Why Bias Coverage Matters
Chrenkoff notes the problem with bias coverage:
The future of Iraq is still uncertain, and one has to resist the temptation to claim victory, in contrast to so many others who have been declaring defeat virtually from the start. One thing is almost certain though: however Iraq will turn up, the mainstream media has become one of the casualties of that war. As the recent study by the Sacred Heart University has shown, less than 20% of Americans believe the media all or most of the time. Specifically, the study found that
Nearly three-quarters of all Americans surveyed, 70.7%, indicated they strongly or somewhat agreed that negative media reporting damages troop morale. Over half of all survey respondents, 59.8%, agreed (strongly or somewhat) that negative media coverage damages prospects for success in Iraq because it encourages terrorists, and about half, 49.1%, agreed (strongly or somewhat) that things are likely going better for the U.S. than the U.S. media portrays.
The more reflective among the media professionals might ponder on why they have become as trusted as a profession as used car salesmen, and then they might briefly remember the “one to 27 ratio.”
The “surge” in negative reporting from Iraq might have failed, but we are all poorer for it.
To be honest I don’t think this is a big deal. MSM traded their supposed reputation of objectivity to push its political agenda. Didn’t work and now many people have found other sources to get the news they desire. If anything it just helped facilitate the downfall of the old way news is disbursed.
January 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Interestingly, most of the statistics he cites don’t even support his own point. The first two (ie the strongest) statistics were about whetehr the negative reporting hurt the troops or the war effort, not about whether it was accurate. We could have an interesting discussion on whether the news should report the truth when doing so might be harmful, but clearly that’s not what he’s trying to say with those statistics.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:52 am
So, Darwin, you missed the part where 80% of the public think media’s lying, right?
January 29th, 2008 at 10:16 am
First of all, why is this guy so surprised that there is bad news coming out of a war zone? It’s fucking war, the most tragic and awful human endeavor, of course it’s going to be bad. Good news from a war is “not as many people died today.” Iraq still does not have a real, functioning government. They do not have a competent security force. There is still sectarian violence. Oh, and we have borrowed nearly $500 billion so far to pay for it, with no end in sight.
And of course the media was going to play up the negative aspects of the war, seeing as how the whole thing was unnecessary to begin with. Would you honestly rather have a media that champions an unconstitutional, poorly executed, never-ending war?
I also enjoyed the reliance on statistics to try to make your point. Here’s another: 85 percent of people believe global warming probably is occurring. They must be right, right? 85% is a lot.
Instead of complaining that there is no good news coming out of Iraq, I think you would serve your cause much better by, um, reporting good news out of Iraq.
I’ll leave you with a quote:
“If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem.” — George W. Bush, Jan. 2001.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
[…] « Why Bias Coverage Matters […]