A major factor in this year’s presidential
campaign is something that should not be a factor at all: the media.
What the nation needs, what the
media are expected to provide, and what some Americans think they are getting,
is objective, balanced and fair coverage of the events of the day.
That, of course, is what the Society of Professional
Journalists intends its profession to provide, and so stated in its Preamble: “Members of the Society of Professional
Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and
the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those
ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events
and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to
serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the
cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a
dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's
principles and standards of practice.”
America suffers mightily because the media have largely
abandoned their ethical and moral obligations in favor of pursuing political
goals; no longer information purveyors, they are partisan players, who instead of providing accurate, objective news now push
deliberately distorted partisan messages.
This has earned the media a few
derisive names: the lame stream media, the drive-by media, the lapdog
media or press, the Ministry of Propaganda, the Talking Point Monkeys, presstitutes
… the list goes on.
The bias exhibited by the major media exists not only in how
they present information, but also in what information they present, what they
don’t present, and the amount of emphasis certain items receive.
The issue is further clouded by the fact that many media
outlets provide both news and opinion. There is nothing wrong with that, so
long as news and opinion are carefully handled and kept separate, and opinion
is clearly labeled as such. Far too often, they get mixed together.
It doesn’t get much worse than when the media take sides, as
they have done in the presidential campaign. One
recent example resulted from a meeting Republican presidential candidate Mitt
Romney held with a few supporters in a private home in Florida. Speaking to a
group of like-minded supporters, Mr. Romney made comments that on the surface
conveyed a message that seemed to show his apparent lack of concern for approximately
half the country.
Such an interpretation doesn’t
pass the smell test, of course, as indicated by the high level of charitable giving
the Romneys donate each year – nearly 30 percent of net income in 2011 – but it
makes a good story and helps the media boost their candidate, Barack Obama.
Some facts need to be considered:
First, it was a private, off-the-record meeting; no press invited, and he spoke
to people who understood that his comments were not intended to be taken
absolutely literally. Furthermore, a whole lot of the people in that 47 percent
that Mr. Romney mentioned not only know what he meant, but agree with him.
Second, a spy secretly – perhaps
illegally – recorded his comments, and then an openly left-wing publication
edited the comments and published them without explaining the circumstances of
the meeting or confessing that it had doctored the contents.
The recording became a handy
Romney-bashing tool for other media outlets, which either didn’t research the
source or notice the clandestine nature of the recording, or just didn’t care
about the lack of honesty and forthrightness.
There can be no reasonable doubt
that this cheap-shot episode was designed solely to hurt Mr. Romney to the
benefit of Mr. Obama. Such “reporting” is dishonest and beneath responsible journalists,
who are now in short supply.
However, stripped of the spy’s
and the media’s disreputable conduct, and the media’s opportunistic parsing and
misstating of his beliefs, what Mr. Romney said was true, and important: Half
of the country pays taxes to the government and half receives money from the
government. In fact, 70 percent of federal spending goes to 47 government
dependence programs, according to the Heritage Foundation, and that is a serious
problem.
The national media largely reported
the Romney non-story rather than objectively cover the nation’s fiscal crisis
and the disastrous presidency of Barack Obama, whose administration danced,
dodged and twisted into knots to avoid admitting that the murder of Ambassador
Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya was a terrorist attack.
The public has taken notice. Distrust
of the mass market mainstream media – newspapers, TV and radio – hit a new high
this year, with 60 percent in a Gallup survey saying they have little or no
trust in the mass media to report the news “fully, accurately, and fairly,”
while only 8 percent have a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of confidence.
Last year, Gallup found that almost half of Americans (47
percent) believed the mainstream media had a liberal bias, but in the 1970s
trust in the media was as high as 72 percent.
Alas, the good old days of the media, like the good old days
of many other things, are long gone, and the American media seems not to care
about its reputation.
