Silver Tongues That Slice

“Dear Ann: I have a problem. I have two brothers. One brother is in television, the other was put to death in the electric chair for murder. My mother died from insanity when I was three years old. My sisters are prostitutes, and my father sells narcotics to high school students. Recently I met a girl who was just released from a reformatory where she served time for smothering her illegitimate child to death, and I want to marry her. My problem is-if I marry this girl, should I tell her about my brother who is in television?” (Goldberg 117)

Bernard Goldberg’s book, Bias, reveals the truth of journalism, rather than its art. He pinpoints the inevitability and reasoning behind the majority of the media, the nation’s informant, slanting the news in a liberal direction. Clear examples and statistics highlight the condition; denied by the media moguls, already identified by the country.

The problem with the media, as Goldberg points out, is the unintentionally manipulative liberal vernacular employed without fail by the leading news anchors. For instance, “right-wing” and “conservative” are commonplace vocabulary for introducing a politician or activist or public figure not liberally aligned. If balanced by labels like “left-wing” or “liberal”, this would not be an issue. However, even the far-left figures are viewed and portrayed as “middle of the road”. CBS News anchor Dan Rather labeled the New York Times editorial page the same way, despite the constant partiality to letters in favor of abortion, strict gun control and affirmative action; all clearly liberal standpoints.

In reporting national issues, objectivity should be priority number one for the media. Instead, the stories teeter on a balance beam of attempted influential half-truths. For instance, Goldberg reflected on the coverage of homelessness since the 1980’s. He observed that the number of reported homeless Americans increased exponentially with each Republican presidential inauguration, yet backslid during each Democratic presidency. He found a common thread of manipulation among advocate groups like the homeless lobby. An exaggerated portrayal of the cause to elicit sympathy among reporters is thought to yield more support.

In a domino effect, reporters then selectively place the more aesthetically appealing afflicted on screen; if these people could be your brother or your neighbor or the nice lady down the street, who is to say this cannot happen to you? Walter Goodman of the New York Times identifies this phenomenon as the “prettifying of reality” (65). This kind of propaganda, in which the “objective” reporter promotes an issue by “harmless” misinformation or selective facts, diminishes his credibility and deceives the public.

America is a country composed of “hyphenated” individuals: African-American, Asian-American, etc. It was only a century ago that white males dominated the society. Given the history and the pressing demand for tolerance and equality, media moguls are very conscientious about explicitly presenting a minority voice in everything. On the surface, this sounds fair and positive. Unfortunately, some of the extremes they take are simply nonsensical. A reporter in Greenville, South Carolina, searched high and low for a black person’s thoughts on a piece about Hanukkah food. “What a surprise. No African Jews living in Greenville, South Carolina” (102).

A reporter from the same newspaper “’made an extra thirty phone calls’ before he found an Asian astronomer in Utah for a story about a solar eclipse” (102). Whether the source had any expertise on the topic at hand was erroneous. Again, this diplomatic attempt at making every voice heard, while admirable, diminishes the reporters’ credibility and creates an aura of humor around the newspaper.

Race relations are to this day the elephant in the room. Goldberg points out an interesting observation made by author Shelby Steele. Sensitivity to minorities stems not just from the guilt of the past, but from gratitude for being white in America. Ten years ago, reports of looters pillaging neighborhoods in a hurricane-destroyed Jamaica sent ex-marine captain turned reporter Larry Doyle to investigate. After compiling the facts and sending the story back to base at CBS for review before airing, Doyle’s unbiased narrative was sidelined by political correctness.

The satellite images presented myriads black looters being arrested. Red flag back at camp. Never mind the fact that the island is ninety five percent black, and as such, so was most of the law enforcement; but, broadcasting a truthful story with images of only black criminals might shed an unacceptable, insensitive light on the media. The sideways accusation that Doyle was misrepresenting the individuals led him to angrily remark, “I thought our job was to tell the truth” (105). If the truth is the truth, and nothing but the truth, the media honchos should have nothing to worry about. Their concern, if anything, should be with alleviating the plight of the African Americans. It should not be with the warping of images to convince themselves they are generous and thoughtful. Instead, it is to selfishly assuage their own feelings and to sustain ratings.

Ratings are the guiding light by which media elites determine which fork to take in the road of journalism. Author Hunter S. Thompson was quoted, “The TV business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs” (145). The news has morphed from its original purpose. No longer is it an impartial messenger to the public, with an intention to inform the people of current issues and daily events. It is a moneymaking machine, trying simultaneously to sway public opinion with its subjective language and also appeal to the popular preference in terms of content and style. For example, despite the media trying to give the impression that they make every voice heard, statistics show this is not the case. They are selectively integrative.

During May, a rating-determinant month for changes in the networks, no blacks were featured Dateline or 48 Hours subjects, with 20/20 following close behind with a grand total of two (158). Interestingly, in June, a non-decisive month, the number of black features jumped. Coincidence? Possibly. However, it is more likely that the unspoken reason for a dip in ratings is because certain subjects make the public uncomfortable; thus, for these key months, equality temporarily goes on hiatus.

The strength of the media is enormous, be it on public opinion, political changes or its employees. Legally, the kingdom is not bound by the first amendment. The Constitution states that the government has no right to restrict speech. Media monopolies were left out of the picture. This gives license for the journalists, sixty one percent of whom profess to be liberal versus a whopping nine percent conservative (124), to shape stories in liberal language and still appear objective. The problem is not that the media sets an agenda with full intent to slant stories.

The problem is that if such a large majority of the business is liberal, they will unconsciously report the news in the same manner. It is simply the lens through which they view the world. Given the duration this has occurred, the lens has morphed into a kaleidoscope, skewing objectivity with deceptive speech. To be fair, if conservatives controlled the networks as the liberals do, a conservative bent would be just as evident.

Webster’s denotes what journalism should be: the style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation. The media connote what journalism is: a presentation of the news, following its passing through a sieve of obstinate and influential liberal viewpoints, and removing the excess pulp of impartiality from the scene.