Everyone knows that New Media, by design, brings a political perspective to everything they cover. Today, however, I was once again struck over the head by the inherent bias of the mainstream, "trusted" media ... including the ones I routinely rely on.
It's important to differentiate the subtle bias I'm talking about from
the blatant bias of outlets like Fox News or MSNBC. In the blatant
case, you know there's a spin so you're more on guard and questioning
of what they're "reporting." In the subtle case, however, obviously
partisan statements or views don't jump out at you, yet, the overall tone, use of language and what is emphasized
does subconsciously convey a political perspective. And because you're guard is down, because you're libel to think these are "facts" describing a "truth," you're more likely to simply file away what you've read and let it unconsciously impact what you think and believe.
As I wrote the first time my eye's were opened to this, in June's 3 Divergent, MSM Views Of The Pending Obama Decision To End Federal Benefit Discrimination:
Over the course of the 16 months I've been blogging every day, I often
read. about the same event from multiple sources and the differences in
the way mainstream, theoretically impartial, unbiased news outlets
cover a story has been eye opening. Bottom-line: there is no such
thing as objective reporting, everyone has a partisan slant, some just
acknowledge and/or are more obvious about it.
So here in, their entirety, are how 3
"legitimate" sources--not partisan blogs but major newspapers spanning
the political spectrum from right to left--reported Obama's decision to
stop the Federal government's discrimination against gay & lesbian
employee benefits.
So what's the truth? Is Obama's decision a break through or an incomplete bone thrown to his supporters? It all depends on which story you read it seems.
Then early this month, when another story was so obviously spun differently by different media--obvious that is to someone who spends so much time every day reading/watching the news from multiple sources--I posted in The Truth Depends On How It Is Covered:
The truth, it seems, all
depends on how it is reported. So now we have a partial answer to the
age old riddle: if two people are there when the tree falls, it makes
two different sounds.
Something for everyone to keep in mind while reading or watching "impartial," "objective" news.
Given that it's now happened again, I've decided I want to keep it in more in the forefront of my mind as I create each day's A Blue View edition. So I'm going to be on the look out for these instances and when I find them, I'll assign them to a new A Blue View category called "Media comparisons" which will make it easy for you to find them too.
So here is today's Media Comparison, this time of the NY Times & Wall St Journal's respective glass is half full / half empty coverage of the G20 summit.
First, the NY Times who thinks Obama might be doing something profound:
Group of 20 Agrees on Far-Reaching Economic Plan
One year after a financial crisis that began in the United States tipped the world into a severe recession,
leaders from both rich countries and fast-growing powerhouses like
China agreed on Friday to a far-reaching effort to revamp the economic
system.
The agreements, if carried out by national governments, would lead
to much tighter regulation over financial institutions, complex
financial instruments and executive pay.
They could also lead to big changes and more outside scrutiny over the
economic strategies of individual countries, including the United
States.
"We have achieved a level of tangible, global economic cooperation
that we’ve never seen before," President Obama said shortly after the
summit meeting of 20 leading economies concluded here. "Our financial
system will be far different and more secure than the one that failed
so dramatically last year." ...
The ideas are not new, and there is no enforcement mechanism to
penalize countries if they stick to their old habits. But for the first
time ever, each country agreed to submit its policies to a "peer
review" from the other governments as well as to monitoring by the
International Monetary Fund.
That in itself would be a big change, given how prickly national
leaders have often been toward outside criticism of their policies.
American officials, who pushed for the plan during weeks of
negotiations before the summit meeting, argued that governments were so
shocked by the economic crisis that they were willing to rethink what
was in their self-interest.
"I’m quite impressed," said Eswar S. Prasad, an economist at Cornell
University who had initially been skeptical about the proposed
"framework" for stable growth. "A commitment by the U.S. to take the
process seriously is a potential game-changer that would give the
framework some credibility." ...
"The announcement today is more than symbolic," said Robert M.
Kimmitt, who served as deputy Treasury secretary under President George
W. Bush. "The fact that leaders are turning to the strategic challenge
and doing it in a coordinated way at the level of the Group of 20 is
significant."
Then, the Wall St Journal, covering the same event, thinks this is likely to be just another ineffectual government "talkfest":
Economic Accord Aims to Coordinate Countries' Strategies to Promote Growth; Critics Warn Plan Lacks Enforcement Mechanism
The Group of 20 nations agreed to establish an elaborate structure
to coordinate economic policies, but without any enforcement mechanism
to make countries live up to their word, critics warned the plan could
be toothless.
For the U.S., winning approval of what the G-20 called "A Framework
for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth" was a major objective of
the summit here that concluded Friday as leaders issued a communiqué
documenting their agreement.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the pacts on financial rules
represented a "revolution," while British Prime Minister Gordon Brown
said G-20 initiatives would save millions of jobs. U.S. President
Barack Obama was less effusive, saying "we laid the groundwork today
for long-term prosperity." ...
Under the framework, members will meet periodically to review each
nation's policies and see that they are making necessary adjustments.
The IMF will do analyses. The group will act by moral suasion, not sanctions. Work on the framework is to begin in November ...
Some critics say the plan is likely to deteriorate into a talkfest
-- as have similar international efforts to get countries to make
economic changes. The International Labor Organization, for instance,
works largely by consensus on its labor standards and is criticized as
toothless and ineffective.
"Without sanctions, this agreement doesn't mean anything," said
University of Maryland economist Peter Morici. "The countries will just
discuss changes and make statements."
Recent Comments