When those on the Right decry the lack of "objectivity" in the left-wing media, it is actually unfairness that is the cause of their lamentation.
President Obama never appears to tire of calling attention to what he evidently takes to be the unfair treatment to which the FOX News Network repeatedly subjects his administration. In this respect he distinguishes himself from our last president who, in spite of the excessive scrutiny to which his administration was exposed, uttered hardly a syllable about it. Regardless of one's opinion regarding President Bush, the proposition that he was concerned with correcting alleged untruths the media conveyed about him simply cannot be credibly maintained. He had none of the sensitivity to criticism routinely exhibited by our current president.
Obama is representative of the Left generally in dismissing FOX as a pseudo-news agency that is truly a propagandistic mechanism for the political Right. Underlying and animating this charge, it should be noted, is the notion that FOX is unique among news networks in possessing a political bias.
The question of the true character of FOX is of interest, for sure, but primarily because of the opportunity it affords us to explore the issue of "media bias" generally.
In order to achieve greater clarity as to why this is an issue, we need first to determine what the expression "media bias" is intended to reference, a determination that can be made only upon a consideration of the context in which it is usually employed. It is typically those on the political Right who accuse the majority of journalists in print and television of subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) promoting their own political and ideological prejudices beneath a veer of "objectivity."
What passes unnoticed is that to substantiate this charge, the Right invokes two mutually distinct and incompatible arguments. The first trades in a distinction between "journalism" and "commentary." While commentators are expected to interpret current events and issues according to their own lights, journalists, in contrast, are entrusted with the obligation to merely report them. "Media bias" becomes a problem when the journalist assumes the role of commentator. Since this occurs much more frequently than not, "media bias" is a significant problem indeed.
Notice, this argument supposes that objectivity and/or partisan-neutrality is possible. The left-leaning journalist is blameworthy for abdicating his responsibility to impartially analyze the news precisely because he can analyze it impartially. The second argument for "media bias," however, makes no such supposition, for at its core is the assertion, seldom if ever expressly stated, that objectivity is a fiction, an unrealizable ideal: it is patently foolish to think that media figures who have been Democrats all of their lives can prevent their political and ideological sympathies from "coloring" the news.
The Right's reasoning on this issue is troubling for three reasons. First, these two arguments for "media bias" are mutually contradictory: either it is possible to transcend one's biases or it isn't, but it can't be both. Second, if journalists cannot elude their biases because no one can, then they cannot be blamed for interpreting the world in terms of them. As the eighteenth century German philosopher Immanuel Kant had famously said, "'Ought' implies can." Third, if it is impossible for journalists to achieve objectivity because objectivity is in itself unattainable, then the Right is forced to retreat from their positions on a number of other issues, for such positions presuppose that objectivity is indeed possible in life.
Is there a way for the Right to relieve itself of this tension? The Right can certainly establish the case for "media bias," but it must revise the central terms in which that case has previously been argued. Most importantly, it must dramatically rethink its use of the term "objectivity."
When those on the Right decry the lack of "objectivity" in the left-wing ("mainstream") media, it is actually unfairness that is the cause of their lamentation. "Objectivity," that is, is equated with "fairness." The major network news organizations and most of the nation's newspaper companies, in spite of pretending to be otherwise, sorely lack "objectivity" in the sense that they unfairly cover events and issues.
Now, it is important to note a thing or two about this notion of "fairness." First, it isn't at all obvious that it is, or should be thought to be, synonymous with "objectivity." It is commonly (though, because of some obstinate philosophers, not universally) conceded that, say, the proposition, "The Earth revolves around the Sun," is objectively true. A proposition is objectively true (or false) inasmuch as its truth-value is independent of what anyone may or may not think about it. Its truth-value, that is, doesn't derive from the musings of any subjects (persons).
Yet while it is sensible to describe the statement "The Earth revolves around the Sun" as "objectively true" and its converse as "objectively false," it makes no sense to describe either in terms of "fairness" and "unfairness."
This brings us to the second consideration. "Fairness" pertains to an attitude or orientation on the part of persons while "objectivity" is a condition of statements or, perhaps, states of affairs. Put another way, "fairness" is an attribute of the knower while "objectivity" is an attribute of the thing known. This distinction isn't perfect and it certainly isn't uncontroversial, but it is highly plausible.
