Discussion Topic: Media Bias

Shakes here...

In Ezra’s earlier post, Good Night, and Good Luck, he references:

the idea of the news anchor as advocate, the concept that enormously trusted, unelected individuals could be beamed into millions of homes and use their status and reach to shape tomorrow's stories, not just publicize yesterday's tales. That was real bias. But maybe it was better.

I think overt media bias can be better. In much of Europe, for example, there are left-leaning papers, right-leaning papers, and moderate papers, all clearly identified as such; people buy the one that suits them. Americans have the notion that objectivity and accuracy are somehow inextricably linked, but, as we’ve seen, attempts by the media to appear objective (and, specifically, balanced) have often resulted in giving equal time to opposing positions that aren’t equally credible.

In theory, I don’t have a problem with Fox News’ bias. I have a problem with their assertion that they are “Fair and Balanced” when they are clearly not. If, however, they operated exactly as they do, with a slogan indicating their distinctly rightward slant, I wouldn’t take issue with them at all.

What do you think? Would we be better off with news outlets who openly aligned themselves with a right- or left-leaning view, instead of the current emphasis on objectivity?