For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Seven Deceptive Mainstream Media Techniques
Written By : John Hawkins

Just a few decades ago journalism in this country was actually about reporting the facts. Yes, journalists may have leaned to the Left, but at least reporters made an effort to be fair. Today, journalists are more interested in “making a difference” than in any antiquated standards and they play by PRAVDA rules. Every news story is filtered through an ideological prism and instead of asking who, what, when, how, and why, the stories are framed around a simple rule: How can we hurt the Right and help the Left?

Granted, there are a handful of exceptions like the late, great Tim Russert. ABC’s Jake Tapper, may also lean to the Left, but he at least seems to make an effort to be impartial. That being said, objective journalism is for all intents and purposes now dead in the United States. What that means is that you not only have to pay attention to the story the mainstream media’s giving you, but you’ve also got to try to figure out how they’re spinning the story. If you don’t understand the story AND the slant, you don’t understand the story. So, with that in mind, here are just some of the mainstream media’s favorite tricks.

1) Leaving out context.

The enormous amount of attention the Shirley Sherrod story has gotten is ironic, in that the story is that a liberal’s comments were taken out of context the same way conservative comments are taken out of context every day of the week. As a matter of habit, the conservative side of the story is under-represented, buried, or even completely left out of most articles in the mainstream media. That’s why there is a vast and thriving new media on the Right: because the mainstream media only provides half of the story and people have to go elsewhere to get the whole truth.

2) Sloppy errors that hurt conservatives. Nine times out of ten, if a mainstream media outlet gets a story wrong, it will either help liberals or hurt conservatives. Very seldom will you see an “honest mistake” that makes a liberal look bad. That’s because they’ll double and triple check anything that hurts their own side. When it comes to conservatives, fact checking isn’t a big concern for most mainstream media outlets — and good luck getting a correction. If you do, it’ll be grudging and given a few weeks after the article comes out. By then, dozens of liberal bloggers will have repeated the story — and they seldom let the facts get in the way of a good slam on conservatives.

3) The label game. A Republican who does something wrong is almost always clearly labeled as a Republican, while surprisingly often, a Democrat’s party affiliation is mysteriously left out of stories that make the party look bad. You’ll notice the same trend with think tanks. A conservative think tank is labeled as such. A liberal think tank is just a think tank. This game is even played with dead politicians. Would you know that George Wallace or Bull Connor were Democrats or that Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a higher percentage than Democrats? Not if you relied on the mainstream media to impart that information to you.

4) Painting the fringes as the mainstream. There’s nothing wrong with covering birthers, morons with racist signs at Tea Parties, or losers like David Duke. However, it is a problem when those people are painted as being part of the mainstream of the conservative movement.

It’s also hard to miss the fact that the mainstream media doesn’t do the same thing with the Left. They don’t show the public outrageous signs from anti-war rallies or the pro-illegal immigration protests and try to claim that those are widely expressed sentiments. How about the idea that Bush was behind 9/11 or at least knew about it and allowed it to happen? That was — and still is — a very popular conspiracy theory on the Left. Why isn’t that nutball theory or the even more popular “We invaded Iraq for oil” wack-a-doodle head spinner an indictment of the Left the way conservatives are supposedly tainted by birtherism or some guy showing up with a racist sign at a Tea Party is supposed to be?

5) The front page or the back page. Have an embarrassing story about a conservative? That’s front page material and if it’s a half way decent story, it may be good for a week’s worth of stories. Get a similarly embarrassing story about a liberal? Welcome to a brief article on page A-18 — and that’s if they run it at all. This is a powerful technique that can turn an extremely minor story like Cindy Sheehan protesting George Bush or waterboarding terrorists at Gitmo into a big, hairy deal. On the other hand, if Bill Clinton admits that he was offered Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter and turned him down, but the mainstream media refuses to cover it, do people even know that it happened?

