May 4, 2004: The New York Times goes by the slogan "All the news that's fit to print". But is it?
Beyond the past year's scandal of fabricated stories at the NewYork Times [and more recently, this year's scandal of the same at USA Today], there is a question which goes beyond fakery: The question of media bias. This is more relevent now than ever, because while lying is an almost universally condemned act by reporters in America, the biases of the media more or less get a free ride. Yet, history shows most lies have as much of a connection to bias as they do to laziness or dishonesty or a reporter out of his depth.
For all the wrath visited upon that NYT reporter, for instance, his biases are minimized by news stories blaming his situation; he was trying to keep up with expectations, not seeking to implement some dishonest agenda. However, the New York Times' historical lies are not so innocuous. During the heyday of communist Russia, a NYT reporter went behind the "iron curtain" and reported on the situation there. His reporting won the NYT awards and praise. But it contained glaring omissions, painting a dishonest picture of communist Russia that had not a single reference to famine, concentration camps, or oppression of dissidents.
Why? The communist government would only let the correspondent report on Soviet life if the reports were favorable. Therefore, in order to accept this opportunity, the NYT lied, and not about one or two small-time news stories, but about concentration camps, mass murder, and 70 years of dictatorship.
The results of these lies are still felt today, as the glowing descriptions of Soviet life gave intellectual ammunition to a left increasingly sympathetic to communism. Though communism fell in Russia, there are many on the American left who still continue to insist that the Soviets weren't that bad, whether the issue be mass graves or Soviet spies and sympathizers here in America.
The New York Times -- nor the rest of the journalism community -- has clearly not learned from their history.
Moreover, bias is more widespread than outirght lies, because it is more subtle. Such things as burying a story inside a tiny blurb deep in the papaer, the placement of articles on the front page, or the outright omission of newsworthy articles from prominence or mention, all can be tools of bias. To some degree these things are editorial choices, and even in terms of personal beliefs, one is going to see some involvement. Editors and reporters, after all, are human, and entitled to their beliefs, and these may play a role in their choices of stories, wording in headlines, etc. However, that is not the type of bias which is a concern. What is a concern, is the bias of the old Soviet days -- a case where an opinion or ideological bent actually results in choices that go against editorial standards and facts.
Take the recent example of American treatment of prisoners in Iraq. While any decent person regrets that this happened, the media is having a field day with the story, giving it widespread coverage. Obviously it is newsworthy. But the story is a small one in the relative scheme of things; America's war efforts are not defined by torture and mistreatment, unlike the Soviets or, say, Saddam Hussien. Such things, in our government, culture, and war, are an departure from the norm and disgust us. The gulags did not disgust the Kremlim, nor did the actions of Iraqi secret police disgust Saddam. Yet, this story is being used to characterize America, something seen by the fact that it is given such a high profile.
In the May 4 Star-Ledger, a typical liberal newspaper, both the story of the U.S. mistreatment of Iraqi detainees, and the story of escaped U.S. hostage Hamil received front page coverage. Both had more or less the same size font. Hamil's story, of how he bolted from an Iraqi shed, with a bullet in his arm, to greet U.S. troops, had a picture of the free hostage.
Even the notoriously leftist USA Today had an article on Hamil alongside the article on U.S. mistreatment of Iraqi detainees.
The New York Times, however, had nothing about Hamil's dash to safety on it's front page. Nothing.
Says something about their priorities, doesn't it, comrade?
__________________
back to.....