All the News that Fits Our Biases
You can always tell what a newspaper finds important by what it puts on the front page. It’s also a good way to learn about the paper’s biases.
You may recall that the New York Times wrote very little on page one, or anyplace else in the paper, about the relationship – whatever it was – between presidential candidate Barack Obama and his old left-wing pal Bill Ayers, the one who along with other radical leftists tried to blow up the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol during the heyday of the anti-Vietnam war movement.
The Times did write about Obama’s relationship with his long time minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but the paper didn’t publish Wright’s most inflammatory sermons until very late in the game.
If the “newspaper of record” had been more vigilant, there’s a good chance Hillary Clinton (or who knows, maybe even John McCain) would be president today.
More recently the Times ignored the Van Jones story -- until he resigned. If the Times was the only place you got your news, you wouldn’t have a clue as to who Van Jones was or why he was resigning. But if you watched FOX News, you knew that Jones was President Obama’s so-called “green jobs czar” – a screwball leftist who signed a petition calling for an investigation to learn whether then President George W. Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks on America. The Times didn’t find that nugget especially newsworthy.
Then there were those famous Acorn videos, the ones that showed a “pimp” and his “ho” seeking -- and getting -- advice from Acron employees in several cities on how best to open a brothel and staff it with underage girls from Central America -- and launder their profits while evading taxes. The Times didn’t find that story newsworthy either. Even its public editor, Clark Hoyt, slapped the paper around for that one.
“But for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn,” Hoyt wrote, “The Times stood still. Its slow reflexes — closely following its slow response to a controversy that forced the resignation of Van Jones, a White House adviser — suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television and partisan blogs. Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire. But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself.”
And now we have another tidbit from the New York Times, more than a tidbit, actually – a story that appeared on page one of its Sunday paper (Jan. 31) – and continued for almost an entire inside page. And like most stories that appear on page one of an important newspaper, this one tells us a lot about what the editors of the New York Times think is important – and a lot about their biases, too. The story ran under the headline, “From High Jinks to Handcuffs” and was about the very same young man, James O’Keefe, who pretended to be a pimp in order to expose Acorn -- and who, along with three pals, was arrested and charged with a federal felony -- entering federal property under false pretenses. Authorities believe they were trying to tamper with the phones in the New Orleans offices of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat.
O’Keefe, the story told us, was just the tip of a conservative movement iceberg. “Although he may be the most public face of this new approach, he is just one of a group of young conservatives who use political pranks and embarrassing recordings to upend what they view as overwhelming liberal biases on college campuses and in the culture at large,” the story said.
What they view as overwhelming liberal biases on college campuses? Memo to the New York Times: It’s not what they view as overwhelming liberal biases … it’s what anyone with at least a room temperature IQ knows is overwhelming liberal biases on college campuses. In any event, the Times played the story as if it were Watergate all over again.
I am not writing to defend James O’Keefe. If he did what he’s charged with, he crossed a line from prank to crime. I’m not even writing about whether this is a legitimate page one story. Reasonable people disagree all the time about such things. But if the Times didn’t think the Acorn story was worth covering, why does it now find Mr. O’Keefe – and other campus conservatives -- worthy of so much ink?
Acorn, after all, receives tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and has been repeatedly accused of trying to subvert our electoral process. That, the noble New York Times, didn't find all that interesting when the videos came out. O’Keefe at worst is a young guy who did something really dumb. But his tactics – and those of other young conservatives like him – the Times finds worthy of a very long story in its Sunday edition. Hmmm!
So, the question one more time: Why does it find Mr. O’Keefe worthy of so much ink? Could it be because he’s a conservative who got into trouble?
Yeah, I think that pretty much sums it up. That and the fact that the Times sees conservatives as the enemy … and when conservatives screw-up, those noble journalists at the most important newspaper in the galaxy salivate. And that, my friends, is how bias really works in what has become the lamestream media.
Loading ...
