As a graduate student in English and Rhetoric, I earn my stipend in part by teaching a few writing classes. At some point we are allowed to propose ideas about a possible class, and by some strange stroke of luck, my proposal was accepted. So this year, I have been teaching a class called the “Rhetoric of Media Bias” – though I felt “Rhetoric about Media Bias” would have been a more accurate title.
I think this issue has some LDS resonance, what with the L.A. Times giving front page coverage to the “debunking” of the Book of Mormon and the trumpeting of Mitt Romney’s mormonness in the media (whereas Harry Reid’s goes nearly unmentioned – an exhaustive Lexis Nexis search reveals that in the news media Romney’s religious affiliation often takes center stage, whereas Reid’s membership occasionally gets mentioned in an offhand manner).
Anyway, in order to start a discussion (but please be civil) I figured I’d give a rundown of my textbook list, with some brief comments. The first thing I should mention is that I don’t allow debates about whether the news media is/are biased for the first two units of the course. The first two units are about the rhetoric of the debate, but not about its truth claims.
The books I have them read are:
The Rise and Fall of the Media Establishment by Darrell M. West: A good short history of the American News Media. It makes no judgments about bias (except for one off-handed comment), but it gives a clear idea of where the news media came from and how it got to its current “Fragmented” status. Despite any claims made today, the news media is clearly not as partisan and biased as it was in the days of Washington and Jefferson. It also focuses on how the idea of “Objectivity” is a relatively recent (and somewhat uniquely American) ideal for the news media.
Coloring the News by William McGowan: This is probably the fairest of the 3 books on media bias I have my students read. McGowan’s thesis is mainly that the news media is so focused on “diversity” that it slants coverage and refuses to rigorously investigate any story that might upset a minority group. Unusually, McGowan makes a few early rhetorical moves that try to ameliorate any backlash – he says he has no problem with affirmative action hiring because it is a needed step in addressing and correcting historic wrongs. He also says that while conservatives may like this book it’s not really aimed at them: He hopes liberals will read it and realize that their ideas deserve open and honest debate, rather than the culture of oppression and silence that seems to prevail.
What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman: Very well researched but deeply dishonest. This book makes no attempt to reach any audience other than a squarely far left audience. Many of his main claims are asserted with no attempt to prove them (mainly because his far left audience already agrees with him). For example, he claims all rich media owners are conservative and thus pressure reporters to slant the news media to the right (somehow he avoids discussing the liberal founder of CNN, Ted Turner) and that George W. Bush was “unqualified” for the presidency (not “less qualified than Gore” or “under qualified” but straight up “unqualified”). It’s an angry book meant to galvanize the troops, but it doesn’t attempt to expand the fold. Books like this one exist not to win debates, or even to be read closely. It exists so liberals can go “Well, Alterman’s book proves there is no liberal bias in the media!” (It’s also not a good sign when, on the second page of his book, he says all conservatives are either stupid or liars).
Weapons of Mass Distortion by L. Brent Bozell III: Just change “liberal” to “conservative” in my description of Alterman’s book above. Well, not totally true. Bozell does make some attempt to reach moderates, so some of his rhetoric is not as extreme. Bozell also makes good use of brevity, and has found some pretty damning quotes by the bigwigs in the news media establishment. If I had to stack the two together, Bozell does a better job of proving a liberal bias in the media than Alterman does with the reverse, but both books left a bad taste in my mouth – all that anger and agony seem out of place in what should be a rational debate.
Disinformation by Richard Minter: I use this book to model research papers. While this book leans to the right, many of the “myths” it exposes aren’t really conservative or liberal (is the question of whether Osama Bin Laden is on dialysis or not a liberal or conservative question?) A nice book – I think it should be read by anyone who wants to be taken seriously in a debate about the War on Terror, even if they disagree with some of the findings. In either case, each chapter does a good job of modeling short research papers – how to introduce an argument, how to assert a thesis, and how to integrate different types of evidence into a larger argument.
As for my thoughts on media bias? Well, I’ve come to two conclusions:
1. The only real, consistent bias that comes through is a fear of/strong distrust of right-wing religious movements. Even Eric Alterman admits this (though he chalks it up to reporters being part of the educated elite, who are just too smart for that stuff).
2. Other than that, the picture I got was one of a deeply incompetent media. Reporters and editors deal with issues (science, economics, etc.) they have little or no training in. Thus, they often have no idea what questions need to be asked. Instead of being the objective, rigorous and cynical press that questions everyone and everything, we have reporters who follow whatever meme pops up and who generally have no true understanding of the issues at hand. But that’s my current take. Maybe this semester’s batch of student papers will change my mind.