The OttO Show

MSNBC.com released a study of over 140 journalists from across the country to see who these reporters and editors donate their political dollars to. A whopping (but hardly surprising) 87% gave money in the last two election cycles to Democrats or Democratic causes.

This in itself doesn’t mean anything in regards to the “alleged” liberal media bias in the mainstream-media. Americans (even journalists) should be able to donate money to campaigns. Who cares? It’s how they handle their responsibility as journalists that is important. This ‘revelation’ may be symptomatic to the bias problem in news that is supposed to be representative of truth and fact and void of opinion and slant, but it is not the underlying problem in media.

But MSNBC.com sees it a bit differently, insisting that the perception of a journalist actually having a brain and an opinion is the problem that needs to be addressed:

Because appearing to be fair is part of being fair, most mainstream news organizations discourage marching for causes, displaying political bumper stickers or giving cash to candidates.

So what is the objective? Being fair? Or appearing fair? Either one can certainly work without the other.

But with polls showing the public losing faith in the ability of journalists to give the news straight up, some major newspapers and TV networks are clamping down. They now prohibit all political activity — aside from voting — no matter whether the journalist covers baseball or proofreads the obituaries.

Apparently the goal is appearing fair. After all, if the goal were to be fair, then why all the cloak and dagger stuff? This is treating people like they are stupid. It’s one thing to claim that you are fair, objective and balanced with a record to back it up. With that record, it shouldn’t be of interest to anyone what journalists and editors do for personal political activity. But by chaining down reporters and preventing them from engaging in their American right to support political campaigns, the MSM is merely putting a band-aid on the problem.

Which would be preferable? A transparently fair and objective journalist who can still pursue his personal support of politicians and political agendas without fear of a conflict of interest? Or a biased, one-sided cheerleader who is barred from leaving any identifying trail of that bias? Telling a journalist that they can’t donate money to a political campaign will not erase perceived bias in any way. It’s not the journalists or editor’s personal politics that is the problem. It’s their abuse of the expectation that those views will not taint the supposedly objective news that is of concern to many of us.

A reporter or correspondent may have a career interest in laying low on the political activism - it could affect an editorial decision to place certain reporters in certain scenarios - a news entity may not risk covering a politician or candidate with a reporter when it is known that he/she supported the subjects opponent. But MSNBC doesn’t put forth that point here.

The New York Times and CBS, among others, bans all reporters/editors from donating money to political campaigns and causes. MSNBC.com’s own investigation prompted Salon.com to respond by enacting their own donation ban. Why? This is nothing but journalists hiding their bias. It bears no weight on actual objectivity. News is either balanced or it’s not. If the New York Times had no history of bias then who or what their employees donate money to should be no consequence. It certainly wouldn’t hurt to have journalists who donate money in ways that does not reflect in their reporting. In fact, that would be something for a paper or program to boast.

Various surveys, studies and ratings show that the evil, right wing mouthpiece, FOX News, takes in up to two million viewers a night (on a good night). Rush Limbaugh boasts about 20 million listeners a week. Second-tier nationwide conservative radio talk show hosts can usually hit somewhere in the one-to-two million per week range. In contrast, the “three big” network TV news programs collectively pull in about 25 million a night. And 116 million adults in this country read a newspaper at least once a week.

Many of these news sources also track their Internet readership with some of the big ones claiming to pull in close to 10 million a day.

So what’s the deal with the new buzz over reinstating the ‘Fairness’ Doctrine? I’m curious as to what clear thinking American supports this and why. What we appear to have are a few leftist/borderline fascist people in Congress who are eager to pass legislation that will enable them to shut the other side up. It’s anti-business, anti-free-markets, anti-intellectual and anti-speech.

We already have ‘fairness’ in regards to alternative media. The Internet is a jungle where any animal can scream his or her tirades with little fear of reprisal. We all have voices now. Even more pertinent to this issue is talk radio and Fox News, clearly in the minority of viewership and readership. Yet they are successful precisely because people want to see and hear what they have to say. And the good talk shows regularly have opposing guests and callers on the program.

So the response to free people making free choices about where they get their information and perspectives from is for elected officials like Dennis ‘My Precious’ Kucinich to utilize Big Government in it’s worst capacity. He wants to use the United States Congress to do what Hugo Chavez has done to the media in Venezuela - he wants to use the power of government to limit critical expression.

And that’s all it amounts to. It’s not about ‘fairness’. It’s about silencing the opposition. Radio stations have spent time, resources and money to build a brand, to sell a product that people want - enough people anyway to make it a profitable business. The product is ‘opinion’ and it’s been demonstrated time and time again that conservative opinion attracts customers; conservative talk sells.

The Fairness Doctrine would be sure to render that model useless as Big Government responds to complaints about opinions by forcing the broadcaster to give equal time to opposing or alternate opinions. In other words, they will force businesses to abandon what works (which is what their customers want) and replace it with what consistently fails (what customers don’t want). If people want liberal points of view, they already have nearly unfettered access to them. Why should government decide that some opinions are as valid as others? And is it a coincidence that the views that would largely require propping up happen to make up much of the views of the champions of this un-American legislation?

With all of the rhetorical hysteria in recent years about the Bush Administration, the Republicans and the right-wing media all punishing and silencing dissent, one has to wonder how the left would have reacted had an alternative version of the Fairness Doctrine been pushed ahead by a Republican Congress with a Republican president in the White House.

In reality, that would make more sense. If we’re going to regulate opinions, let’s stop picking on the people who are honest about their bias, whose fans tune in or read fully understanding and expecting that bias…and let’s turn the screws on the ‘old media’. For every editorial the NY Times prints bashing Bush, they should have an editorial contradicting it. For every story covering the latest setback in Iraq, CBS should broadcast an equally long piece highlighting a success story.

These are the people who abuse the flow of information in this country. These are the entities that affect public perception, all hiding behind a masquerade of independence and objectivity. Much of the media, old and new, are biased. What’s fair about going after those who advertise their bias while letting those who hide their’s conduct business as usual?

Conservatives really have a rather small slice of the pie. Why in the world would Congress concern themselves over something vastly less significant and troublesome than the hidden bias of media outlets who happen to attract the majority of everyday Americans?

Because it’s not about the ‘what’; it’s about the ‘who’.

Frankly, I’m looking forward to Democrats in Congress taking on the talk radio industry. Let’s haul Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and Michael Medved up to Capitol Hill. Let’s watch the debate on C-SPAN. Let’s see a Kucinich sub-committee get chewed up and eaten alive by professional First Amendment champions. Heck, maybe the ACLU can prove what everyone claims about them and jump in on behalf of talk radio. I wonder where left-wing talk radio would stand in this fight?

Bring it on…

Trackback URI | Comments RSS