Why America Needs Biased Media: Part 3

Well friends, we've come to Part Three, the final part in my series about media bias. Once again, I'd like to thank everyone who read the first two posts and took part in the debate such as it was. As you can see, I firmly believe that bias has a place in media right alongside nonbias (on the rare occasions we can find it). In the first two parts of the series, I put media bias in an historical and political perspective, showing the ways in which it improved the United States of America. Today in Part Three, I will use a few modern political situations to show that we now have a negative and damaging media bias. I will then end the series with my final thoughts on where the media was, is and should be going. So with that in mind, let's get started.

The Clinton Case: Media Bias Is Good, But Now Twisted

Though the media is perpetually referred to as the "liberal media", almost every major media outlet is owned and operated by rich conservatives and is molded to fit their tastes. Add this to the manner in which many Republicans tow the line and follow the party's leadership and it's easy to see why most major media outlets have begun caving in to conservative views. After all, they don't want to lose all of those conservative dollars and viewers do they? This is exactly why the media followed President Clinton's sex scandals with gusto.

Republicans accuse the so-called "liberal media" of being slanted from the left. They say media outlets plaster their broadcasts and publications with attacks on Bush and other Republicans. While that was true originally, it is true no longer for reasons we will discuss later. What is true is that the MSM plastered their coverage of Bill Clinton with his scandals perpetually from the very mention of them. He never had a day go by that the MSM mention his scandals in stories in which he was involved, even when the story itself had nothing to do with his wrongdoings. They crucified the guy. How's that for "liberal media"?

I'm certain that my friends on the right are getting upset about now so let's take a look at several important facts.

First of all, while Clinton wasn't guilty of attacking his fellow Americans as Nixon was, he was guilty of cheating on his wife and telling lies to cover it up. That was something that needed discovering. Likely, without the so-called "liberal media" sensationalizing it and thus driving a bias, Republicans wouldn't have been able to turn his affairs into the big mess they spun them into. That, in turn, would have slowed or prevented the "Republican Revolution" they are so proud of.

Second, having sex and covering it up obviously isn't as big a crime as breaking into a political enemy's headquarters but Republicans hadn't forgotten the trouble Nixon got into for doing just that. They blamed Democrats for Nixon's downfall and thus were still out for blood after two decades (though Nixon did actually break the law when he tapped Democratic phone lines and broke into their headquarters).

Third, it's important to point out here that the media bias that was directed at Clinton wasn't like the bias of earlier times, which was usually targeted for or against a major social issue. The bias in Clinton's time was purely targeted to weaken one political faction in order to strengthen another, a purpose which didn't serve the American people and which severely wounded the nation by dividing it perhaps more than ever into ideological factions.

In conclusion, while we must concede the point that Clinton did some things wrong that deserved finding out, we must also observe the fact that media bias targeting him was not intended for the betterment of America but rather for divisive purposes intended to trick Americans into joining a subversive ideology. This is a case where media bias was detrimental to American well being.

The Bush Case: Media Bias Is Needed, But Lacking

While we're discussing how biased media can serve or harm the public during scandalous Presidencies, let's discuss Mr. Bush, a man who for soo many reasons should be investigated but whom for many more reasons can't be investigated. Let's look at these one at a time, shall we?

The first Bush-issue that suggests we need a biased media to pursue it is the original manner in which Bush came to power. Irregardless to the beliefs many Republicans hold, there is indeed something wrong about winning an election by such a close vote in a state ruled by one's brother and then being told by a Republican-dominated US Supreme Court which had no legal bearing on the case in the first place that no one would be allowed to investigate further. That is an issue the so-called "liberal media" should have stopped at nothing to investigate. Indeed, they probably would have had the GOP'ers not started heavily tagging them "the liberal media" at just that time. If the media had held to a little bias and developed some backbone, we might have at least known who had actually won the election. Bush: 1 MSM: 0

The second Bush-issue that suggests we need a biased media to pursue it is the fact that Bush was caught on tape saying that he would invade Iraq if he won the race in 2000. Does that not give at least reasonable doubt that he embellished WMD's claims as a means to "justify" his invasion at that time? This isn't about Saddam but it is about a claim Bush made that was either a lie or a gross embellishment. Americans deserve to know the truth either way. Besides, if we received "bad" intelligence about WMD's, as Bush claims, the intelligence has obviously proven faulty and can thus be released to the public to show that he did nothing wrong. Why hasn't he done that? Does he hide such "evidence" to protect, as he claims, national security or does he hide such things to protect his own guilty record? Clearly the "liberal media" isn't biased against him on this matter either. They seem content to let him get away with not coming clean about his intentions so long as he doesn't direct financial investigations or boycotts in their direction. Bush: 2 MSM: 0

The third Bush-issue that suggests we need a biased media to pursue it is the fact that Bush recently suspended prevailing wage to "help" in the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast region, which was totally devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Naturally, the "liberal media" is so biased against Bush that they let the matter all but drop only days after he made the decree. Do you think the construction workers who lost everything will appreciate being paid next to nothing for their services as they try to rebuild their communities? Do you think the workers who come in from out of state to help them will appreciate it? In effect, this is yet another case where the media that once fought over major social problems is now being trained to act with complacency when it comes to the White House. They are now happy to let Bush do as he pleases as long as he doesn't threaten them with investigations or conservative boycotts (and yes conservatives do boycott though they don't like to admit it). Sound like we need media bias? Yes it does but I'm afraid the media has already been sold to the highest bidder. Bush: 3 MSM: 0

Conclusion: Media Bias Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

I believe that history shows bias in the media has had, for the most part, a positive effect on America's development. It has brought to the foreground issues, facts and ideals that may never have surfaced without a bias to drive many a writer to persevere in his or her beliefs and causes, even under threat to his or her person. This willingness to take the hard road for the belief that the nation will benefit as a fruit of the effort should serve as a shining example to journalists today and in the future.

In saying that media bias has an overall great record, however, we must admit that the current system of media in the United States is stifled. Through the use of clever rhetoric, the very bias that once made American media so powerful has been used against it by a tide of political vigilantes in a quest to seize far more power than is their Constitutional share. As things stand at the present, the media is a tool of powerful rightist political forces. It is, in fact, being used against the masses though the masses themselves don't always realize what is being done to them. Through threats, bribes and buyouts, the media has been subverted and its once equally distributed bias along with it. In this way, the good things that come from bias in the media are now bad things. This proves that while media bias is a positive thing in that it can bring out all sides of an argument, it's strength is also a weakness that makes it vulnerable.

In the future, I would like to see the MSM undergo some changes that will give it a level of immunity to external forces such as those that now hold it hostage. For example, I would like to see media outlets declare their ideological positions whether they are biased, unbiased or centrist. I would also like to see journalists like those of old who refused to back away from a story simply because there was a chance that those in power would go on the offensive. Finally, I would like to see an increase in privately-owned media because owned by large corporations as most newspapers and news stations are, the personal feelings and emotions that drive good journalism are orbiting farther and farther from the journalistic mainstream and by association the American people. This can only make matters worse as time goes on. I hope everyone has enjoyed on some level or another my series on media bias. Thanks for reading!

The End