Media Bias

It seems that a person needs to have a crystal ball these days so they may figure out what is fact and what is fiction while they wade through the blatant opinion that is reported in the so-called news reports these days. Whatever happened to a journalist reporting the news without the spin and letting the viewers come to their own conclusions about what is reported?
It seems that all the major news networks report what they want the masses to hear rather than all the facts of the story. It is not just the huge national stories that every single network tells only part of the story on. They also edit little stories, like car accidents, crime, or other local matters.
.
On January 2nd, CBS’s Bill Plante ran with a story on the President’s unveiling of his economic stimulus package. He reported:

“Administration sources say the President’s stimulus plan will probably offer a speedup in the effective date of tax breaks and rate cuts passed in 2001, very likely including the very top tax rate despite the criticism that that will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest taxpayers.”

All the other networks ran stories with basically the same flavor. How tax cuts are unfair to lower income households. But nowhere, on any network, did I find a story about the IRS report in October of 2000, which appeared on the House website, (http://www.house.gov/jec/press/2002/10-24-02.htm) that the top 25% of income earners (those making over $55,000 a year) paid 84.01% percent of all the income tax, while those who make less than $27,000 a year paid only 3.91% of all the income tax collected. Is this not an important part of the story?

On New Years Eve, the Associated Press ran a story that said:

“Nearly two-thirds of respondents in an Associated Press poll said they believe it's prudent to hold off on more tax cuts. When asked about new tax cuts, a centerpiece of President Bush's domestic agenda, 64 percent said it was better to hold off to make sure the federal budget does not go into a deeper into the red. About three in 10, 28 percent, said they favored additional tax cuts to stimulate the economy, according to the poll conducted for the AP by ICR/International Communications Research of Media, Pa.”


Here is the question that was asked in the poll: “Do you think it is more important to pass additional tax cuts to stimulate the economy now or do you think it is better to hold off on tax cuts to make sure that the budget does not go into a deeper deficit?” Wow! That’s not a leading question now is it?





On December 21, 2002 ABC news anchor Elizabeth Vargas opened a story with this:

“The ranks of the homeless across the nation are growing sharply. The problem has reached historic levels in some big cities and the suburbs aren’t far behind. In Minneapolis, funds earmarked to help the homeless are expected to shrink by 40 percent. As ABC’s Barbara Pinto reports, it is a system already bursting at the seams.”

And on comes Ms. Pinto with some anecdotes and sad pictures, but not one shred of real evidence was reported in this story. Not one. No facts, figures. Nothing but hype. Is this journalism?
Here’s an exchange between an anchor and reporter on CNN’s Breaking News coverage of the end of the Senates efforts to create a bill for senior citizens prescription drug entitlements.

Anchor Daryn Kagan: “You know what, Kate? Shame on all of them. They’re sitting there playing politics in Washington. I know we have a lot of viewers at home, a lot of older people who their simple, simple request is just to be able to afford the drugs that they need.”
Reporter Kate Snow: “Yeah, they will say it’s a lot more complicated than that. And, you know, that there, again, there are policy differences and it’s hard to get agreement when you don’t agree on how to do it. That’s what they’ll say to that, but I think you’re right, that I think a lot of seniors are going to be disappointed.”
Kagan: “Tell that to our grandmothers and grandfathers and uncles and aunts who are just trying to kind of put together the bottom line.”

Okay, now whether you agree with them or not, is this really what journalists should be discussing while reporting the news? None of this exchange deals with any facts of the story. It is all opinion.
The examples are endless. Everyday we can read in the newspapers and watch on television, journalists reporting stories with their own political and social leanings rather than just reporting the news as it happens. There are opinion shows and news shows. They are separate entities for a reason and should remain that way.
When I was in school, we were taught that when writing a news story you answer who, what, where and when. It seems that our journalists are now adding why to the bunch. In my non-journalist opinion, Why, is good when writing an op/ed piece but should be left out when writing a news story.