I’m behind you every step of the way. You have a legal entitlement to your own view, and you ought never let anyone tell you anything else. Good on you!
Dear Barnie, Would you please view the above web-site and consider supporting.
Thank You,
Robert Lynch
And there is cetainly no bias on this website!
don’t attack Bernie for stating his opinion, he has the right to do so. Just like you have the right to chose whether to read this article or not.
i think that this is a great article Bernie, and it really reflects what is happening all over the country with the media.
Mr. Goldberg,
In keeping with your critism of the lamestream media, press in particular, the following article by Tom McNiff, managing editor of the Ocala Star-Banner is indicative of where journalism is today. Journalism is an art rather than a science. Consequently journalism is jubjective rather than objective.
“Why we choose to run certain stories, photos and facts
Why?
That’s what our readers often want to know.
Why do we choose certain photos, write certain headlines, publish certain stories and not others?
Why do we publish some facts?
Why do we leave others out?
When tour groups visit the Star-Banner, I take them into our conference room where we hold our news meetings, and describe the way we work through these questions.
We talk, we argue, we listen, and we reach consensus.
And when there isn’t consensus, the editor makes a judgment call.
In the end, the process is more art form than science.
No matter how hard you try, you can’t take all the subjectivity out of it.
Yes, we try to be as scientific as possible.
We apply criteria.
Is the story local? Would it interest our readers? Which readers? Is a fact relevant? Etc.
We also consider the mythical “average, reasonable reader.”
Would a fact, a photo, a headline offend the reasonable reader?
Would this reader feel that certain details are gratuitous, or would the reader feel they were helpful in understanding the story?
This question came up recently while our public safety reporter, Austin Miller, was reporting a story about the alarming number of marijuana grow houses popping up locally.
As it turns out, the vast majority of the people arrested for operating these grow houses are Cuban nationals.
From August to December 2007, all 16 people arrested were Cuban; in 2008, 32 of 37 were Cuban; and in 2009, 29 of 35 were.
Within days of publishing that story, the angry e-mails, letters and calls started.
It was racist to point out the suspects were Cuban, some said.
Most Cubans are good, hard-working people, and the story made it seem that Cubans are all criminals, others said.
Why?
Like most radioactive issues, we saw this criticism coming, and we talked about it at length.
The first question we asked was, is it racist to point out that the majority of the suspects are Cuban?
No, we concluded, it was not.
You see, we don’t identify people by race unless it’s relevant to the story.
You never point out race for the sake of pointing out race.
It fuels racial stereotypes.
But Cuban is a nationality, not a race.
Cubans can be Hispanic, white or black.
So then why is it relevant that the majority of the suspects were Cuban nationals?
Whether they were Cuban, Mexican, Egyptian, British, Thai or Canadian, it is worth noting that most of the people arrested are foreign nationals.
It reveals a pattern, a disturbing trend that a group of outsiders is setting up criminal enterprises in our midst.
The reasonable reader I mentioned earlier?
I don’t think that person believes that a group of criminals represents the law-abiding, Cuban-American community.
We certainly don’t believe it.
It was racist to point out the suspects were Cuban, some said.
Most Cubans are good, hard-working people, and the story made it seem that Cubans are all criminals, others said.
Why?
Like most radioactive issues, we saw this criticism coming, and we talked about it at length.
The first question we asked was, is it racist to point out that the majority of the suspects are Cuban?
No, we concluded, it was not.
You see, we don’t identify people by race unless it’s relevant to the story.
You never point out race for the sake of pointing out race.
It fuels racial stereotypes.
But Cuban is a nationality, not a race.
Cubans can be Hispanic, white or black.
So then why is it relevant that the majority of the suspects were Cuban nationals?
Whether they were Cuban, Mexican, Egyptian, British, Thai or Canadian, it is worth noting that most of the people arrested are foreign nationals.
It reveals a pattern, a disturbing trend that a group of outsiders is setting up criminal enterprises in our midst.
