Media bias or media balance

This morning's Duluth News Tribune had yet another rant from a global warming denier: "Global warming a prime example of junk science". He then goes on to use isolated facts and hearsay assumptions to berate those who have made numerous scientific observations. I wonder why the DNT even gave space to this letter.

Of course, to show they are not biased, that they give "both sides" a hearing.

Actually, if they want to give "both sides" a hearing, then they should give equal weight to the global warming alarmists who act as if the world is doomed if we don't take draconian measures yesterday.

I would put giving global warming deniers in the same category as flat earth believers. After all, all those pictures of the moon were staged, right?

The media bias charge does come from two extremes: from those in lock step with "Republican" "principles" and from those who believe all corporations are evil.

"The media", whatever that monolithic entity is, does have the job of addressing truth to power. Many on the so-called right were up in arms about criticism of President Bush, but now they are strangely silent about criticism of President Obama. Or even about reporting of the "right's" criticism of Obama. Interestingly, most of the reasoned criticism of Obama is coming from columnists who gave supportive views of Obama during the presidential campaign.

Some have made an "objective" study to prove media bias. They rate stories as to being favorable to "conservatives" or to "liberals", often finding there are more "liberal" stories than "conservative". This is a false dichotomy, assuming that both groups have equally legitimate views and interests.

First, let's admit that there are both "kooky conservatives" and "loony liberals", people whose views are not shared by many others. Now is it possible that the number of pragmatists with honest differences of opinion might be larger in one group than in the other? Currently it is "liberals" who have more pragmatists than the "conservatives". In another era, the balance may shift the other way.

Until we give more balance to the pragmatists, we will have biased media.

Palin and Africa, who said what when?

Bob Lundegaard's letter ("The Palin Effect, McCain camp should have given her a map", Star Tribune, November 15, 2008) set off some alarms in my head, especially when he wrote about "the media" and even more so when he wrote about "the media elite".

I've written elsewhere that "the" is one of the most dangerous words in the English language, second only to "they". Too many people use "the" for sweeping generalizations about a particular group when it is really a few with whom they have a complaint. "The media" covers a wide variety of broadcasters, publishers, and bloggers. The opinions and skills of the people vary so greatly that one cannot really generalize. Can one lump Rush Limbaugh and Arianna Huffington together in "the media? Or a skilled writer like George Will with a ranting blogger who uses only ad hominem attacks?

Lundegaard complained that the timing of the release of the story about Palin and Africa confirms "people's suspicions that the media elite can't be trusted." I submit that the timing may have been because a certain news team could be trusted. However, to find this out, I had to spend more time than any of the online commenters to Lundegaard's letter seem to have spent.

The first inkling I got of a really big problem was when I saw CNET News item about a McCain advisor named Michael Eisenstadt claiming to leak the story to Fox News. This story was actually a New York Times story published in Arts and Entertainment, Nov. 12, "A Senior Fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence". The man posing as Eisenstadt said he really was not the leak.

I can't remember all the twists and turns of my search for the facts, but I did find two Fox News broadcasts on YouTube of interviews with Carl Cameron, Chief Political Correspondent for Fox News. These both took place on November 5, one on the late afternoon news and one on the Bill O'Reilly program. On both he mentions Palin not knowing Africa was a continent. He mentions no sources except in the first he says "McCain aides told me today..."

When I searched Fox News for "Palin Africa" I found 25 hits in the ranges May 5 to September 10, September 18 to October 26, and November 7 to November 16. Either Fox News' search software leaves gaps or Fox News has pulled certain pieces.

I did find a news recap that mentioned the Africa charge. Jane Hall said on Fox News Watch on November 8, "And Newsweek had it and Carl Cameron had it and Hugh Miller had it." I don't know who Hugh Miller is, but when I searched Newsweek for "Palin Africa" I had zero hits.

I also did a search of the Star Tribune and the New York Times. The Star Tribune has nothing on "Palin Africa" until Lundegaard's letter. The New York Times has six hits after the election. Four were by columnists who attributed the remark to Fox News or Carl Cameron or stated it was a contention, one was the story about the hoax, and the sixth was about Palin defending herself against the charge, "Palin Calls Criticism by McCain Aides 'Cruel and Mean-Spirited'", November 8. She is quoted as saying, “For the most part, absolutely, media persons, reporters, have been absolutely right on and there has been fairness and objectivity. There have been some stinkers, though..."

So, where does this "revelation" that Sarah Palin didn't know Africa was a continent come from. One could say that Carl Cameron made it up; Wikipedia says that he has fabricated stories in the past. One could also say that one remark by Palin has been blown out of proportion and context. Apparently she did have a discussion about South Africa and was unsure whether it was about South Africa the country or southern Africa the region. If this is so, we should cut her some slack. Whatever, Carl Cameron is not "the media".

Who is "the media, who agreed to hold the story until after the election"? Remember Jane Hall's comment about Newsweek and Carl Cameron? For many years, Newsweek has done "Secrets of the Campaign" reportage. They offer to document many of the behind the scenes events in exchange for the promise not to publish anything until after the election. I think they have gotten co-operation from both Republicans and Democrats for many elections. Newsweek isn't "the media" but they have shown they can be trusted. You can see dozens of clips of both the McCain and Obama campaigns that were not made available until November 5. You might enjoy them if you have a few days free.

See also "Palin and Africa, who said what when? Sources for article"

Who has the right "experience"?

John McCain keeps hammering away that he has foreign policy experience and that Barack Obama is inexperienced. McCain claims that Obama is willing to meet Iranian President Ahmadinejad "without preconditions". Obama responds that "Ahmadinejad is not the most important man in Iran and may not even be the right person to talk to."
- Duluth News Tribune, 2008-10-03

Notice Obama's use of "may not". I'd rather have someone who is ready to adapt his foreign policy to others' reactions than someone who sings "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."