|
|
Media Responsibility in a Divided World
| Article
# : |
13965 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
2 / 1988 |
6,358 Words |
| Author
: |
L. Brent Bozell III and Marc S. Ryan
|
Recent years have seen the increased prominence of various groups and individuals who have made the American news media the target of their criticism. Most have accused the press of presenting biased and distorted information to the people of the United States in order to promote their own beliefs.
Members of the media inevitably respond to these accusations by reminding their critics that "objectivity" is the common goal of American journalists in both the print and electronic media, and that as long as they seek objectivity, they cannot be promoting any political or cultural agenda.
Even the most vehement "press basher" would not disagree with the notion that objectivity is a worthy goal for the news industry. We expect reporters, editors, and anchorpeople to treat opposing candidates in an evenhanded way; likewise, we believe that at least an effort should be made to report the misdeeds of regimes of both Left and Right. When the press fails to do this--a not common occurrence, despite what some in the news business maintain--we are rightly upset.
A study conducted by the Media Research Center (MRC) clearly shows the lack of objectivity when covering many East-West trouble spots. However, while many press critics worry about whether this or that reporter is suitably objective, few stop to reflect on just where Big Media's concept of objectivity originates. Most journalists are trapped in a mind-set that is at best suspicious and at worst contemptuous of anticommunism, skeptical of patriotism, and ignorant of many of the more disturbing facets of recent history and international relations. Reporters frequently set themselves up as arbiters of what is right and wrong between East and West, imagining themselves somehow above the fray. As a result, many journalists believe they are being true to their goal of objectivity when they refuse to acknowledge any real difference between the United States and the Soviet Union.
How could it be otherwise for them? To actually believe that democracy is better than totalitarianism or that the free market may be more effective and pleasant than a Third World "revolution" would be, in their minds, a violation of their code of objectivity.
Unfortunately, in their minds, "objective" truth is based on the common assumptions that they share with their colleagues, spouses, friends, and teachers. Even more unfortunately, those assumptions are often antithetical to the idea of a free society.
In fact, moral distinctions should be made in reporting. Communism is evil; democracy has defects, but carries within itself the remedy for these shortcomings. Therefore, putting communist-aligned and Western-aligned nations on the same moral plane is anything but objective reporting. By pretending to apply objective standards to the struggle between the West and communism, the media actually tilt away from Western values, toward the very system that would suppress the institutions they represent.
The Geneva Summit
"The Soviets exploit the openness of our system to promote their global agenda," warns the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (USACPD). Its report, "Soviet Advocacy and the U.S.
...
Read Full Article
|
|
