Scott Withycombe
Perspectives Assistant
With the November elections rapidly approaching, campaign rhetoric is becoming more prevalent and increasingly heated. Interestingly, yet not surprisingly, it seems that the most obnoxious campaign committee is not GOP Victory 2004 or John Kerry for President but rather the major media outlets.
Media bias is not a new phenomenon. It has been and remains a much-debated topic, the subject of books and the concern of watch groups. Although some writers have denied left-leaning media content, the bias is unmistakably present.
A recent informal New York Times poll shows that journalists in Washington, D.C., favor Kerry twelve to one. Other surveys have found that more than 80 percent of journalists in D.C. vote Democrat. Not one major newspaper has endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Journalists’ political affiliations would not be a problem if there was not an editorial presence in news pieces and coverage choices. It seems that the drive for diversity in newsrooms stops short of ideology, resulting in lopsided reporting supported by cultures of like-minded individuals. When everyone involved in the journalistic process shares the same opinions and ideology, it is easy for bias to go unnoticed.
In the hotly contested elections in November 2000, the nation watched Dan Rather struggle to deliver the news of a possible Republican victory. To say the newsman “struggled” would be a vast understatement. Rather appeared to be coming apart at the seams, and he was not alone. The whole liberal media complex went crazy and for the subsequent four years, it has been on the war path to defeat Bush in 2004.
The media campaign to elect John Kerry is in full swing. Some of the major networks might as well change their flashy headlines from segment titles like “Decision 2004” and “America Decides” to ones more reflective of their message, such as “Kerry-Edwards 2004” or “Boot Bush.”
The uniform message coming out of major media outlets is “Vote Kerry, Vote Kerry, Vote Kerry.” Watching clips of Kerry speaking to crowds and then watching the following news commentary, it is hard to determine where one stump speech ends and the other begins.
Aside from biased and extensive Kerry coverage, the media continue to blast Bush, especially on Iraq, while defending Kerry against attacks from conservative groups by painting Bush proponents as angry right-wing extremists and liars.
The most recent victims of this bias are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
The group of Vietnam veterans, many of whom served with Kerry, says it wants to set the record straight concerning the candidate’s service. The group launched an ad in support of Bush and is promoting Unfit for Command, a book detailing Kerry’s service. Both the ad and the book accuse Kerry of distorting the truth about his time in Vietnam.
This is big news for two reasons. First, Kerry has made his service the cornerstone of his campaign. When listening to clips of Kerry’s speeches it can be difficult to determine his stance on issues, but it is impossible to miss his emphasis on his status as a veteran.
Kerry, and the American public, should be proud of his service. At the same time, military service should not be distorted, embellished and used as a platform. If Kerry has lied about the very issue he has made the centerpiece of his message, the American people deserve to know.
Couple this with the fact that Bush’s record of service in the National Guard has been so closely scrutinized by the media and liberal interest groups, it only seems fair that the media would treat the Swift Boat Veteran’s accusations seriously and cover them as thoroughly as they did those against Bush.
But the media have been anything but fair and thorough. Where was their outrage when Moveon.org compared Bush to Hitler, or when liberal darlings Michael Moore and George Soros belligerently attacked Bush using questionable facts and hateful language? Where is the praise for this courageous group actively using their Constitutional right to free speech? Where are the demands for a federal investigation into illegal connections and cooperation between the Democratic National Committee and Moore or Moveon.org? Where are the calls for Kerry to open up his military records, as Bush has done, so that voters can discover the truth?
None of the above exist.
In their place, the media have moved to protect their candidate by attacking the concerned veterans and by neglecting to report on a story that is of public interest.
This is not objective journalism. It is neither balanced reporting nor accurate dissemination of news and information; it is political strategy at its finest. It is yet another story that has forced the media to show their real colors and reveal their overwhelming desire to put a Democrat back in the White House. Most of all, it is a sad abuse of a free press and public trust.
Fortunately, come November it will be the American public, not Dan Rather deciding the election.
08-30-2004