Rather, then, indict the media for its lack of "objectivity," the Right should instead just charge its agents with unfairness. But what exactly does this mean? What exactly does it mean for a person to be guilty of "unfairness?"
This is no easy question to answer in such a way as to satisfy everyone. Yet as in the case of "objectivity" (and, for that matter, virtually every other idea of which the stuff of human life consists), a provisional account of "fairness" can be gathered from reflection on the uses in the service of which the term is usually enlisted.
The first observation of which we must take stock is that "fairness" is a moral value; it is thoroughly devoid of neutrality. No one wants to be thought of as "unfair." So, when those on the Right say of their leftist counterparts in the media that the latter are "unfair," they are leveling an adverse judgment against them.
Next, to be unfair is to be untruthful. There are two ways in which a person can be untruthful: intentionally and unintentionally. If one is untruthful intentionally, by design, then the untruthfulness in question amounts to a lie. If, however, one is unwittingly untruthful, then while the untruthfulness may very well be the product of intellectual dishonesty, there is no lie. Still, in the context of the media, intellectual dishonesty of this last type is no less a lamentable condition deserving of rectification than the first.
The Right would be well served if it drops the language of "objectivity" and adopts in its stead that of "fairness," for by so doing, it can successfully bypass the conundrums identified above. Insofar as "objectivity" is spoken of as if it is the antithesis of "bias," and insofar as the Right insists, correctly, that everyone has biases, according to this logic it is impossible for leftists in the media to display the "objectivity" that the Right is always demanding of them. It is also, conversely, impossible for the Right to exercise objectivity, so "objectivity" becomes a moot point. However, in principle there is no incompatibility between "fairness" and "bias."
An umpire, for instance, may be personally biased in favor of one team and against another, but he can nevertheless note his prejudices while constraining them from interfering with his judgment. Similarly, a journalist, or even a commentator, though possessed of political prejudices, is capable of countering them for the sake of being fair.
In your posting you say that conservatives should be arguing the case of MSM biased coverage from the standpoint of ‘fairness’ as opposed to ‘objectivity’. I disagree. As Finley Dunne once said; “Politics ain’t beanbag.”
When dealing with liberal/progressives there are four important things to note.
• First, the American public must be ‘forced’ to discover the superiority of liberal/progressivism.
• Second, the campaign never ends. You push the party line exclusively; “Government always good; individualism always bad!” is the battle cry of the liberal/progressive.
• Third, political discourse is war. Nothing is more important than the triumph of progressivism. The complete obliteration of conservative philosophy and the absolute annihilation of any conservative being are defined as one in the same. This is of primary importance, as conservative thought has no place in the new lexicon:
• Fourth; all policy must be couched within euphemism. Strict adherence to this precept is required in order to placate the average American. The idea is to make unpalatable policy seem innocuous; to get the average person to accept the change as so minor as to not constitute anything to be concerned over. After all; what’s in a word, how can one word possibly alter debate over core principles?
Since ‘fairness’ is just as much of a euphemistic concept to a progressive as any other; in the progressive mind it is of course ‘fair’ to represent dissenting opinion in the worst possible terms imaginable.
The only way to combat this is to first acknowledge that media coverage will always be inherently ‘unfair’. The second, and in my mind, most important, is to stop allowing the progressives to define the debate.
As I stated previously, progressive policy must, because of its unpalatable nature when dispassionately described, be embedded within euphemism. Examples follow:
Abortion becomes ‘choice’; tax increases become ‘investments’, and under achievers become the blameless ‘losers of life’s lottery’. The definition of ‘bipartisanship’ is conservatives moving to accept progressive tenets, never the opposite.
Conservatism must learn to establish the terms of the debate. Instead of lamenting the cost of the administration’s health care program, hammer home the point of exempting unions from the taxes imposed to pay for the legislation as blatant favoritism. Hell, if the envisioned system is going to dramatically lower costs, why are we even looking for a funding mechanism?
If Waxman – Markey is a ‘jobs’ bill, then how many Virginia and Ohio coal miners can immediately expect to step into good paying jobs in wind turbine factories? Why set limits on the production of greenhouse gasses? Why not mandate ‘X’ amount of thousands of barrels of imported oil per day that wind & solar must be expected to replace within the first three years, the first five, I don’t’ care; pick a number, how efficient and how soon?
