The Biased Media
The Biased media
By Roger Lippman
“All the news that’s fit to print” was the media slogan years ago. Say’s who?
It is harder and harder to find out what is real and what is manufactured by the media to “make it real”. No kidding. Did you know that the Hearst news papers were scandal rags years ago? We actually went to war during Teddy Roosevelt’s day because the newspapers made up the stories about the “enemy” and pushed us into demanding our country go to war. Why? To sell more newspapers of course.
Now days we have TV and the internet completing to give us all the news that’s fit to print or so they tell us.
When I was young it was easy to tell what slant editors of a newspaper put in it. If you wanted a Democratic view in Chicago you bought the Sun or the Times. If you wanted the Republican side, you purchased the Tribune or the Herald Examiner. Of course there were several more, but these were 4 of the biggest in Chicago at the time.
Following WW2 newspapers started merging so that these four—which were by no means the only ones in Chicago selling on the Street, merged into the Sun-Times for your Democratic opinion and the Tribune took over the Herald Examiner and had the Republican side. The others faded into the night and TV news would eventually cut circulation back on all so would go in and out of bankruptcy.
Things first blurred from the old Democrat and Republican papers as they published more liberal and conservative view points, liberal being Democratic and conservative being Republican. Now days however pick up either of the major papers in Chicago and you get an extreme liberal or just liberal opinion. That is not to say that I want everyone reading just conservative views but you do not get an unbiased report anymore nor can you take one and balance it against the other to find the truth.
TV is the same. The news stations tend to fight over who is going to express a more liberal slant. A lot of reporting now also comes from the news services that are limited to AP and not much more because of budget constraints so most news reporting is not done with your team on the scene but is purchased from the pool or network. Sure there are exceptions for the big boys but is it all unbiased? Hardly.
Take one example that still upsets me. Have you ever heard of any crime where someone does something wrong and we do not hear it reported that his mother says he did not do it, he was a good boy or he is innocent? Take the 90/11 World Trade Center madmen for example. All their relatives in the Middle East said it was not true. They blamed either the CIA or the Israeli’s that did it but not their son or relative, never happened. How about the family of the Boston Bombers in Europe? It is always the case. Now we in the U.S. know the truth about who did it in both cases but not people in many countries and it still continues to this day. They do not accept the truth.
So in recent years when a number of black teens were shot by police in different incidents, the parents sure enough always said they were innocent. Now, I am not saying that some of that may not be true but 100% of the time? How has the media portrayed it? In a non biased fashion? You decide:
The worst example in point is of Michael Brown. If you picked up the newspaper or saw the countless news stories at the time, you would see a photo of a sweet young kid in cap and gown and then read how he was murdered by a cop in Ferguson and to make matters worse, shot in the back for no reason and stories said he even had his hands up to surrender. The parents were interviewed over and over as they said no way, their son never did anything wrong.
Few and far between are the photos or the video from the security camera in the store showing Michael Brown as a big 275 pound 6’ 4 inch man shoving a store clerk and robbing him before he and his pal left the store. The clerk called the police and reported he had been robbed and there was the video to prove it.
Now claiming in all fairness according to the media, it was reported that everyone wanted to know the state of mind of the cop who shot Michael Brown because this would indicate what motivated him to shoot an “innocent young kid”. What was the cop doing before the incident so they can judge whether he was doing something that had an effect on his attitude when he pulled the trigger? They found however the police officer was responding to a call and in no way had planned to go after Brown.
A prosecutor of the victim, if he had survived, may however have wondered what the “Victim” was doing before to see what was his attitude as well. That would be fair, right? Well, the media did not report it. Was he like robbing a store and shoving a clerk to show he was a bully and did not care about right from wrong so you would hardly expect to find him innocently walking down the sidewalk and being cooperative if confronted by a cop?
There my friends is the smoking gun. However, Where did we find that in the press or in news coverage? It did not exist because they reported that according to witnesses Brown was shot in the back or he had his hands up--neither of which was true. No mention that he had just fled the scene after robbing a store and shoving the store clerk. There was not a single photo showing his image at the time of the robbery, just the cap and gown from school.
So over and over for months on end we saw the photo of young Michael Brown in cap and gown and of course reasoned from that photo who was the bad guy. It HAD to be the cop! So with that ingrained in us, It is repeated after every shooting of a black teen by a police man in the U.S. Always look for a photo of the person shot in a cap and gown. Is that unbiased and truthful? No. Does it serve the community? No, it only enflames it. Do we ever hear that someone shot may have been a gang member, had prior arrests or was in trouble? Or worse yet, did he do something that provoked the shooting? No, it does not sound good on the street.
So how did the Michael Brown media coverage effect events? The President of the United States no less, appeared on TV and showed obvious support and bias for the Brown view point and castigated the Cop before the true facts were in. Never before has a president, who is also a lawyer (and would understand the implication of his act) appeared on TV and failed to say, wait for the facts, or anything to calm people. Instead his view point was seen for the nation and all to observe. The cop was obviously wrong.