The reasonable reader I mentioned earlier?
I don’t think that person believes that a group of criminals represents the law-abiding, Cuban-American community.
We certainly don’t believe it.”
Bernie,
I’m a big fan but one thing is niggling at me about your last appearance, the ‘57 states’ thing is not about Obama, after all any tired person can mis-speak, but the issue is the MSM non-coverage of it. If Palin, Bush or any number of conservatives had said it you quite literally would never hear the end of it. Keep their feet to the fire.
I thought the Manhatten to Malibu article was right on the money. Good Job!
Bob Sella
Park Forest, IL
Bernie,
This article isn’t exactly related to your column, but it’s very interesting reading:
http://bigjournalism.com/hfontova/2010/02/03/kenneth-what-is-the-frequency-how-cbs-and-dan-rather-set-up-elian-gonzalez/#more-17394
Bernie,
Sorry to keep doing this, as it is unrelated to your column, but there is an article I just found on the Drudge Report that you HAVE to see. Did you say something about CBS laying off staff today?
http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/feature-articles/katie-couric-fashion-interview
dear sir:
have you ever done any research on the left brain/right brain concept and looked at the Pres in this light. We have a left brained Pres and he does not know it. He says that he is not an idealist but that does not matter because he is a left brainer and his thought pattern will always be from that perspective of thought. Therefore, the decisions that he makes are most predictable and follow a pattern of thought that only left brainers use. Left brainers drive right brainers nuts and even tweeners have a very hard time understanding them. Jimmy Carter was a left brainer and look what happened to that administration. And now history has repeated itself and we are once again saddled with a left brain thought pattern of trying to govern. Since left brainers only live in the present -highly structured —show your work kind of world, the future is never a part of their decision making process.
have a great day
ken graber
Really appreciate hearing your views on O’Reilly every week. The malfeasance in the national and local press of not bothering to report stories that don’t fit their biases is astounding as you have been pointing out for some time. I would hope you might high light the lack of reporting in Chicago on Lech Walesa’s endorsement of a conservative candidate for Governor of Illinois the next time you are on the Factor.
Chicago has one of the largest eastern European communities in the country. Lech Valesa was sponsored by George Soros at the time he fought communism. When he got in power in Poland a horrific hyperinflation hit Poland. Transition from communism to democracy is glorified around the world, but folks from Eastern Europe remember the organized crime that came with that transition and Lech Valesa is not nessecary a person the Americans from eastern European origin trust.
Hey Bernie, To O’Reilly, You didn’t hesitate, saying, “Yes . . . when George Bush was President people on the hard left . . . wouldn’t have given him credit if he had found a cure for cancer .”
…and he was so close!
No, more like the praise he received from the left for his AIDS initiative in Africa. Oh that’s right they didn’t give him any!
Also, they under-reported the incredible reception he got from Africans when he visited there during the last year of his presidency. For a guy supposedly hated all over the world they came out in the hundreds of thousand to see him. Amazingly, they yawned when Obama went there last year. Again, under-reported.
Mr. Goldberg -
I really enjoy your commentary – every time I see you on O’Reilly!!!!
Keep up the good fight on our behalf. You are often able to clarify the murkiest issues. And please – keep the media honest.
Sincerely,
Mary Millikin
Alexandria, VA
Once again , PLEASE disprove ANY of what Rush, Hannity, or Beck has said , or is saying ~~ PLEASE !!! Can you ~ I hardly think so………….. Now if your talking “others” , I can’t speak for them………….
I want to join my voice to those commented in this blog, who think that Obama is evil. I am not a Republican, neither a Conservative, but I am from Russia, and I see in Obama all the birth marks of a future dictator. And I also agree with those commented in this blog who thinks that there is no such a thing as “fair & balanced” toward the evil. Because the evil is a con master. For those, who do not know the history of Russian Revolution, bellow is a short lesson.
