Spotting MSN Bias

Unless you believe moonbats or journalists (repetitive, I know), there's overwhelming evidence the mainstream media is biased in favor of the left. This is easy to spot in the overseas press, and apparent, if better cloaked, in America.

Internationally, reporters rarely hide their tracks. The European press regularly describes and pictures Bush as an idiot, outside the editorial pages. This is especially apparent in the Middle East, where, according to today's Jerusalem Post, Palestinian Authority employees double as "neutral" international journalists:

The story of [Majida al-] Batsh . . . highlights many concerns about the identity and political affiliation of several Palestinian journalists employed by international news organizations and TV networks to cover the Palestinian issue. It also underlines concerns about the credibility of much foreign news coverage in general in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In addition to her work at the French news agency, Batsh was also a reporter for the PA's official organ, Al-Ayyam,. In other words, she was also on the PA's payroll, since the Ramallah-based newspaper was established and is financed by the PA. Al-Ayyam's editor, Akram Haniyeh, has been listed as an adviser to Yasser Arafat.

But Batsh was not the only journalist at AFP who was working simultaneously for the PA. One of the agency's correspondents in the Gaza Strip is Adel Zanoun, who also happens to be the chief reporter in the area for the PA's Voice of Palestine radio station.

The AFP bureau chief in Jerusalem, Patrick Anidjar, refuses to discuss the issue, saying, "I don't understand why you have to have the name of our correspondents." Pressed to give a specific answer, he says: "I don't want our correspondents' names to go into print. I don't want to answer the question. What is this, a police investigation?" . . .

[T]he Associated Press and Reuters, which have their own TV production services, rely almost entirely on footage provided to them by Palestinian crews covering events in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The material, distributed to thousands of subscribers worldwide, mostly focuses on Palestinians as victims of IDF operations; the cameramen decide from which angle to film and which material to send at the end of the day to their employers in Jerusalem.

The Associated Press also has a journalist – Muhammad Daraghmeh – who works for the PA's Al-Ayyam.

This dual role, conceded by even pro-Palestinian observers, is a clear conflict of interest, says HonestReporting:

This is the equivalent of a network's Washington correspondent getting paid on the side by the Democrats or Republicans. Imagine the scandal that would produce. Yet with their coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, AFP and AP don't seem to have a problem with it. HonestReporting has repeatedly demonstrated that the local staff employed by western news outlets contributes in no small way to the problem of anti-Israel media bias.

The American press is more subtle. At least since Bernard Goldberg's exposé, the press has used various scams to cover its tracks:

1. Appeals to authority: Usually without either acknowledging that experts themselves may be biased or quoting contrary experts. ("Economist John Kenneth Galbraith argues. . . ")



2. Anonymous authority: Often presented in the passive voice, "to avoid taking responsibility for an action." ('experts say,' 'knowledgeable sources believe')



3. Polls: The media regularly pre-determines the outcome of its own polls through biased and un-representative samples, leading questions and selective reporting of results.



4. Man in the street interviews: I suspect many are phony, the quotes being the reporter's opinion. Others are overused, relying on a reporter's unrepresentative Rolodex, concludes Editor & Publisher:

   [O]ver the course of 10 years, one man has managed to become the media's go-to guy, quoted more than 100 times in various publications, including several prominent newspapers. Greg Packer is the "man on the street."

Today's WaPo featured a prime example of bias technique three. No one would mistake this front-page story for neutral news:

President Bush will begin his second term in office without a clear mandate to lead the nation, with strong disapproval of his policies in Iraq and with the public both hopeful and dubious about his leadership on the issues that will dominate his agenda, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

On the eve of Thursday's presidential inaugural ceremonies, the survey found few signs that the country has begun to come together since Bush defeated Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) two months ago. The president has claimed a mandate from the election, but the poll found as much division today as four years ago over the question of whether Bush or Democrats in Congress should set the direction for the country.

This isn't "we report, you decide"--it's an editorial attack disguised as coverage, supported by "scientific" polling. Although acceptable on A18, it's outrageous on page A1. And, as Ra^therGate demonstrates, the press can't perceive the problem.

The mainstream media is laughably thin on both content and camouflage. So, as liberals say, 'celebrate diversity'--especially by reading blogs.

(via LGF)

More:

NRO's Jim Geraghty on the economic impact of partisan media:

In the print world, the major newsweekly magazines, and almost every major city newspaper is clamoring for your attention if you're a non-conservative. In fact, most of the coverage is written from, and for, your viewpoint. You can read the New York Times nationally, or the Los Angeles Times, or Reuters wire copy. Both Chicago and Philadelphia have two major papers, neither of which is conservative. At the magazine rack, you have The New Republic, The Nation, The American Prospect, The Progressive, Mother Jones, Washington Monthly, The New Yorker, The New York Review of Books, Harpers, the post-Michael Kelly Atlantic Monthly, and Slate and Salon on the web. (This list isn't exhaustive, I'm just trying to give a sense of the breadth and depth.)

On the radio dial, you've got Air America, as well as much of NPR's programming.

That's a lot of media competing for the attention of the 49 percent.

Meanwhile, on cable, Fox News pretty much has the 51 percent to itself, unless you want to count Joe Scarborough, Dennis Miller, and about half the Capitol Gang.

It's a similar situation in print: You have a few conservative magazines, NR, The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, and The American Conservative, as well as the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, and some alternative newspapers like the Washington Times, the New York Post, New York Sun, Boston Herald, etc. The radio dial gives you a decent slew of options.

But by and large, the right-of-center "alternative" media outlets are courting the 51 percent, while the many more mainstream media outlets are courting the 49 percent.