Now as facts developed, the so called witnesses were not really witnesses after all and their stories were made up. They all perjured themselves. The only one around was the friend who was in on the robbery who naturally supported the view point that they were taking an innocent stroll.
By saying it was the cop’s fault, he avoided being charged with robbery himself. Down the road it developed that Brown’s hands had gun residue on them showing they were in the Police officers vehicle grabbing the gun. No shots in the back, no hands up. All made up and supported by the unbiased media. Over and over again.
Now why is this important? First, the media has never gone on record stating they made a mistake. The error was buried and the community rioted and to this very day they refer to the Brown case as a murder by a cop. Millions of dollars in damage was done in the community by rioters and they continue to refer to Ferguson as an instance of cop out of control when it is erroneous but it is ingrained in them by the media that there was a cover up by law enforcement and the establishment because how could the cop not be charged with murder? Forget the fact that he was innocent. The media made him into a criminal.
So when activists recently demonstrated in Chicago after a police shooting, they naturally again referred among other things to the Brown case--that actually proved just the opposite-- to support police abuse and injustice.
Where is the fair and unbalanced media? Not reporting the error because it does not sell papers if you inflame people to act, they follow through and you then realize you made an error. You do not come clean. Good journalism or just smart business to get attention, newspapers sold or higher ratings?
So we have ingrained in us that the Ferguson cop was a murderer when he was not and we are basically being told by the community, based on what they are reading that all Cop killing is going to be bad. Believe me I am not saying that all cops are good ones and there are no rotten apples. Yes there are bad cops and probably always will be and we need to get rid of them when we find them. I have seen it however also in bad lawyers, judges, doctors, politicians and so have you but you cannot condemn entire law enforcement by showing examples that would disprove, not prove the case.
Where is responsible reporting if all you get is a very liberal slant that is going to push people to “Want” to believe that even if it is not true?
Our community is pulled apart enough as it is by false reporting and an effort to create an issue where it should not be. Manufacturing news is nothing new. During world war 11 the government used Hollywood to sway public opinion. That may have been good thing since our country was in no way united in the war effort against Germany and Japan but today instances of excess by all forms of media are more common and fairness is not considered.
You can see this all over. Take the Republican debates. The rules established by the moderators were that if you were asked a question and the question or your answer involved a second party to the debate, that party had a chance to respond. This then could also apply to his response that mentioned you and you again respond mentioning him and it could go on, with no one else in the debate included in the discussion. And so it was with Donald Trump whom the Panel seemed to relish having in almost every question and every answer. The other candidates, why they were there mainly to take up space.
The end result was that the media got what they wanted, an event full of Trumpisms and moving the debate in areas that were unwanted by rational people but his supporters ate it up. The Republican party has gone more and more off the cliff to meet Trump and his views because that is all the media is reporting and the public relishes it.
Serious issues are left to sound bites and the nation suffers because we are creating media events and not serious debates. Electing a president is the most serious thing Americans can do. All our lives are affected and that includes people living in the U.S. and elsewhere. A president can start wars, involve us in unwanted actions and also not do things that are needed for the country and the world.
As you may already realize I arbore the idea of Donald Trump as President. Get serious. I see both men and women swear that he is the best and I wonder if they are on the same planet. Can you really tell me you want Donald Trump to represent us to the whole world as out best? He is a promoter. He is Barnum and Baily. He is a big bully. He is hyper critical of everyone other than himself and longs for attention and praise. His name is on everything he touches except so far the White House. He is the last person whom you want representing us. Yes, he has brought to the front the issues of immigration and a few others but his solutions are off the wall. He is certainly not America’s best and his values are making the Republican party move in directions that guarantee they cannot win any general election. Do we want that? Only if you are a Hillary fan. The media is helping guarantee that our next president will be Hillary Clinton which no doubt fits in with their super liberal bias.
Do I want someone in the white house that is deeply suspicious of everyone as Hillary is, who has been remarkable at getting money from people worldwide to support their ‘charities’ including people whom it might seem to be a conflict of interest, who has had scandal after scandal with E mails, her Libya involvement and others and would take us further in the Obama direction? NO, but the media wants to treat her with kid gloves.
So that should point out I am not a fan in that direction either. I tried to have a reasonable discussion with a Trump supporter about his plan to send 11 million people back to Mexico. Now mind you, I totally agree we need a solution and must stop the open door policy of everyone in the world coming here with no restrictions on admission which is bad for our national security and then offering them free everything at the expense of the citizens here.
We need a sound immigration policy but must solve what to do with those already here. Some must go back. Some however can “earn” the right to stay here if they came illegally but the door then has to close on illegals to protect us and also make sure we do not squander all our resources that should be used first to help American citizens.
