Liberal bias in the media

Okay, I got a few surprising responses to yesterday's entry about my views concerning a liberal bias in the media. I thought that my view was clear enough, but apparently not.

Do I believe that there is a liberal bias in the media? Yes, I do. There's too many examples of this to deny that it exists, and later this week, I'll try to post some examples (besides the examples that I already posted yesterday!). And like I said yesterday, this bias exists largely because many of the members of the media overwhelmingly hold liberal, Democratic views at their workplaces, which means that their workplace environments are of that mindset.

So with little to challenge the status quo due to so many thinking along the same lines, eventually they get it into their heads that their views are "normal and mainstream", even though they may be as unbiased as Sean Hannity. The liberal environment is so pervasive that even if you show them evidence of their bias, they won't see it. So basically, their liberal bias is largely the RESULT of working in a liberal working environment.

This is different from intentionally presenting news with a liberal slant. And that's where my views on the liberal bias differs from someone who views the bias as intentional. Don't get me wrong - there are some media workers who do willfully and intentionally slant the news in a liberal way, but I believe that they are far and few between. When editors are doing their jobs, then it's hard to slip the more obvious examples of a liberal bias through. But that's the more obvious examples.

The examples that slip through are subtle, but plainly there for anyone who looks for it. One perfect example I can think of is when the issue of stem cell research comes up. Notice that most of the time when you read about stem cell research and the Catholic Church's views on it, almost always the impression is given that the Church opposes it. That's not true.

The Catholic Church only opposes embryonic stem cell research. There's many other sources of stem cells that the Church is not opposed to such as adult and placental stem cells. But judging from what you read from most news articles on this, you'd think that the Church has it in for all scientific research regarding stem cells. Before this blog entry becomes a discussion on stem cells, let me finish this point by saying that if the media did not have a liberal bias in their reporting, then most of the general public would understand that the Church is right in its opposition to embryonic stem cells, because so far such research have been a waste of time and funding, and it is time and funding that could have gone to stem cell research that has actually proven to work.

Getting back to my topic...

The liberal bias in the media is something that they're really going to have to fight hard to combat, because it's hurting their credibility and professionalism. That can't be allowed to happen because a democracy must have a free press that can fight the good fight when it needs to. A free press in a democracy needs to be a part of the solution to root out corruption, and not an accomplice to it. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that the very existence of our democratic way of life depends upon a free press peforming its role in the way that it's supposed to. When the press succumbs to political ideology, then we will have lost a key weapon for keeping our power mongers in check, and then we'll be only a few short steps from being ruled by a tyrant.