When the leader of Russian Revolution V.I.Lenin had realized that his economic policy, that destroyed Russian economy, was threatening his power, he changed policy. He allowed some economic freedom. It was called NEP (New Economic Policy). Those on the left were very angry, those on the right praised him. Smart people on both sides new that it is not for long, because he kept all the reins. And at the very moment, when he decided that the crisis is over, he just killed NEP and established the total government control on economy.
I apologize for my English, but hope it is clear enough.
You should apologize for comparing Obama to Lenin. How dare you coming to our country and insulting our president!
Hey Wil,
I’m going to take it Lev’s comment one step further, Obama is is more like Mao than Lenin.
Bernice, I love watching you on the Factor, keep up the great work
To Will,
First, I dare. I am the USA citizen and dare to say whatever I want to say. I came to USA as a legal immigrant fifteen years ago. I work and pay taxes. I went to the USA because I liked the USA. I liked her people and her political system, and I do not want the USA to converted into something like Russia.
I did not insult our President. To insult means to say something bad about a person with a purpose to say something bad. I did not. I expressed my opinion. You can disagree, but you have no reason to be insulted. Many Muslims were insulted by a cartoon that depicted Mohammad as a terrorist. In protest they vandalized cars, smashed windows in embassies and promised to kill the author of the cartoon. The nice way to prove that Islam is a peaceful religion.
I did not say that Mr. Obama is Lenin. Lenin and the political system created by him killed millions and converted Russia to a dictatorship. Mr. Obama obviously is very far from that. But Lenin in not a cast word. Lenin was a real person with real ideology. And I insist that Obama came from the same way of thinking and given the opportunity can create the same totalitarian regime that Lenin created in Russia. So, if you really disagree, argue.
To Chuck,
In regard of who Obama closer to ideologically I do not know. He is definitely not Hitler because Hitler was nationalist, but Obama is internationalist. But I actually do not see much difference between Lenin and Mao.
You called our president a dictator.You foreigners come to our country and insult our leaders? I think that is grounds for deportation! Think about that!
The real insult is to Lenin. At least he had principals.
Also Lenin wrote his own books and speeches
Should the left apologize for comparing Bush to Hitler? Just wondering.
They should, but then again, you know that’s never going to happen.
Lev–
Thanks for your comments. I have noticed that people who have lived under communism or dictatorships are not too keen on the Obamavision. Doesn’t look so good close up, I imagine.
And..its pointless talking to Wil, he never has anything insightful to say.
Wow, Wil is always so supportive of illegal immigrants. But here is a guy who came here the right way and does all the right things, and he is supposed to shut up and march in lockstep with whatever Wil’s messiah says. So anyone who is not born here who insulted Bush should be deported also I guess. Hmmmm, what would your precious ACLU say about you Mr Congeniality.
Reading most of the posts on this site makes me very uncomfortable. Yes, there is a definate media bias in America. The point is this: no one should get all of their information from the same source. Citizens should read and listen to a variety of news, commentators, read blogs (left and right) and then apply thier critical thinking skills to decide for themselves where the truth lies.
Unfortunately, we’ve become a nation of nasty people who hurl insults and ratchet up the vitriole. This is why we cannot solve our very, very imminent and desperate problems. There is no harm in listening to an opposing viewpoint. There’s no harm in being respectful either.
Insulting Mr. Goldberg for expressing his thoughts on the media isn’t the answer.
Although I see your point I don’t agree with you. The article pertains to the NYT that considers themselves the paper of record. I do not mind opinions on the editorial page or by commentators but when I read the front page of a newspaper I want the news, not a political opinion or perspective.
Certainly the internet has affected newspapers circulation numbers but their Bias is a reason I cancelled my local paper after 30 years as a subscriber.
