Redefining journalistic bias
Standing atop today's New York Times bestseller list is a book everyone's talking about: Bias, by Bernard Goldberg.
As the title implies, Bias tells Goldberg's story of encountering liberal bias within the news industry, and more specifically, within the television network CBS, where he worked.
Conservative Americans have welcomed this book with open arms. It's confirmed views they've had for years, they say.
While I can't dispute the personal experiences Goldberg has had as a journalist, I can share mine.
And they offer a different perspective on media bias.
People who refer to all media sources as liberally biased are using "sweeping generalities," a phrase I learned in college English. They think that if one network, newspaper, or magazine is liberal, then the same goes for the majority of other media sources.
This isn't the case. For in today's media, what the public perceives as journalistic bias is simply this: journalistic laziness.
First, the issue of liberals in the media. Although I'm just 24 years old, I've worked at four newspapers in my lifetime, two of those major daily papers. Even though my years in the newspaper business aren't too lengthy, I've had a broad taste of what's out there.
In the two daily papers that I've worked for, the fact is this: 80 to 90 percent of the newsroom — reporters, editors, designers, photographers — would call themselves politically liberal. This was the case even in a city that was extremely conservative.
My friends in the business also confirm my overall suspicions: most journalists are liberal.
But that doesn't mean that the content of the paper slants liberal. If that paper is any good, it has the honesty and integrity to report on what's happening in the community — even if it's a religious conference coming next week, or the views of a conservative politician.
And if a liberal journalist doesn't include both sides of a story — if he excludes the other view — that's not bias. That's just horrible reporting.
Which brings me to my hypothesis: Most liberal bias is just laziness.
Some stories journalists delve into are easier than others. They require few interviews, few phone calls, little "footwork."
But some are very complex and require much effort. These are the stories that some reporters put minimal effort into — and end up telling only one side of the story.
This is what is seen as bias.
Here's an example from my former job. In the West, there's great debate in the winter between snowmobilers and skiers. Skiers say that snowmobiles are noisy and pollute the air; snowmobilers say they have just as much right to be on the mountains as the skiers do.
Our paper did a story about an incident involving skiers and snowmobilers — a case of "he said, she said." However, the reporter only told the skier's side of the story, which made the snowmobilers look like the bad guys.
The city was in an uproar. Letters to the editor accused the paper of being full of wacko environmentalist liberals who always take the side of skiers. The reporter was verbally scorched.
And it was his own fault — he failed to talk to the other people involved. He didn't get the whole story.
It was a case of journalistic laziness, not journalistic bias.
And it's my view that much of what people call liberal bias in the media isn't quite that dastardly.
Finally, for the record: anyone familiar with me, my background, and especially my college, should know that the label "liberal journalist" does not apply to this writer. Calling me a liberal is like calling Krispy Kreme donuts healthy.
Just thought you should have both sides of the story.
— JENNIFER WILSON