However you cannot send 11 Million people back on United Airlines to Mexico. It is totally impractical. Yet, when I had this discussion with a Trump supporter I said how many thousand planes would it take, who is paying for them which could be in the billions of dollars and who is going to provide the planes? Do we just tell all airlines that they cannot accept reservations from any Americans for two years while every plane flies to Mexico with illegals all the time? Oh, by the way, what if Mexico says no and does not accept them? Say what do we do about the houses they own here, who gets them? Another issue is the children born of those illegals who are now American Citizens. They have constitutionally protected rights.
As you can see there are some real issues here and many of them are legal ones. Yet in each case, the answer I got was “who cares or don’t worry we will get it done”. What he did was parrot the Trump line that all this is a small matter of detail that will be worked out. Don’t worry, trust me I ‘m Donald Trump. That is like hearing Trump say he will make Mexico pay for the giant wall he will construct to block out all people coming here from Mexico. I asked my friend who supports him, will President Trump send a debt collector to Mexico to get a check for the Billions? It is not possible to get a rational reply because the issue is a non starter.
Yet we hear about this all the time since Trump is a master getting the media to report everything he does so he can dominate the papers, TV and all coverage. The media eats it up. He is a Kardashian of that I am sure since he has mastered the same thing they do keeping their name and image in the press, TV and on the internet day and night.
How sick have we gotten that we live and breathe only to find out the Kardashians are going to wear each day, what they have to sell, what they have to say and eat that major issues are unimportant to us as long as we are filled with details and more details about their lives. Is that not Trump as well? Do we want a Kardashian in the White House? Do we really want Trump there?
So my good friends, imagine if TV, Newspapers and other media would just stop reporting about them, about Trump and about the excesses of the police when it is not real and saved converge for real events, what would happen? Is it possible that some things might improve?
Just so someone does not say that I am some ultra liberal trying to bash republicans, I do not support Hillary and what has happened to the Democratic party as it slides more to the left. I would like to see a Republican in the white house but a person that can not only be serious about the huge world problems we have but also the high cost of pharmaceuticals, poor care at VA hospitals, and go after real issues which will never happen while the media pushes us to “accept” all things Trump and all candidates have to adopt his views to get attention.
There are some liberal issues bad for our nation. I do not support a free college education for every person. Bring back the trade schools so that those who may not be college material but who want an actual job can get work and we can bring back the jobs from China which are there not because of the lower wages but because we lack skilled workers. Politicians have convinced us that a college degree guarantees a job when the jobs are leaving the United States. A college degree with no job available guarantees only more money for colleges and raising costs.
We cannot stop jobs going out of he country when we promote free higher education with no place to work.
So how can we get the candidates to square off on the real issues and not media events? How do we eliminate the crazies that are running and destroying the political process if the media encourages it?
Were it not in fact for a horribly biased media and the Republican side show with Trump and Cruz, it might have been reported that our president has steered the country into dangerous areas. In 2012 all his senior officials recommended arming the moderate Syrians to fight Assad. Obama rejected it for a few years until such time as ISIS took over much of the area and converted many of the moderates who lacked equipment to come over to their side. Was that why after creating his famous red line with Assad about nerve gas, he ignored it after Assad cheated?
Was he more interested in a future nuclear treaty with Iran and did not want to offend Iran by arming the moderates? Some of his former generals think so. In fact once the treaty was negotiated which many find terrible, he has let nothing Iran does undermine it. That includes cheating which at most was referred to the Nuclear regulatory commission to review. Iran has violated U.N. treaties not once but twice with missile launches that should have been met with sanctions but Obama has refused to do it just as he has refused to take action against provocative moves by their military. Suffice it to say Iran realizes Obama will do nothing to jeopardize his treaty deal with them. They have his number as does Putin and all of our allies.
Whether that rubs off on Hilary or not, she carries so much baggage that the media ignores and the Republicans cannot come to grips with it because they are stuck with the Trump show. So many conflict of interests haunt her. How about this one: When she was secretary of State, Abu Dhabi, wanted to change its method of screening airline passengers which only assisted its own airline and was disadvantageous to all other airlines flying there. So they all, including the Chamber of Commerce, objected to our State Department and asked that approval of the change be denied.
Then Bill Clinton was asked to come there and give a speech for a $500,000 donation to his massive foundation. He did so and then another speech followed with payment. A week later, Hillary’s Department of State approved the Abu Dhabi request. Other foreign governments have made huge donations to the Clinton foundation as well. Is this a conflict when much of this was done while she was Secretary of State and now running for president? Did she just have another set of standards that she felt applied only to her like with the E mails, and the rest? You decide. Is the presidency up for sale?
How does the Republican party take advantage of these faults by the other party when they are more interested in going down in flames? So, what is the media’s role as a fair broker of the truth?
I know fair reporting won’t happen as it is not a media sensation and no one is interested in biting off the nose that feeds them because scandal sells. So prepare yourself for more of all the above but do me a favor—when you hear it or read it, ask yourself could there be another side to the issue or are we being duped? It may make you a better person.