PressEthic

I wonder what Bernie Goldberg's response would be to the recent article on page one of the New York Times, "U.S. Urges H.I.V. Tests for Adults and Teenagers". The headline is not, "U.S. Urges H.I.V. Tests for Adults and Teenagers Who Engage in High Risk Sexual Behavior and Intravenous Drug Use". Rather, the article reads:

In a major shift of policy, the federal government recommended yesterday that all teenagers and most adults have H.I.V. tests as part of routine medical care because too many Americans infected with the AIDS virus don’t know it.

In the chapter entitled "An Epidemic of Fear" in his book, "Bias", Goldberg claims that the "liberal" media sensationalized and exaggerated the threat of AIDS in the general public in order to drum up attention and sympathy for the gay lobby. However, those claims they may have made at the early stage of the epidemic are becoming more valid. Perhaps if the "fear tactic" employed by the "liberal" media had actually worked, people would have become more aware of the threat and, in turn, become more responsible in questioning sexual partners and taking safer precautions. While it is true that at the time it was initially being reported, AIDS was not an overwhelming threat in the average American household. Yet, perhaps by bringing the AIDS issue to the forefront, the media was attempting to broaden the audience so that more people would begin to focus on the issue and possibly contain it. To me this is not a bias towards liberal ideals. It is a bias simply towards the good of the public.

This issue made me think about the actual role of "liberal" bias in media. Talking with family and friends about the issue, I received mixed reactions. I realized that some people believe wholeheartedly that there is a strong liberal bias in mainstream media today, while others are more concerned about conservative bias in programs like Fox News. Stepping back, I realized that the variance of the reactions was directly related to the political views of the person questioned.

I will concede that I think it is impossible to remain completely impartial when reporting on a given topic. Some semblance of personality, and therefore preference, will inevitably show itself. Yet, the existence of bias towards one end of the spectrum rather than the other is definable as much through what it may NOT favor as that which it may. Based on the responses I received to the question of liberal bias in the media, those people with right-leaning socio-political views tended to agree that such a bias existed. But it can be argued that this bias is identified not because of any outright favoring, but simply because the viewer or the reader did not agree with the given critique. Bias exists as much in the receiver of news as it does in the institutions that report it.

It is the purpose of the journalist to expose discrepancies and failings in the policies and practice of our government and expose pressing social issues affecting the community at large. In the current administration, the questioning of government is scene as "liberal" in that it does not agree with current policy. By questioning current policies, practices, social institutions, etc., the news media may be viewed as liberal. But more than "liberal", I would say that the news media tries to remain politically correct. Of course the idea of political correctness can be deemed liberal in itself.

I don't find there to be extreme liberal bias in mainstream media. In fact, I don't think that there is extreme liberal anything left in the American mainstream anymore. What is being called "liberal" is actually pretty moderate. The shift from left to middle has pushed the right even further to the fringes. Therefore, it seems that what is viewed as liberal bias in the media may ,in fact, merely be a lack of conservative bias.