6) The slant. Barack Obama has been roughed up a little bit by the media over the oil spill. But, how does it compare to the sort of coverage Bush got in the aftermath of Katrina? Even when the economy was doing well under Bush we got a steady diet of “Woe is me” stories about the unemployed. So, what happened when unemployment numbers skyrocketed after Obama got into office? Then Americans were introduced to the joys of “funemployment!” When Democrats win office, the American people “have spoken.” When Republicans win, the American people are “throwing a tantrum.” When Democrats disagree with the party in charge, they’re speaking “the truth to power.” But, when Republicans do the same thing, they’re seditious, potentially dangerous, mean spirited ogres from the “party of no.”

7) The lap dog “conservative” voice. It’s bad enough that the mainstream media is completely dominated by liberals and that conservatives are barely allowed to get a word in edgewise. But to add insult to injury, far too often, after letting liberals have their say, the media then trots out widely despised mediocrities like David Frum, Kathleen Parker, Meghan McCain, Christopher Buckley, and David Brooks who they know will echo the liberal line. In other words, people get to hear the liberal point of view and then they get to hear the liberal point of view again, this time from a supposed “conservative.” This is the Left’s idea of “fair and balanced.”

0
  • baoxian

    You have to look at all news through a skeptical lens. It's more work, but ultimately you'll get a better picture of the truth. Read a news story and ask yourself the following questions:

    1. Why was this story reported?
    2. Why was it placed above or below other stories in importance?
    3. What emotional words were included in this story?
    4. Where did the writer guess or speculate?
    5. How has previous work by this writer colored this story?
    6. Who stands to gain or lose from this story getting attention?
    7. What are the differences between this story and coverage of the same event from another outlet?
    8. What is my personal stake in this story, and what outcome do I favor?
    9. How much do I trust this particular source?
    10. Given the facts, how would I have written the story?

    Do some analysis this way and you'll quickly build up a BS meter and be able to separate spin from the facts. You'll also be able to better tell what's missing from stories, and be able to filter out your own personal biases. Since the days of flopping down in front of the evening news and getting any sort of accurate picture of the events of the day are dead and gone, better get used to it.

  • StanW

    I would once again like to be able to read an article in the newspaper or watch a report on television where I am not able to determine the reporter's political bias in the first few sentences. It occasionally happens on FoxNews, but on the Alphabet-Networks, I can tell which side of the issue the reporter is on with only a few words.

    Liberals screech daily about how much they hate Limbaugh and Coulter and Hannity and Malkin because they are “biased”, yet have no problem with the supposedly neutral reporters on ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC et al that are far more biased, yet lyingly claim to be 'Objective'.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

      “that are far more biased, yet lyingly claim to be 'Objective'.”

      Oh right. Far more biased than Fox, the station that wears its bias like a medal of honor? The station that created the Acorn controversy based on lies? The station that made hay of non-existant “death panels.” Hired half-term? Has Glenn Beck calling the President “racist.” How stupid are you people? That's a rhetorical question, we all know you're dumb as rocks, apparently.

      And you think the mainstream corporate controlled media is liberal because your leaders repeat the lie incessantly. You don't know what liberal is, is all you've proven.

      • StanW

        TRANSLATION: whine…whine…lie/lie/lie…whine

        Whadda maroon!

      • UFKA_Smithwick

        So in your opinion the 90% of the media that is not foxnews and is extremely biased is entirely negated by that one station?

        Consider: you have 99 Sean Hannity clones in a room and 1 Alan Colmes.

        The room on average is far the left, correct? I mean, it has Alan Colmes, an avowed liberal in it, so clearly that is all that matters.

        Do you understand now? I tried to use a fairly simple analogy for you. Let me know if I have dumbed it down sufficiently for you.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

          Look at the sum total of the media, not just television. Talk radio is dominated by right wing blowhards. Your side will likely argue this is because it's what people want to hear, and to a certain extent you are right, however what you omit is the notion that it's what sells, regardless of its validity as a forum for intelligent discussion. People buy “irate” more than they buy “carefully reasoned,” as presented in our media. This is because people in general in this country have sub-standard mandatory educations, compared to any other industrialized nation. The media searches for the biggest audience, which amounts to the lowest common denominator, and right wing radio is the result.

