Fair and Balanced?

I just returned from a sojourn in Texas (which explains the gap in my posting, in case anyone noticed). I spent some time watching Fox News Channel because I rarely see it, relying mainly on CNN International and sometimes the BBC for cable news. I came away from Fox with the impression that watching Fox and comparing it to CNN, particularly when they report on the same topics, is a lot like reading conservative and liberal print media.

One consistent difference is the fact that the conservative media know what they are and don't mind saying so, often with relish. The liberal media, on the other hand, seem convinced despite all evidence that they are the mainstream of political thought and cultural wisdom. They seem to believe they possess the revealed word, inerrant and utterly unquestionable. (Except, of course, a rather large number don't admit to the existence of a "revealer.") That's one reason why when they fall, they fall hard; Dan Rather and the New York Times are examples.

Their coverage of the Terri Schiavo case was instructive. Like the politicians in Washington and Florida, neither wing of the media came out looking very good. From what I could see, both went overboard in the amount of air time they devoted to the story, with Fox leading the way in terms of quantity of coverage. Both sides deployed some of their stars, as if it made a difference whether the carefully coifed news readers did their reading from Florida or from their home studios. This kind of coverage also illustrated once again the mystery of why these people are stars in the first place. Anderson Cooper of CNN may be the best example.

It's clear that the Schiavo story straddled the pro-life, pro-choice divide. It's hard to understand why, but the more solidly one was in either ideological camp the more hysterical one was likely to be. Fox spent a lot of time focusing on the parents and siblings of the poor woman, and they gave a huge amount of air time to pro-life activists. CNN and the broadcast news organizations focused more on Michael Schiavo and his supporters, trying to highlight his side of the story and denigrate those on the other side. It was painfully obvious that the media on both sides were ideologically biased, and the losers were those who got only one side of the story.

I was also able to compare conservative and liberal reporting and commentary on the death of Pope John Paul II, speculation on his successor, and conservative and liberal issues that bedevil the Church. That coverage continues, of course, but from what I saw in the early days the ideological divide that characterized reporting on the Schiavo story is alive and well.

So, who is "fair and balanced," to use Fox's marketing slogan? The fact is, on some stories you can find balanced reporting in any media organ. On others that involve issues dividing the left and right, forget about it. The only way to get a balanced understanding is to draw from both wings of the media, then use your common sense and a little research to sort it all out.

I'll return to one point because I think it's important in defending against the biases of the press. Conservatives in the media generally 'fess up to their slant. Liberals very often don't, usually defending themselves by claiming that there is no bias in the mainstream media; it's just another scurrilous conservative slander, in their view. After all, they alone possess the revealed word. A good example is a recent column by William Raspberry, a man I've read for years and respect. However, he's as liberal as the Pope is Catholic, and even a casual reading of this column about Fox News Channel shows the liberal analytical blind spot on this issue.

Caveat emptor.