Back on June 10, 2009, I posted a question about the bias of the press. This is a followup.
On August 4, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Williams (San Francisco) ruled that California’s Proposition 8 was not legal. The proposition, passed by over 52% of voters in November of 2008, had reinstated a ban on same sex marriage. This judgment was seen by the Gay community as a huge victory. This is a hot topic and all the press seemed to headline the issue. Judge Walker is gay so it would appear his ability to remain neutral in this case would, at least, be questioned in the press. The New York Times, the L.A. Times, The Washington Post, and the San Francisco Examiner all either neglected completely or relegated the information about his sexual orientation to the tail end of the story.
Imagine if the ruling had gone the other way and the judge had been a very conservative man, married to his wife for over 30 years. Don’t you think the lead line would have read something like this?: ”Married, conservative judge Vaughn Walker today ruled against gays…” or ”Judge Vaughn Walker, a married, Christian, Tea Party Member, today ruled against Gay Rights by upholding Proposition 8.” In my view this is a very clear example of mainstream media bias.
On Tuesday of this week, the voters of the state of Missouri voted over 70% in favor of a measure that would invalidate a key provision of Obamacare – the manditory health coverage requirement. To get over 70% of any State’s voters to agree on something is a big deal. Those who opposed the massive Health Care Bill think this is a big deal. Evidently, the Washington Post doesn’t. In the first two days after the vote, I could find in the Washington Post only 4 articles specifically about the vote. By way of contrast, I found 16 articles about the Gay Marriage Proposition 8 being overturned. The weight of the numbers indicates that the Washington Post thinks Gay Marriage is four times as important as health care. I have a hard time believing that our Congress (as wacky as it is) would pass a law that would eventually spend over a Trillion Dollars on Gay Marriage rather than spend it on taking over our coountry’s Health Care.
This may be just anecdotal evidence of press bias. Compared to how conservatives are almost always labeled in the press (“tea-party activist John Doe” or “Right wing conservative Jane Doe”), I see a deliberate effort on the part of the majority of the press to bury anything that is not in favor of the new Liberal Congress and Administration and highlight only the most extreme views on the right.
Do you agree?
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 8, 2010 at 11:28 pm
pmv
I think you’re half right. I was very surprised to see how little coverage the Missouri vote got. Regardless of your views on healthcare, I think it is very interesting to see a state take on the federal government, and I think that battle is an important one and one that should be covered thoroughly.
And I think you’re half wrong. Every day rulings are made by judges who have some connection to their cases’ subject matter. Minority judges rule on minority issues. Religious judges rule on religious issues. Female judges rule on female issues. These connections are rarely discussed in the media, and rightly so (shouldn’t the focus be on legal merits?). I would argue that Judge Walker’s orientation was discussed way more than it should have been (several liberal publications had articles focusing specifically on this issue – HuffPo, DailyBeast, etc).
And for the record, Judge Walker is a conservative judge. He was initially nominated to the bench by Reagan but his nomination was blocked by liberals who were concerned that he was too conservative and too anti-gay. When the Prop 8 trial fell to him, gay-rights advocates were terribly dismayed because of his anti-gay history. But then, that wasn’t covered in the media much.
Finally, I would argue that Prop 8 has a huge national signifigance, one worthy of the coverage it got. This was a state anti-gay-marriage law that was deemed federally unconstitutional. Such a ruling, if upheld by the Supreme Court, could potentially lead to the reversal of laws in 44 other states.
August 9, 2010 at 6:56 am
ttoes
Thanks, PMV. I think you are correct about the fact that, “Minority judges rule on minority issues. Religious judges rule on religious issues. Female judges rule on female issues.” But I think you completely missed my point: media coverage/bias. I said,
“Judge Walker is gay so it would appear his ability to remain neutral in this case would, at least, be questioned in the press. The New York Times, the L.A. Times, The Washington Post, and the San Francisco Examiner all either neglected completely or relegated the information about his sexual orientation to the tail end of the story.
Imagine if the ruling had gone the other way and the judge had been a very conservative man, married to his wife for over 30 years. Don’t you think the lead line would have read something like this?: ”Married, conservative judge Vaughn Walker today ruled against gays…” or ”Judge Vaughn Walker, a married, Christian, Tea Party Member, today ruled against Gay Rights by upholding Proposition 8.” In my view this is a very clear example of mainstream media bias.”
Ttoes
August 9, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Jeff
I do believe there is a bias in the press. It is overwhelmingly liberal, though there is one notable exception (FOX, which is conservative). What I’m less certain of is the intentions behind it. Excepting the recent “Journolist” debacle, I don’t know that there is much guiding it. New agencies are, for the most part, located in cities. Cities are liberal. They grow up learning the language of liberalism so it’s natural it leaks into their work. That’s not an excuse, I just think most of their bias is due to ignorance of what they’re doing, not a deliberate plan.
My “feeling” is 80-90% of media bias is simply an inability to put personal views aside. The other is directed, intentional propagandizing.
August 12, 2010 at 7:42 am
Shirley
Mr. ttos, I’m inclined to agree with you. Media bias has become rampant. The inability to put personal views aside is a poor testament to sound journalism. Where is the Accountability; are there no Sanctions imposed; where is the BALANCE; Where are the “Gate-keepers? What has happened to the Ethics that “True Journalism is based? What has happened to the “Fairness Laws? “Modern trends and liberal tactics seems to be the engines that drive media coverage. Media seem to be vieing for the “competitive edge” based on propaganda rather than merit. A credible journalist will always strive to subvert personal opinion in the interest of fairness. If communication is based on two-way conversation, “why is one voice heard above the other? Is it because one is speaking louder than the other, or is it because only one is holding the mike? Truth always strives for fairness and fairness will automatically yield balance. Journalist are held to a higher standard; they represent the voice of the people. It takes a very unique person to look beyond ones own inhabitions and literally super-impose oneself into another person’s
to really be ojective. Media has the power to shape, change, influence and impact society more than ever before.
August 12, 2010 at 7:51 am
ttoes
Thanks, Shirley for taking the time to read and comment. I was just thinking you had not posted a comment in a while and wondered if my recent posts had become too boring.
My only disagreement with your comment is that you say, ” Journalists are held to a higher standard.” I would say, they “Should be held to a higher standard.”
Tom
August 12, 2010 at 10:07 am
Shirley
Hi Tom,
It’s good to share with you again. No, you are not boring. It’s just that I have been so busy this summer. I always look forward to reading your posts.