Early lessons in journalistic bias

Published January 8, 2015

by Jon Ham, Publisher, Carolina Journal, January 8, 2015.

I’ve been writing about media bias for 20-plus years, since that day in the early ’90s when the scales fell from my eyes and I saw what was happening in my chosen profession. I was managing editor of The Herald-Sun in Durham, and I began seeing things I didn’t like, not only in the national media, but in my own newspaper.

Why did we use the descriptor “right-wing” so often, but never “left-wing”? Why were some groups always called “conservative,” but liberal groups were never called “liberal”? Why was a story about a liberal/Democrat in trouble handled differently than a story about a conservative/Republican in trouble?

Many say that liberals are simply attracted to journalism in greater numbers than conservatives. That’s undoubtedly true, but that hasn’t always ensured biased stories. Every reporter on my first newspaper in 1973 was a liberal, but our editors, equally liberal, wouldn’t allow bias in our stories. That does not seem to be the case today. In fact, with liberal bias becoming the norm in the mainstream media, I’m guessing it’s rewarded.

When did this sea change take place?

When I was in journalism school, we were required to take ethics courses that taught us that personal biases showing themselves in a news story were the scourge of the news business. Bias destroyed credibility and harmed the profession, we were taught. Is that still the case? Somehow, I don’t think so.

Recently we had the sensational story in Rolling Stone of an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia. The resulting journalistic hysteria was similar to that which occurred in 2006 in the infamous Duke lacrosse rape hoax story. Liberal biases were deployed to produce a narrative that fit left-wing sensibilities.

Gradually, however, the UVa rape story fell apart. Soon it became evident that many of the claims by “Jackie,” the alleged victim, simply were not true. You’d think this would cause mea culpas to issue from the media, but that was not the case.

An editor of the University of Virginia student newspaper, a future mainstream journalist, I would imagine, reacted to the dissolving story by arguing that “to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake.”

Where did she learn such nonsense? Who trained this woman to believe that the narrative trumps facts? I’m guessing she learned it in journalism class, or “media studies,” as they call it there.

All social sciences today are obsessed with race, class, and gender, journalism classes included. I’m guessing that UVa editor learned her warped journalistic values from her professors.

And that’s the nub of the problem right there.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/daily_journal/index.html

January 8, 2015 at 7:52 am
Frank Burns says:

Bless you brother for speaking the truth. The correct answer is the profession of journalism lacks ethics.

January 8, 2015 at 11:05 am
Norm Kelly says:

It's nice to have someone inside the profession to also notice this. I'm no longer alone out here in the wilderness.

The answer to the question of how this happened is obvious. Libs have taken over college campuses (campi?) and are now preaching that opinion is more important than fact, narrative is more important than fact. Unfortunately, lib 'professors', rightfully called socialist preachers, have started rewarding lib slant/opinion and penalizing conservative slant and/or opinion. It seems journalism students learn early that rewards feel good and they start to leave their desire for reporting news in the dust in order to please their liberal preacher. It's also true that liberalism has entered the church. When liberal politics or politicians are introduced in any church, it's ignored by those who are supposed to keep the (non-existent) separation of church and state. When ANY conservative political idea enters a church, or even when a conservative political idea is even hinted at, the libs in charge of the fake/non-existent separation go absolutely nuts! These lib preachers do everything they can to discredit the church that had the audacity to be non-lib, attempt to take away tax-exempt status, and try to have the preacher brought up on charges.

The important thing is for non-lib citizens to point out the id1ocy of the liberal media, the bias of the liberal media, and provide the facts to prove a point. You see, when libs are involved facts are meaningless. Using facts not only drives libs nuts, which is fun in itself, but it also causes them to stop talking/typing/printing. They are incapable of responding to facts. Good libs usually don't even recognize a fact. Which is where the term 'racist' comes in to play so often. No response to facts, just call your 'opponent' a racist, situation resolved. Unless there's a female involved in the 'discussion'. Then the response becomes 'woman hater!'.

When there is no substance to a liberal's stand, they resort to name calling. Just look at the response of not only the actual journalists who reported on a fake story, but look at the more important player in the act. When the facts were pointed out to her, the response was that facts must be irrelevant if the story is good. How do we know the editor with this attitude is a liberal die-hard, being discussed by libs? Simple. If she were a conservative that said something this stup1d, her name would be a household word. No media outlet, used to be news outlet, would have the audacity to withhold her name. Since she's a lib, with the attitude that the lib message means the facts don't exist, her name is not mentioned. Even in a post where her stoop1d1ty is almost the main point, her name is not mentioned. Everyone in the nation, legal and illegal, should know this girls name so we know never to read any of her future releases. If she is incapable of telling the truth, her stories must be ignored. The only way she should be listened to is if she runs for president. Then she would be a good replacement for the current occupant who also has no concept of truth! Two peas from the same pod. Of course, the truth is that the current occupier isn't worth listening to either, so they really are twins! Maybe from different mothers, but twins nonetheless!