Bias, Or Fanaticism?

Not too long ago, there were no real alternatives to mainstream news coverage. If it were not so frightening, it would be amusing to watch liberals try to invoke government censorship of free speech now that programs like FoxNews, Dr. Laura, and Rush Limbaugh have attracted large audiences. I find the Left's current love affair with ownership restrictions and "fairness" laws baffling: strangely, these issues did not concern them when they had a virtual monopoly on the media. Apparently a perceived lack of fairness or monopoly becomes troubling only when it appears that conservatives may have a chance to be heard.

In the WSJ, Orson Scott Card comes to the defense of FoxNews and points out that mainstream journalists have gone beyond mere bias in their reporting. In closing, he makes an argument I've used many times:

I wrote this essay for a newspaper that is also biased. The only difference--and it's all the difference in the world--is that the Rhinoceros Times admits that it's a conservative paper and reports events through conservative eyes. Likewise for this Web site.

Fox News Channel, on the other hand, claims to have only one bias--it is definitely pro-American--and it presents all the facts and every viewpoint and leaves the decision up to the viewer. Imagine if these news stories had been written from that perspective. They would be barely recognizable--and some of them would not have been written at all.

What makes the liberal bias in the mainstream media so pernicious is that they deny that they're biased and insist that their twisted version of events is "reality," and anyone who disagrees with them is either mentally or morally suspect. In other words, they're fanatics. And, like all good fanatics, they're utterly convinced that they're in sole possession of virtue and truth.

- Cassandra