I watched O’Reilly last night and I’m not sure I get it. Who cares if Rush, Hannity or Beck pokes fun at the president’s mustard. I’m sorry I don’t like Obama. I don’t like his policies, I don’t like the way the country is going, I’m sick of the lying and corruption and frankly maybe conservatives have just had it. I like listening to the conservative commentators it helps me vent my frustrations with this administration. We know the other media outlets won’t dare challenge this man or criticize him they are too busy powdering his butt. Why do people have a problem with not liking the president. I mean I don’t want to see him get hit by a truck but I can’t wait until his term is over.
Unfortunately the TV bosses look at the ratings – the mustard bit was fun, I have to admit. If they want to reach a larger audience they have to mix the hard core budget numbers with some arugula and mustard. Fair and balanced and with audience bigger than the extended family of the crew
Regarding the Factor last night, “Goldberg too faint of heart”:
If you means Limbaugh, Hannity and/or Beck, name the “Kool Aid” radio hosts. Who the heck are you talking about any way? As for O’Reilly, when Beck used “lie” when referring to the State of the Union last week, Bill was “uncomfortable.” What do you guys call what the president was saying? If Obama doesn’t want to be called a liar…just stop lying.
Joe Cascarelli
Westcliffe CO
THANK YOU !!!!
Like you on Fox. Look at it this way when you are attacked for 8years you want to fight back. Lets see Dan Quail and Sara hope you can see the reason.
Just anted to share….
My space links, some great articles on how Palin was also treated….the media smedia….especially Mrs. Huffington…….Huff, she huffs and she just wants to blow the house down…….
I ask you Mr. Goldberg, what if Obama is evil???
Do you think that he would come in with horns, a tail and a pitchfork? No, if he is truly evil he would come in as a good guy, maybe someone you would want to have a drink with. He would smile a lot and be very charming. He would hide his true intentions with many palatable lies. He would be exceptional at conning people.
Now to me and many this is exactly what Obama is, a smiling, charming con man dead set on the destruction of the USA. Why, you may ask. Because it has been planned since the 60’s to bankrupt and bring the USA to it’s knees so as to take it over by usurpers.
I do not think it is logical to believe that no evil force can come in like a Trojan horse and take over our country. I do not think it reasonable to reject the idea that we have enemies who may groom someone to become President. It is possible our enemies are intelligent and determined to infiltrate our government even at it’s highest level.
Our Founding Fathers believed that we had to protect ourselves from all kinds of evil. Our Founding Fathers did everything in their power to ensure that this country would remain free. To keep us from being usurped by corrupted parties from within or from without they allowed for many rules in the Constitution. They knew that there had to be checks and balances. Obama has done and said many things that prove he doesn’t respect our Constition, too many to begin to write here. Our Founding Fathers believed that the taking over of our government by usurpers was a very real and dangerous possibility unless citizens remain extremely vigilant. Many of us see behind Obama’s huge smile a very dangerous man.
Do you really think that if someone is dangerous to our country that we should go out of our way to be “fair and balanced” and not say anything unkind about that person. Do you think we should be careful not to seem like we are against everything about him? With this attitude we leave the door wide open for leaders that are extremely wicked because if we identify them as so we are automatically determined to be extremist, angry and unfair. In the mean time the wicked comes in under the guise of just another brand of American politician and soon take over and change us into a country that we no longer can recognize and all of our rights are gone.
I call it idiotitology……he is very dangerous, a very dangerous man. Obama.
Kathleen, Graze peacefully.
Bernie wants his invitation to the ball! Look what it did for O’reilly.He drank from the kool-aid fountain!
So, if Obama were to keep his oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, will he have himself arrested and tried for treason?
36 accused of spousal abuse, 7 arrested for fraud, 19 have written bad checks, 117 directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses, 3 did time for assault, 71 cant get a credit card, 14 arrested on drug charges, 8 arrested for shoplifting, 21 currently defendants in lawsuits, 84 arrested for drunk driving in th……e last year. Is it the NBA Or NFL? Neither, it’s the 535 members of the United States Congress. Just something I heard….
A posting I had seen on FB