Liberal Bias

Regarding Weed’s comment in the earlier post, I figured the convergence of “liberal” and “media” deserved its own blog entry.

Here’s a capture from today’s Star Tribune, the lead story on the front page…

Regarding Weed’s comment in the earlier post, I figured the convergence of “liberal” and “media” deserved its own blog entry.

Here’s a capture from today’s Star Tribune, the lead story on the front page…

*********************************** State ban on smoking heating up Conrad Defiebre, Star Tribune November 18, 2004

Proposals to extend indoor smoking bans to restaurants, bars and workplaces statewide are gathering interest from legislators, and some form could gain passage next year if backers can sway enough undecideds, a Star Tribune survey of the Legislature shows.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty has promised to sign such a bill should it pass, and the survey of more than three-quarters of the 2005 Legislature found significant numbers in each house at least open to the idea. The Star Tribune reached 52 of 67 senators and 103 of 134 House members.

Many legislators remain undecided, but those firmly opposed — largely Republican or outstate — do not appear to have the numbers to block a ban on their own.

In another sign of momentum for the initiative, a Republican House member, with the blessing of the GOP majority leadership, plans to introduce a smoking ban bill early in the session that opens Jan. 4.

***************************

You guys know I want the smoking ban more than anything, but talk about liberal bias in the media. I think what the paper did is terrible. Their front page lead story from this morning reports how the “state ban on smoking heating up” when it was their own survey they put in the field. That’s creating the news, not reporting it.

What makes it even more damaging to the paper’s reputation is that they released an editorial two days ago that called for a statewide ban. They went right from advocating for a statewide ban on smoking to putting 5 repoters in the state capital to conduct their own survey, and then lead the news with how a smoking ban is gaining traction. What traction? Your survey?

It’s this kind of crap that gives the media a bad name. How about just reporting the news and letting me make my own decisions. Report on the GOP majority interested in putting the bill in play and if you’re going to support it with a survey, do it with a survey from a public health care entity.

2 thoughts on “Liberal Bias”

  1. Media bias: left or right?

    By and large, I think most news agents lean very heavily towards impartiality. I’m a person that listens to both conservative and liberal talk radio, and to hear the announcers speak, it would seem that most mainstream media is vilified by both parties.

    Which, to me, is a good indication that they probably do a decent job of being impartial most times. If both sides of the argument hate you for doing your job, in journalism that’s probably a good thing. If you find one side of the aisle approving of your actions on a consistent basis, that probably indicates partisanship.

    The media, however, is a very curious beast. For example, there was a recent incident in Iraq where an unarmed, wounded enemy soldier was killed by a U.S. soldier, and the incident was caught on videotape.

    Consider the social implications of the release of the tape:

    • It is likely to be fuel to power additional resistance to the U.S. occupation, thus costing American lives in the long run
    • It hurts the “moral high ground” argument that U.S. soldiers are fighting an honorable war against terrorists who cut people’s heads off
    • It is evidence of Geneva accord violations, which may lead to further international disapproval of U.S. actions in the area.

    Would it be better for the world if that tape were never released? Is war best accounted for in number of lives spent in its pursuit, or is it best accounted for in how it is fought honorably? Or something else?

    Really no point to my posting, really, except that it’s fascinating to watch conservatives push for suppression of information and propaganda in the interest of saving U.S. lives, while watching liberals push for more information and less propaganda in the interest of saving lives on both sides by ending the conflict. At least, that’s the way it appears to me, but talk-radio-heads are probably not the best measure of mainstream conservative and liberal positions 🙂

    —
    Matthew P. Barnson

  2. One incident is not a whole picture

    By and far, the problem with media in general is that it only gives you a snapshot, a very brief snapshot, of the whole picture. Yes, I’m sure an American soldier shot a wounder Iraqi and killed him. I’m sure it’s happened more than once. It’s not right, but it’s not the whole picture by far:

    Consider the possibility that solder has lost his best friend to a suicide bombing. We cheer Arnold and Clint and countless others when they going their final revenge in the movie theater. Maybe this guy was living the movie? Doesn’t make it right, but it makes you think.

    Consider the possibility the terroists have played possum before, drawing in people only to kill them as they offered aid.

    Consider the possibility that the soldier was a bad apple, and the best thing for anyone in his futurepath was this video because it might stop him now

    There’s just no way to know anything from the little bit of information you’ll glean from the media. And there is no truth, because everything every written, seen, or thought has been tainted by human bias. There’s only the truth you make.

    *We pause 5 seconds for Weed to pull himself out of the mierda he’s been typing for the past 5 minutes*

    Point is, to make any decisions based on a video clip or news bite is stupid. Unfortunately, public opinion thrives on them. Just ask Jesus.

    My $.02 Weed

Comments are closed.