          As for television, I can tell you that it does not speak for left causes, it does not utilize the most articulate left voices, it offers basically milk and toast coverage where the only goal is to not piss anybody off, lest they turn to another channel. The few exceptions – Rachael Maddow, John Stewart, Corbet, Olberman — are voices in the wilderness, overwhelmed by a corporate ideology. Read some Chomsky, he covers it better than anyone.

          • UFKA_Smithwick

            Talk radio is not news, nor does it claim to be.

            And people like rightwing talk radio because they hear enough leftwing talking points on the daily news.

            Consider: if I were to make a drink that was exactly like coke and then market it as “yet another coke drink” do you think I would be wildly successful? How about if I made one radically different from all the soft-drinks on the market, but with a flavor people loved? Probably would be successful then, huh?

            So rightwing radio is successful precisely because the media is so far to the left: it's something new that people want but can't find elsewhere. The lefts answer to rightwing radio flopped for the same basic reason: if people wanted that they could turn on the news, or NPR, or open a paper. The market was already saturated.

            Same deal with foxnews' meteoric rise in popularity.

      • billdalasio

        This has already been discussed in depth. Many times. The available research shows that, while Fox is biased rightwards, it is less rightward biased than the rest of the mainstream media is biased leftwards.

        http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/gros

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

          That study doesn't hold water:

          http://mediamatters.org/research/200512220003

          • billdalasio

            Putz,

            That was perhaps the most substanceless critique I've ever had the misfortune of reading. You've wasted five minutes of my life with that tripe. Shame on you.

          • Mediumheadboy

            BWAH-HA-HA-HA!!! The dumbass foreigner actually cites Media Matters? Oh man, that's rich.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

    The problem, John, is that the news media is a memory hole. It provides no historical context because this often proves that its initial coverage was wrong.

    The conservative side of the story isn't buried, it's given credibility by reporting it and not questioned. The news amounts to “he said. she said” coverage, without any analysis.

    Because analysis often reveals that the truth has a left tilt to it.

    But to claim your side is underrepresented is to forget that we were led into an unnecessary war by your side, cow-towing the democrats to go along, with a complacent media that was unwilling to question the motives lest ratings be affected.

    John, I studied the news media when I was in college. Have you ever taken classes on the way television news covered politics from its inception in the 1960s, through today? Seriously, have you ever studied the news media with a professor or as part of a scholarly program? I doubt it, because you are repeating the same old nonsense.

    To claim that your side is oppressed by the media is to exclaim your ignorance of liberalism, the US media, and the way politics is covered in other countries. To put it bluntly, you are foolish.

    • StanW

      OH. MY. GOD!

      You studied News Media in College? Is there ANYTHING you have not done or are not an expert on, Petey? You are “The Most Interesting Man In The World”™
      {sarcasm OFF}

      Cow-Towed Democrats? Complacent Media unwilling to question Conservative motives?
      Not only do you live in your mothers basement, but you OBVIOUSLY have no television!

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

        As part of my BA program at UCSD, I had to take 3 upper division courses in the Communications dept. I took a course from Dan Hallin and another from Harley Shaiken. You can look them up. Hallin's course was where I studied televsion news most closely, since that was the topic of the course.


        You know, it seems like only yesterday when the Times ran that investigative series exposing false intelligence and urging President Bush not to invade Iraq, doesn't it? (hat tip to crooksandliars.com)

        • StanW

          And how did he create the false intelligence that lead to the same conclusion DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, Petey?

    • UFKA_Smithwick

      The denial is strong with this one.

    • baoxian

      I did study the media in college and I learned two things:

      1. Most of the people that pursue journalism as a career are out to “change the world” or “stick it to the man”, not report the facts.

