Fox News’ ‘Media Buzz’ Discusses Sharyl Attkisson’s Resignation From CBS,

Veteran investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson resigned from CBS News after 20 years with the network, expressing frustration at being unable to get her stories on air. Following Attkisson’s resignation, the folks at Fox News’ “Media Buzz” expressed dissatisfaction at the state of journalism in America’s newsrooms and the culture of liberal bias that exists.

Appearing on the program on Sunday March 16th, the entire panel acknowledged the disturbing trend of journalists putting their politics above journalism with host Howard Kurtz observing that Attkisson felt it “was almost impossible to get these tougher pieces on the air.”

As the segment began, conservative columnist Jim Pinkerton noted how CBS “didn't want her to go after the Obama Administration as hard as she went after other targets. And so even Politico had to admit that she ran into a liberal bias at CBS, which is why she's no longer there.”

Political commentator Craig Crawford offered similar sentiments and pointed out how “I don't think there's been any secret that there's liberal bias at CBS… I can guarantee you almost no one there I can think of voted for Bush, I'm sure. I didn't, either. It didn't bother me. I think the point is, fess up to it and then be as critical to the people you support as those you don't.”

Former USA Today columnist Lauren Ashburn went even further and gave a firsthand account of the prevalence of liberal bias in newsrooms:

Given that none of the Sunday shows, including Fox News Sunday, mentioned Attkisson’s resignation from CBS, Fox News’ “Media Buzz” had a much-needed conversation about how journalism has suffered due to liberal political pressure.

Kudos to “Media Buzz” for confronting the topic of liberal media bias when so many other programs refuse to acknowledge it even exists.

”Bias in the Media” is actually simple. The public interest is well defined by

From Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech at the Sarbonne:
There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Anyone who ventures greatly, for example by starting a business, is acting in the public interest to provide goods or services to those who need them. It is always easy to second guess anyone who ventures greatly; hindsight is 20:20. Journalists do not venture greatly - in fact, if they get caught out in an egregiously wrong statement, they suffer no harm - they merely change the subject. So journalists are in a position to reject TR’s formulation that “it is not the critic who counts;” in their situation and from their perspective, the critic is the only one who counts. They take the cynical position that nothing actually matters except PR. In taking that position, they make common cause with anyone else who engages in cheap criticism and evasion of responsibility. And in making common cause with other Monday morning quarterbacks, they assign positive labels to all cheap critics and negative labels to anyone who insists, with Theodore Roosevelt, that people deserve credit for entering the arena, and no credit for jeering at those whose efforts in the arena fall short of perfection.
Major journalists are all employed by members of the Associated Press or directly by the AP, and that means that they are all in a continual virtual meeting via the AP newswire. And as Adam Smith predicted, the natural result is that they tend to conspire against the public. So there is no ideological competition among “mainstream” journalists - and there is a confluence of interest between journalists and those whom journalists call “progressive” or “centrist” or “liberal.” Journalists apply positive labeling to themselves, too. They call themselves “objective” - and in doing so they demonstrate conclusively that they are not objective about themselves. Not that their superior attitude towards those “in the arena” left any room for doubt about that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.