Media bias and history
Not to pick on Tom over at SWGA Politics, but I think is a little off on his history:
The primary reason our founders felt it so important for us to have freedom of the press is simple. It’s imperative that our press be free to criticize the government’s action without fear of reprisal. Not that reprisal isn’t still a fear, but government sanctioned reprisal isn’t. This is as it should be, more or less (there shouldn’t be any reprisals, sanctioned or otherwise, but some folks are just jerks).Ever heard of James T. Callender? He was a political mercenary, taking payments for hit pieces on John Adams during the election of 1800. In fact, he was paid by Thomas Jefferson himself.In return, people expect an unbiased press to give them the facts and allow us to be an informed populace. That just ain’t what’s happening though.
[...]
The mainstream media is claiming to be unbiased, and yet time and time again they are presenting a case for more governmental control and less freedom, whether they realize it or not.
Both parties had newspapers that were completely biased. Unfortunately, the Federalists wound up passing the Sedition Act to silence and imprison writers of Republican newspapers, including Callender. In my opinion, that remains one of the most egregious and blatant violations of civil liberties conducted by Congress.
Is the media biased? Sure. Is this anything new in the context of history? Absolutely not. Complaining about it will eventually lead to more regulation of speech.
H/T: Grift Drift
Comments
Exactly. The complaining should always target the regulators, the FCC, for example. Biased press is nothing as long as opposition is not handcuffed by regulation to rebut. I hate the fact that bands are regulated, in that more tv/radio stations can't just come on line. In basic math you learn that you can always give a number between 2 numbers. between 100.5 and 100.4 is 100.45.... between 100.45 and 100.46 is 100.455. Our limitation on the number of tv/radio stations should only be limited by technology and not regulation, much like the internet is today.
There's where the argument lies... limiting free speech with regulation not biased reporting.
Another piece of history with free speech and I'll stop. Our founders not only wanted free speech to reign supreme to expose new ideas but to also out the bad or the "bad" people who would spew "bad" information. They had just defeated the most powerful government at the time and free speech was as much a offensive tool as a defensive one. Once someone loses credibility, they would have a tough time rallying an unjust revolution to overthrow the government of a new nation (These were very smart men).
So let the bias continue... they'll eventually lose credibility and free people will stop listening to them on their own.
Posted by: Daniel N. Adams | May 22, 2009 09:40 PM
btw
Other than this nuanced position on bias, I really enjoyed the post Tom. Good work. Pointing out the bias and hypocrisy is fine (outing them, so to speak)... forcing them (with regulation which could lead to something similar to "the fairness doctrine") to be unbiased, if that is not what they want to be, is another thing altogether.
Posted by: Daniel N. Adams | May 22, 2009 10:20 PM
Daniel: No worries. I had no intention of trying to link unbiased media to the founders, who I actually believe preferred a biased media...biased against the government! It wasn't my intent to give the impression otherwise.
Instead, I was just trying to show that the media is biased and that people should see where and how they were biased in order to better understand what they were reading. Hell, SWGA Politics is biased, but we tell people straight out we are. There lies the different in my opinion.
As for the FCC getting involved in the media at all, that's a clear violation of the first amendment and shouldn't be permitted by any court. The media's responsibility, as intended by the founders, was to keep the government honest. They can't do that with government regulation or any government involvement...much less bail outs that many are talking about for newspapers.
Posted by: Tom Knighton | May 23, 2009 08:49 AM