Liberal Denizens of the Fourth Estate Present a Distorted View of America

There is no question that a free, honest and unbiased press is a great asset to any free and fair society. A press characterized by integrity demands answers to hard questions from everyone, regardless of political affiliation. When the media choose sides, it enables those on the selected side to ignore rules and conduct themselves as they please, having no one to whom they must answer. Of course, this assumes the populace is largely asleep at the wheel and not demanding objectivity of the press.

Unfortunately, the "mainstream media" and the American people have conformed to this latter description in recent years, but I see signs of the people beginning to recognize the risks to both political and economic freedom imposed by the continuation of a journey down that pathway. Like politicians, the media no longer enjoy the almost unanimous trust they once could take for granted. What has caused so much of the media to become biased and agenda-driven, and why has the partiality become so blatant?

I think the answer revolves around the fact that we as a nation are at a critical decision point. We are one or two national elections away from determining whether we want to continue down the road toward "utopia," where all of our basic needs are met from cradle to grave, the only price being total subservience to the government, or alternatively, to reverse direction and go back up the road toward personal responsibility and embrace the "can-do" attitude and values that facilitated the rapid rise of America on the world stage.

The proponents of each of these lifestyles are convinced that they are right, and it will be difficult to convince them otherwise. Because many so-called "progressives" reject the traditional American way of life and wish to fundamentally change us, I think they have an obligation to fully engage in the debate about why their vision is better. Many of these liberals dwell in the mainstream media and seem reluctant to engage in serious conversation. Instead, they attempt to ask leading questions of their opponents and then distort the answers in an attempt to diminish their "enemy" in the eyes of the public. If they are successful, they never have to actually address the real issue for which they have no real answers.

It is encouraging that many people are seeing the light and ignoring the intellectually bankrupt assertions of these agents of resentment. We should teach our children and everyone in our spheres of influence to recognize these disgusting and dishonest techniques and reject them. As was the case on the third-grade playground in elementary school, it is best to ignore the name-callers and proceed with more important endeavors.

Over the past year, I have learned a great deal about the press in America. It is not uniformly unfair with nefarious agendas, but a significant portion is. One of the best ways to determine which news organizations are objective and which have an agenda is to keep a scorecard that lists both electronic and print media. When evaluating a story, check off whether it is concentrating on factual reporting or demonization. If there is controversy, determine whether both points of view are considered. If major stories of a political nature are ignored or barely mentioned, that should raise suspicions about objectivity.

My emergence on the national political scene has produced great consternation for many in the media who adhere to the "progressive" ideology. The fact that I had a difficult upbringing and embraced the concept of personal responsibility and hard work, rather than dependency, directly opposes their narrative that people must depend on public support and remain loyal to the party that provides for their maintenance. In fairness to many of the liberals, because of that background and my storybook-like career in medicine, they considered me a brilliant role model and hero until it became clear that I reject the liberal model of "success." At that point, they deemed me a pariah who could no longer think for himself, an obvious tool of conservatives. If they stopped for a minute and thought about how silly that sounds, they might once again be able to find some noble bearings.

Many have said to me that the mainstream media are hopelessly biased and cannot be reformed. I included an analysis of them in my latest book, "One Nation," which is too extensive for this column, but the bottom line is this: No one is hopeless. We should continue to try to engage all media in conversations about important issues, while rejecting their attempts at demonization and divergence.

I think it is still possible for jaded members of the press to realize that they have a higher calling than blind and misguided loyalty to their chosen heroes, even at the risk of national destruction. Objective journalistic integrity can play a tremendous role in healing an ailing nation. The issues we face as a nation deserve the attention of rational, mature and objective individuals who have the courage to seek the truth, wherever it leads.

In a complex society, much news is meaningless to people who are busy, or distracted, or have life’s necessities without some interpretation. A biased media provides biased interpretation.

Since many news and political events affect people indirectly and slowly, over time, people look for interpretation and consensus. A biased press—biased both by education and the desire for the most advertising eyeballs (which usually means low information eyeballs)—peddles the progressive line.

There is no question that a free, honest and unbiased press is a great asset to any free and fair society.

The Founders never expected the press to be honest or unbiased. The press of their time was neither.

But it was also not controlled by ideologists pretending to be honest and unbiased.

The press at the Founding was openly and nakedly partisan and did not pretend otherwise. So most towns had a Federalist paper and a Democratic/Republican paper. Each of which was more an advocate for its party than a source of Truth.

The Founders assumed that as long as the press was Free, Honest and Unbiased didn't matter much, which is good since they are unattainable in the generality.

But it was also not controlled by ideologists pretending to be honest and unbiased.

This is the key.

Today's kneepad media is neither honest or unbiased. But, ideologues have gained control of most of it. By coordinating and presenting a unified viewpoint, the low-information voter is duped into believing they are telling the whole truth.

Fox News isn't fair or unbiased either. They are just presenting a different viewpoint. But, since they are one voice among many, the low-information voter thinks they are the only outlier.

Yes, the 'Net and the "blogosphere" provides an alternate view. But, too many people can't be bothered -- they are either trying to earn a living, or are more interested in who is fighting each other on Jerry Springer, American Idol, or Survivor.

The only solution is free market capitalism: conservatives have to take control of one or more of these large media outlets, and clean house. This means they have to put their money where their mouth is.

It's not hard to identify the kneepad journalists. Give them their orders: you start reporting the news, not your opinion. And you report ALL the news, not just the stuff that fits your opinion. If you don't like it, there's the door.

There will be much screaming about "loss of objectivity" in the news. But, the truth is: there isn't any, now. All this would do is lay it out for everyone to see.

The other half is for conservatives to stop giving the kneepad media an audience. Stop granting interviews to obviously biased journalists. Let them scream and wail about being excluded, and just do it. Leftists do this to Fox News. It's time to do the same to the other side.

I'll repeat the example I've given before: After Candy Crowley's shameful performance in the Presidential debate, CNN (and every CNN journalist) should have gotten the "death penalty". No Republican should be talking to CNN, period -- until Crowley is fired, and CNN announces their steps to prevent any of their "journalists" from taking sides in any debate.

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.