The View from Here: Trying to sort out journalism issues
Upon the suggestion of a conservative friend this week who was disenfranchised by a couple of opinion pieces about the state’s budget situation, I picked up the book “Bias,” a non-fiction perspective of how the news gets distorted.
Although I’m not quite finished with it, I can’t wait for some more free time to ponder what the author is suggesting.
The ideas veteran TV reporter Bernard Goldberg presents could be dismissed as a bad flap between the author and his co-workers and bosses, who snubbed him after he very openly expressed his views on TV news’ liberal bias on the opinions page of a major newspaper.
But some of the statements are actually quite fascinating, and many of them I agree with. And judging from the public interest the book has created, it seems non-journalists are equally fascinated at an in-depth look at some of the problems, too.
Journalism has been classified as an imperfect and raw first draft of history. It often reflects change and understanding of the ideas, and that takes an open (liberal?) mind, so he’s right. And Goldberg, a long-time reporter for CBS, takes specific issue with how certain major events get distorted through the TV news.
He explains it started in earnest when he reviewed a certain news story on then presidential candidate Steve Forbes’ tax plan, saying the reporter took sides in suggesting it was a bad idea, but didn’t present any educated opinions to the contrary.
In most newsrooms, that’s not only jilted, but bad journalism all around because of the editorial comment (opinion) that was included. Sometimes, however, the balance is hard to see and sometimes hard to obtain, and that’s also a mitigating and unintentional factor in some real news circumstances.
As for me, I have a handgun carry permit, but I’m not so sure the Second Amendment is absolute. Affirmative action is not the right way to go if there is someone more qualified who just happens to be a white male, but that’s relative. Governments should work with what it has and make less laws if possible. Irreversible pollution is a bad thing.
Most days, I have two jobs – “real” work and then “home” work – and I wonder what great strides women have really made. I have an open mind because I like serious and sometimes political debate, but I can, and have, changed my ideas in the past.
Most people see what they want to see. And while my friend was pointing to the opinions as slanted because he didn’t agree, it’s important to note the editorial comments in any medium are designed to open up discussion. Opinions are by their nature biased.
As far as news, Goldberg points to exaggerations of homelessness and AIDS as examples of bias, but in an interesting way. He claims lobbyists for these groups knew they couldn’t get any sympathy for their causes by showcasing drug addicts.
In the name of sensitivity, he says the liberal media was glad to also woo the audience with claims those problems could reach regular people too, if they were able to feature an out-of-work, blue-collar worker on the streets as an example.
It makes one think about just how bad those problems are, which can provoke some interesting debate. And although I’m getting to the point where I flatly disagree with some of the ideas, I’ve talked to more people about this subject in my spare time than anything else since plopping down $28 for the book.
Many more “media types” and others should read it, not because of their political viewpoints, but in spite of them.
(Amy Satterwhite is a reporter for the Standard. She can be reached at 473-2191.)