archives of the Center Field blog, you'd find comments by me arguing that both ideological sides miss the mark when they attack the media. And that it's not because the media isn't biased. Rather it's the myopic lens thru which both sides view the media that results in the distortions, IMHO.
But... as Dale Carnegie famously stated, "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I don't think either of you will change your minds about this because I don't think either of you want to look at it any differently than you do now. C'est la vie.
Kevin, as I've said repeatedly in my own posts and in comments on other sites, I don't dispute that there is a biased media on the right. Fox is the best example. The problem with the liberal mainstream media is they won't admit their biases and their influence is pervasive, both in the U.S. and abroad. That makes them dangerous. The conservative press doesn't merit the same degree of concern, in my opinion.
To state my position as bluntly as possible: I want to read, hear, and watch media that report facts. Just facts, without the opinions and biases of reporters and editors woven into them and without stories selected or emphasized to further an agenda. I enjoy op-ed pieces, too, but I want them on the op-ed page. I don't think that's too much to ask.
If you want to look at bias in the media, look at the reporting on anything having to do with Marijuana. You'll find that almost all media is stronly in favor of the tyranical status quo which makes criminals out of peaceful people growing an herb in their windowbox.
The bias of the mainstream media is neither right nor left.
The bias of the mainstream media is 'corporate consumerism'. Anything that forwards the idea that we need to buy things to be happy is published. Anything that forwards the idea that we can by happy without buying things we don't need is not.
Simple, really.
Anonymous Coward
Post a Comment
<< Home