PressEthic

I recently found multiple articles on a new global warming study on the websites of ABC News, and MSNBC. The Business and Media Institute's website published an article today denouncing ABC's coverage of the issue as biased,

A day after a CNBC special unilaterally declared James Hansen the “world’s leading climate scientist,” ABC’s Bill Blakemore promoted Hansen’s latest research on global warming – letting him take a swipe at the Bush administration in the process, but excluding any global warming critics.

Based on the article on the ABC news site, the only concession made to the opposing view was the following:

Few scientists doubt that the planet has warmed, though some question the causes of the change.

According to the Business and Media Institute, and corroborated in the article on ABC News' website, the only expert quoted was James Hansen, the NASA study's team leader. The quote above was the only glimpse of an opposing view. The Business and Media Institute argues that ABC did not present both sides of the argument,

In the September 25 story, the ABC reporter didn’t include any scientists who disagreed with Hansen’s findings or his call for government regulation to address so-called greenhouse gases.

Before I found the article on the Business and Media Institute's website, I noticed that both the information from MSNBC and ABC seemed lacking in opposition to the study's findings. But I did notice the one line from ABC conceding that scientists did not agree upon Hansen's view across the board.

Although I believe that policy changes need to made in order to force America to seriously begin looking at alternative fueling and power sources to cut down on pollution and global warming, and therefore I am happy to see coverage on this study that may promote that, I can also acknowledge that this coverage is lacking in fair and balanced reporting.

It could be argued that ABC was simply reporting on the study itself and Hansen's findings, and therefore did not necessarily need to open up the issue to debate. Yet, anyone who does not sympathize with Hansen's views will cry bias without the inclusion of opposing sources.

This kind of situation makes me think that any liberal bias in mainstream media that may exist is not rooted in conscious deception or favoring. If a reporter, truly committed to the promotion of a cause or issue, wanted to solidify and validate their view in the minds of the American people, to truly promote it, that reporter would include opposition to their claim and in turn provide experts and data to refute that opposition. The absence of this process makes me think that the bias existing in media today is not a deliberate liberal slant, but simply lazy reporting that opens the door for the reporter's personal beliefs to slip through.