      2. Establishment media is all about gatekeepers, control, and outcome-based reporting. Groupthink is pervasive, dissent isn't tolerated, and everything is agenda-driven. Even the few journalists who enter the field with some objectivity have it beaten out of them if they ever hope to advance within a big news organization.

  • billdalasio

    Mr. Hawkins,

    Great article. I do have to quibble, however, with the opeining line:

    Just a few decades ago journalism in this country was actually about reporting the facts. Yes, journalists may have leaned to the Left, but at least reporters made an effort to be fair.

    I really don't believe that there ever was some golden age of media fairness. None of the techniques you cite are exactly innovations. Hell, the media used to also use out-and-out lying (Walter Duranty comes to mind) to tow the left-of-center line. The difference was that there really was nothing out there distributing the other side of the story. So, when the New York Times chose to give us “All the News That We See Fit to Print” or Uncle Walter Cronkite told us whatever he thought we should believe, we really had no way of knowing that they were doing anything but giving us the straight news. Today, there's an army of bloggers, a lineup of talk radio hosts and access to every media outlet in the world all lined up and ready to call BS. It's not that the phenomenon is new. It's just that they're more likely to get caught.

    • Christopher_Taylor

      Yeah, John is a bit too young to remember what the news was like, but its always been tilted one way or another. Its just gotten really over the top lately.

  • UFKA_Smithwick

    All good points.

    And a big part of the reason why print media is dying and mainstream outlets are losing out to Foxnews.

    There is a market for this kind of blatant leftwing propaganda. The problem is that the market is far smaller than the supply. They have literally saturated the media with this nonsense that appeals to maybe 10% of the population. No wonder they immediately started losing out once an alternative popped up.

    I expect cries for a “fairness doctrine” (amazing doublespeak) and government bailouts of failing media outlets to increase as these doddering leftwing monoliths are culled down to their appropriate size.

    Nothing motivates the activist left quite as much as the prospect of being forced by market forces to get a real job.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/C3IKAXMRVZNEU5BZKUD7LK6WBA Pete Moss

      The moral is that information doesn't sell like manipulation, and Fox is the most manipulative of them all, from their “Fair and Balanced” tagline (no one actually fair and balanced would feel a need to point that out) to O'Lielly's constant claims that ratings of his show trump all, including the fact that he's still full of shit 99% of the time.

      What John doesn't remember was a time before they did away with the fairness doctrine, which mandated that the public airwaves had to be used to equally present both sides of the political debate. This was the impetus for the long-gone “Point/Counterpoint” portion of 60 Minutes, which I remember watching, of course. The fairness doctrine was eliminated in the interest of profits.

      The problem with your side is that it equates sales with validity. That's like saying Britney Spears is one of the great musicians, simply based on the number of albums she has sold.

      Your side is easily manipulated, and it is proven by your constant refrain that you don't need the government to control your lives. Of course not, you are already controlled by corporate hegemony, and unlike a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, corporations just see you as a vessel to suck money out of.

      • UFKA_Smithwick

        This is sad. When presented with clear evidence of the media stumping for Obama you come to the conclusion that the media is biased to the right, because of foxnews.

        • Christopher_Taylor

          He's not about truth or facts, he's about trolling and clinging pathetically to his dissolving worldview. Some leftists are beyond the reach of reality or logic.

          And some, as we learned last year, are hired by the White House to troll right leaning blogs and try to counter anything that damages Democrats or President Obama.

  • Ddk

    Wow. You are High! I mean kite high.

Advertisement
Featured Video

Ed Klein on ‘The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House’

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

40 Of The Most Bad-Ass, Masculine, Manly, Alpha Male Quotes Of All Time
50 Things Every 18-Year-Old Should Know
Politically Correct Fairy Tales
Why Men Are Becoming Wimpy, Video Game Playing Slackers Who Don’t Want To Get Married
Horror You Will Never Get Out Of Your Brain Again: Bronies
The 10 Best Obama Ate A Dog Images From Around The Web
Advertisement
User Info