Bias or Hype in the Spinocracy?

In a recent Salon.com column, Camille Paglia complained of the shocking
liberal bias in the Northeastern media:

<BLOCKQUOTE>
The behavior of the Northeastern major media during the Florida fiasco was
shockingly biased.  From my perspective as a professor of humanities and
media studies, the covert power presently wielded by partisan liberal
journalists has become positively alarming, partly because of other changes
in communications.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do people think that the media is biased to the left?  Just how left
the media is depends on how far left you are standing.  Every time I open my
newspaper and see Al Gore described as "anti-business, anti-corporation"
I'm convinced that I must live in Bizarro world.

Are there any "partisan liberal journalists" left in America's corporate
media?  On certain issues some journalist may be biased to the left or some
who take on certain hot, but safe issues (safe in the sense that those
issues don't question corporate dominance of our culture); however, it's
difficult to find anyone in the corporate media criticizing the
corporations.  Not that critique of corporations is the only sign of
liberalism, but such a critique is a prerequisite to any meaningful dialog
on how to improve our society and our method of government.

That the media is liberally biased is one of bits of propaganda that we
must protect ourselves against.  The media creates something that it calls
liberalism; it apes liberalism on some points, but sells out on the really
important issues.  If the media was really biased to the left, why isn't
there stories running 24-7 about why the minimum wage needs to be raised?
Why doesn't this purported liberal media speak out against the billions of
dollars funneled into the military industrial complex?  Wake up America!
The media isn't liberally biased.  At least not in any meaningful sense.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is either of victim of thought control or
they are part of the problem.

While the corporate media has no liberal bias, it does have a sensationalist
bias.  In a world where the most shocking spectacle gets the most
attention, the media will fan any flame to keep viewers tuning in or
readers reading.

One of the readers of this column wrote to me recently saying that he
enjoyed the bias of the French press.  In France a spectrum of biased views
are available, from the establishment to the communists.  For lively
dialog and intellectual stimulation you can't beat a press as diverse as
the one in France.  Would that we had such a diversity of biases in the US!

Objectivity is not nearly as important as having a wide variety of opinions
which are thoroughly argued and skillfully articulated.  Too often the
American press hides its mediocrity and ignorance behind the screen of
objectivity.  Why else do you think the corporate media gives so much
attention to horse race politics?  Reporters and pundits shy away from the
issues for one of two possible reasons: (1) they don't know anything about
the issues, or (2) the public is so ignorant of the issues that such
commentary would be viewed as boring.

This brings us to the second part of Paglia's complaint, the "other changes
in communications."

<BLOCKQUOTE>
Over the past 30 years, daily newspapers have waned in
number and variety; the weekly newsmagazines have declined in quality;
primary education has weakened in history and geography; and higher
education has been suffused with social-welfare ideology.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

Paglia gives much to comment on here.  Let's focus on the quality issue.
The quality of political reporting in America is generally low.  The
independent press does good work, but I'm not talking about them.  The
result of all this bad reporting is that the vast majority of Americans are
bored by politics.  From the perspective of the rulers, the corporate
elite, this apathy is good and something to be encouraged.  If you doubt
this is true, consider the conclusion of the Trilateral Commission (1975);
Noam Chomsky put this report in plain terms: The Trilateral Commission
concluded that "the general public must be reduced to its traditional
apathy and obedience, and driven from the arena of political debate and
action, if democracy is to survive."  [Chomsky, <I>Necessary Illusions</I> p.
2; Boston, South End Press, 1989]

The last thing that the corporate rulers want is for us to take an
interest, a real interest in politics.  It's alright if we get caught up in
the game and the spectacle, but by all means we are to be discouraged from
becoming politically active.

The corporate media propagates a number of self-fulfilling prophecies, one of
which is that people are bored by politics.  If you think someone is bored
by what you are saying, you might try various things to relieve the
boredom.  Making the news light and entertaining only trivializes the
subject matter.  If people watch infotainment, they do so for the wrong
reasons, not because it is informative and gives them what they need to
know to act a good citizens.

We live in a culture of hype.  If the media were biased, it would be worth
paying attention to.  The corporate propaganda machine makes sure that the
news is trivial and disconnected from what is important to us, the
people.  The news serves the corporate interests.  The biggest lie they
have sold us is that those interests are our own.

Quotes from
<A HREF="http://www.salon.com/people/col/pagl/2000/12/06/year_end/index.html">
The peevish porcupine beats the shrill rooster</A>
By Camille Paglia, Dec. 6, 2000, published by Salon.com
-- 
Donavan Hall, Ph. D.
  publisher and editor of http://donavanhall.net and
"Donavan's News" http://donavanhall.net/news.html
To subscribe to PHANERON, a weekly e-newsletter about
the interplay of culture, politics, science, religion.
Send an email to
     mailto:phaneron-subscribe@egroups.com