If the stimulus package was really a stimulus package, then why is unemployment heading toward 10 %? You said it would stop around 8%. Keep hammering the error. Each time we get unemployment numbers we should say “We’re now 1.5% above your stupid projections.” Next month we say “we’re now 2.3% above your idiotic predictions. Do you really have any idea how to calculate these things? And just what the hell is a ‘saved job’ anyway. And how on God’s Green Earth do you calculate such a thing?”
Progressives have made their reputations by pointing out the mistakes of their opponents. I no longer care about my reputation as a conservative. It’s kind’a like the American reputation in the UN. We give and give and give; and every tin-pot dictator in every crap filled country around the planet calls us usurpers, and bullies. So let’s take off the gloves, pick a country that we don’t care much for, and give the world an example of what a real ‘usurper’ is. And I’m not talking occupation here; I’m talking about destruction, making “the rubble bounce” because of the overwhelming tonnage of ordinance dropped. If Iran and North Korea want nuclear weapons, I say give them to them: About 20 megatons at a time!
You may now be saying that I’ve ascribed to the Ann Coulter School of Conservatism, and maybe I have. But allowing the progressives to frame the debate; and also to tell us how we may and may not respond to their charges hasn’t been working out so well so far. I don’t try to persuade liberals during cocktail party conversations, I try to destroy them. I keep getting invited back, because the host spends a month stewing over his last defeat, then formulates and rehearses his next counter-argument. During his next party, I cut him off at his knees once again! Then I point and laugh out loud as I describe the depth of his foolishness. In a way, it’s cathartic.
Whether it is “unfairness” or “lack of objectivity”, it is captured well in this article http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson062509B.html by Victor Davis Hanson.
I agree with the posts above, but want to comment on this article from the perspective of a scientist and intellectual who has seen the international left completely distort social science for their own purposes. While no one on earth is completely “objective” many people from different cultures are taught or are naturally “fair.” Once the left took control of the social sciences they went mad with their discovery and used the findings that everyone has biases as a way to promote their idea that nobody could be “fair” but they couched it in scientific terms such as objective. The fact is human beings, including very young children, have an acute sense of “fair” and know what it is when they see it. My young son 6 years old, asked what socialism was, and his father told him it was “each according to their needs, each according to their ability.” His response was, no one would work. If a 6 year old can see that, there is hope for the human race if we can get rid of the Marxist polluters who have to train children from an early age in Marxism. The founders understood and knew human nature and they constructed a constitution based upon it and informed by their very deep knowledge of history, politics, culture,philosophy and Judeao-Christianity. Americans give this up at their peril. This article presents an excellent argument that I think would get much further politically by appealing to the inherent fairness of human nature and not in the hoaky sense of taking money from people who produce to give to drug addicted, sex addicted, perverted slackers.
I don’t know if crying “unfairness” would play too well in Peoria. It just seems like the battle cry of the whiner, no matter what philosophical argument is behind it. The nuts and bolts problems with today’s media (I mean news not commentary) is the lack of proper attribution, stories based on “irrefutable” suppositions, preemptive or counter argument stories and using other pundits as sources. The above list is the bag of tricks used by the news media to bludgeon the public with their worldview.
First, the lack of proper attribution is no more evident than with the Associated Press. Pick any story and you will see a source listed as, anonymous, unnamed, or my favorite, “it has been said”. Really, “it has been said” is a source that backs up your facts.
Second, the irrefutable fact; so many stories are based on the reader believing that global warming is true, the stimulus is positive for the economy, and all prisoners at Guantanamo were tortured. Now based on those “facts” here’s the story. It would be like writing a story on Bigfoot’s top ten vacation destinations, it all hinges on you believing in Bigfoot.
Third, preemptive or the counter argument story; this technique is seen right before the introduction of some new legislation. My favorite is before a hike in the minimum wage the press finds some family of ten living on the father’s convenience store job. “If I didn’t steal the day old donuts we wouldn’t eat.”
Fourth is the media using itself as a source. If you watch MSNBC (maybe you’re contemplating suicide and need just one more reason) you will see most of their stories citing their own or other reporters as sources. This is so common now for television news that seeing a source other than a reporter is becoming remarkable, the perfect example of the self licking ice cream cone.
The item left off the list is the lazy reporter who never asks the follow up question or ever questions the status quo. Wouldn’t you love to hear a reporter at a press conference ask a challenging question like, “Given the failures of the Department of Energy, Education, the government running of Amtrak and the post office, what makes you think this new program will be any different?”
The watchdog’s of democracy have been neutered.