Liberal Bias in the Media (a view from Fresno)

Liberal Bias in the Media (a view from Fresno)
By Richard Stone

A profound mystery has finally been resolved. For years I've been baffled by repeated pronouncements about "the liberal bias in the media." As I read the Fresno Bee, for example, for any column by the likes of the admittedly liberal Molly Ivins a find at least two by a centrist like David Broder and/or a fire-breathing liberal-hater like Mona Charen. Where, I've asked, is the liberal bias?

When it comes to news coverage, only fringe outlets like the national In These Times journal and Pacifica Radio, or the local KFCF (88.1 FM) and Community Alliance monthly paper carry articles I'd call liberal, while the huge mass media like Fox News, talk radio (like KMJ) and USA Today are avowedly the opposite. So how can the media in general be called liberal?

The denouement came in an interview aired on NOW (in Fresno on Channel 18 most Fridays at 9 p.m.) with Richard Vigourie, considered the founding genius of "conservative media". What Vigourie triumphantly revealed is his belief that "facts" don't exist, only "opinions"--the only thing that matters is what you believe or think ought to be believed.

Now I get it. "Liberal bias" means reportage of facts. American deaths in Iraq mount--liberal bias! Jobs disappear overseas--liberal bias! Global warming--liberal bias!

In most English and social studies texts I use as a teacher, a basic exercise format is distinguishing fact from opinion. I guess in the advancing Age of Anti-liberalism these texts will have to be abolished. The new texts will teach "Don't ask for facts; don't try to determine if some statements are illogical or contradictory or contrary to what you experience--trust what you're told." According to Vigourie, the only truth is the success of the moment. He who can buy the most lobbyists and air time, tell the biggest lies, provoke the fears of the populace and thereby win votes in Congress and presidential elections is by these accomplishment (that is, the infallible Marketplace) the possessor of Truth.

This previous sentence ( a factual rendering of Vigourie's challengeable assertion) contains (in my opinion) a very different definition of Truth than the one Jefferson used when he wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." Based on years of accumulated research by scholars ( not one man's opinion) Jefferson and the founding fathers can more-or-less accurately be said to have meant by "truths" something like "statements that are mutually agreed upon by our associates; that are based on deep analysis of the data available by our God-given powers of reason; and that can beneficially serve as a foundation for the construction of plans and the undertaking of actions for the foreseeable future."

It is my personal opinion that no truths established by humans will ever be absolute and eternal. It is a verifiable fact that what has been called Truth by any particular group of people at a particular time or place has never yet become an eternal, universal verity. Nevertheless in the United States the common understanding of "truth"--and for that matter, of "news"--has until now always included at least reference to verifiability as well as to belief and usefulness.

In actuality, Vigourie's conflation of fact and opinion is what used to be called "propaganda". It was "What Hitler did." It was "What the Commies did." It was what George Orwell wrote about in 1984, his chilling portrait of a totalitarian reality. That George was 20 years off schedule, but our George may be right on time. That's just my opinion, but take it as fact if you will.