In a recent New York Times article Geoffrey Nunberg, a Stanford linguist, argues that bias in the media has undergone great change in the last 50 years so that now it is "a synonym for partiality or partisanship."
He goes on to note that conservatives complain about bias yet see "objectivity not as an ideal to strive for but as a dangerous delusion." "Media bias" became a phrase that blurs "the distinction between thoughts and deeds," a condition that enables critics to argue that balance is "better served by openly partisan commentary than by traditional ‘objective' reporting."
Dr. Nunberg maintains that "if objectivity is an illusion, we are free to disbelieve any report we find inconvenient or uncongenial on the grounds that it is colored by a hidden agenda." Alas, that is increasingly the case.
Far be it for me to speak for conservatives or for that matter media critics, but in several essential ways I believe Dr. Nunberg misses the point.
There is a difference between reports and editorials, a distinction often overlooked at the New York Times, among other publications. Reports should strive for facts. It was once the case, before the "new journalism", that reporters had to cover stories without the use of adjectives. A condition in which reports can be confused with editorial opinion is a major part of the problem in the current state of journalism.
Second, most people don't have a problem with partisan commentary when it is labeled properly. It is instructive that Dr. Nunberg notes Rush Limbaugh expresses conservative opinion and Michael Moore "very liberal" opinion. If there were truth in labeling Moore should be defined as a radical or an extremist, a characterization he often adopts for himself.
During the riots that emerged after the Rodney King incident, an ABC newsman interviewed gang members who pummeled innocent white drivers in their south central Los Angeles neighborhood. He referred to these thugs as "community leaders." The irony is they called themselves "gang members."
Last, whether journalistic reports are factual or there is reliance on opinion, all commentary should lead ultimately to the search for truth, recognizing that truth is often elusive. Journalism is not merely a tower of Babel with all opinion equally valid. Nor is it a search for dry, incontrovertible facts. Bias invariably insinuates itself into reports, but it would help the reader and the viewer if that bias were recognized.
I usually don't agree with any opinion offered by ABC's Peter Jennings, but what I object to is not the bias, which is all too evident, but the fact he doesn't recognize his statements as one man's opinion, an opinion that has decidedly left wing origins. That would be a truthful claim instead of his implausible reliance on a higher standard of journalistic ethics.
I suspect the public is skeptical of news reporting because it realizes that while bias exists, many newscasters refuse to acknowledge it. There is the additional confusion over degrees of bias. While it may be impossible to expunge, there is a difference between a report that tries to be fair and an opinion that makes no effort to do so. It is somewhat like saying because bacteria cannot be completely removed from a hospital operating room, it is comparable to an open sewer. Efforts at fair minded reports should be recognized as different from opinions and editors would be wise to differentiate the front page of newspapers from the op. ed page.
Surely Dr. Nunberg is correct in asserting that bias exists. Yet some are more biased than others. As I see it, journalists should be interested in pursuing the truth. If that isn't the case, journalists should at least be defined accurately. It would help if the public knew, before the commentary began, whether the spokesman is a liberal, conservative or radical. Not only would this be a service to the public, it might even have some influence on written and spoken statements.
Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and John M. Olin professor of humanities of the New York University, publisher of American Outlook and author of "Decade of Denial," recently published by Lexington Books. He's reachable through www.benadorassociates.com.
©2003 Herbert London
Printer-friendly version
Email this item to a friend