Who broke the Watergate story? Who broke the Catholic church molestation story? Who broke the football CTE story? Who broke the Abu Ghraib story?
In order - The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the New York Times, the New Yorker. Each of these stories brought charges of unfair reporting and media bias. Meanwhile, conservative media, led by Fox, talk radio and online sites like Breitbart, Daily Caller and others were part of a deliberate and coordinated effort to undermine the credibility of the mainstream media that broke such stories. That is not the view of leftists or the mainstream media, but people like Charlie Sykes and Rick Wilson, who were part of that conservative ecosystem who now regret their role in destroying trust in legitimate media.
Yes, the mainstream media has a liberal bias that is reflected in the stories they cover and how they cover them, but that does not make them inaccurate.
For example, a 2016 New York Times article on Trump University began "The sales pitches seeking to separate Cheryl Lankford from her money began during the recession as she struggled to get back on her feet following the death of her husband, an American soldier serving in Iraq." That opening sentence is worded in an inflammatory way that betrays a certain bias, but there is nothing untrue about the underlying facts, and the rest of the article then gives specific factual details of how Trump University and another company using the Trump brand, Cambridge Who's Who, made repeated aggressive sales pitches to Ms. Lankford and others like her who had been identified as financially vulnerable and thus, ripe targets for such pitches. It was a damning story, the revelations of which played an important role in prompting Donald Trump to seek a settlement in the lawsuits brought against the so-called university (it was not an accredited school in any way, thus the reference to "so-called" university).
This is an example of how a story can be biased but factual. It is also why those who choose to ignore such media consign themselves to a state of self-imposed ignorance, because nowhere on Fox, Breitbart or on-air with Rush Limbaugh or his cohort could you find the details of the settlement or the facts that made it necessary. In fact, one was far more likely to find dismissal or open ridicule of the facts themselves. By definition, lack of exposure to facts makes one ignorant of those facts. And democracy cannot thrive with an ignorant electorate.
Thus, why I will take biased facts over biased lies any day.
In order - The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the New York Times, the New Yorker. Each of these stories brought charges of unfair reporting and media bias. Meanwhile, conservative media, led by Fox, talk radio and online sites like Breitbart, Daily Caller and others were part of a deliberate and coordinated effort to undermine the credibility of the mainstream media that broke such stories. That is not the view of leftists or the mainstream media, but people like Charlie Sykes and Rick Wilson, who were part of that conservative ecosystem who now regret their role in destroying trust in legitimate media.
Yes, the mainstream media has a liberal bias that is reflected in the stories they cover and how they cover them, but that does not make them inaccurate.
For example, a 2016 New York Times article on Trump University began "The sales pitches seeking to separate Cheryl Lankford from her money began during the recession as she struggled to get back on her feet following the death of her husband, an American soldier serving in Iraq." That opening sentence is worded in an inflammatory way that betrays a certain bias, but there is nothing untrue about the underlying facts, and the rest of the article then gives specific factual details of how Trump University and another company using the Trump brand, Cambridge Who's Who, made repeated aggressive sales pitches to Ms. Lankford and others like her who had been identified as financially vulnerable and thus, ripe targets for such pitches. It was a damning story, the revelations of which played an important role in prompting Donald Trump to seek a settlement in the lawsuits brought against the so-called university (it was not an accredited school in any way, thus the reference to "so-called" university).
This is an example of how a story can be biased but factual. It is also why those who choose to ignore such media consign themselves to a state of self-imposed ignorance, because nowhere on Fox, Breitbart or on-air with Rush Limbaugh or his cohort could you find the details of the settlement or the facts that made it necessary. In fact, one was far more likely to find dismissal or open ridicule of the facts themselves. By definition, lack of exposure to facts makes one ignorant of those facts. And democracy cannot thrive with an ignorant electorate.
Thus, why I will take biased facts over biased lies any day.
No comments:
Post a Comment