The Lighthouse Keeper

Last week, Jay Nordlinger was the opening speaker in a series of programs being hosted by the Nantucket Atheneum over the summer which feature some of the current notables of print and electronic journalism. Rumor has it that Nordlinger, who is the Managing Editor of National Review and music critic for the New York Sun, was brought in to bring a conservative voice to the series, the other speakers being representatives of such left-of-communist media outlets as National Public Radio, CBS, The New York Times and NBC.

Not surprisingly, the principal topic dealt with by Nordlinger in his talk, before this listener had to leave to respond to the needs of an inbound traveler caught up in July weather, was the subject of media bias. His basic premise was that there are two kinds of bias in the media. One is the bias which is worn on one's sleeve and the other is the bias which one ostensibly subordinates to a higher calling - namely the reporting of the news.

He cited the likes of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and his own National Review as principal examples of media which make no bones of their political stripe. Their conservative bent is broadcast far and wide. The fact that they are totally open about their leanings makes them, in his mind, immune to criticism for any slanting of the news which they disseminate.

Under the Nordlinger proposition, the other guys, however, don't reveal their biases. On the contrary, those whose philosophy is often characterized by the "L" word go to considerable pains to hide what they believe. The problem is that, no matter how hard they try, they almost always manage to give themselves away when they allow their news accounts to be filtered through their biases.

There is an element of truth to the theorem according to Nordlinger. The media outlets - and commentators - which don't hide but, in fact, trumpet their rightist leanings do so with a kind of in-your-face glee. The question is whether such disclosure makes a difference. Is the news that they report any more true than that reported in other venues? Is it any less biased?

There have been self-appointed guardians of the right in journalism for a long time. More than a century ago and through into the mid-twentieth century, publishers such as Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst held themselves out as the nation's saviors from all of the scourges of the political left. Unfortunately, they were also known for printing the facts that suited them and ignoring those which were not to their liking.

The "liberal" media is equally in the doghouse. They bridle at any suggestion that they emphasize the facts that suit their beliefs but, for example, it has to be clear to readers of the New York Times that, at least in the last few years, opinion has found its way into - or some might argue, has become more blatantly obvious in - the news columns and even sports reporting. Whether or not one agrees with those opinions, if one believes one is a journalistic purist, it is every bit as unsettling to realize that it is not only the other guys who do it, but it is your guys as well.

One soon comes to the realization that most news organizations stand for something. They are made up of people who have views. It belabors the obvious to say that a news organization is only what its people make it, but those people, whether they be reporters, editors, photographers, publishers or owners, all in some way shape the slant that the news takes on.

What is the relevance of this question of inherent bias to a newspaper or electronic medium that focuses on a local scene rather than the broader national and international landscape? In truth, it can be very pertinent.

An article in Monday's New York Times describes in some detail an implosion at the Santa Barbara (Calif.) News Press, a daily where much of the news staff has resigned, and the ones remaining have taken to the streets, to protest the owner's alleged interference in the reporting of the news. The gist of the issue is that the reporters want things reported one way and the owner, apparently, wants them, or at least a very small fraction of them, reported in another manner.

Not surprisingly, integrity and journalistic ethics are front and center in the debate. Each side has its own views of how these concepts apply and neither seems inclined to budge much. This is not meant to imply that there are not basic premises of truth and fairness without which there could be no effective free press. Those premises should serve as the underpinnings for anyone in the news business.

That being said, everyone has their own views about how these premises apply. In Santa Barbara, as much as anything the dispute seems to be about what is important and who is important. Should something be played up or ignored? What is the impact if a story is emphasized or not?

At one time, the Greenwich (Conn.) Time published on its front page the names of anyone arrested in

town the previous day for drunken driving. The paper's rationale was that giving such prominence to the arrests was a deterrent. However, at Greenwich High School, any students whose parents' names appeared in that news item in the paper were verbally hazed by fellow students to the point where emotional trauma resulted for some of them. Was it right to print the names or was it wrong?

In journalism, there often are no clear answers to these questions. At the local level or nationally, the reporting of the news takes on a flavor reflecting the views of those doing the delivery. As with most things, it is people who make the decisions. Whether the decision is one of what to report or how it is reported, the human element plays a significant role in determining the perception that people develop about their source(s) of the news.

So what is the point? With all due respect to Mr. Nordlinger, who is a fine journalist, the term "media bias" is redundant and should be retired from his and many others' vocabulary. There is no question that the media, or more accurately each component of the media, is biased.

This newspaper has a bias as to what is important and relevant. So does the other paper on the island, as do the local television outlets. These biases are what make each different and, therefore, interesting - or not!

While many play up the concept of bias, whether overt or covert, the real fear is not of bias itself but of whether those with a differing point of view are, in fact more persuasive and effective in reaching their audiences. To blunt the opposition, some are so repetitive or rise to such a level of shrillness that readers or listeners tune them out. In the end, for journalists of whatever stripe, that is the unhappy result of emphasis placed on the biases of the other media guys.

+ + +

The "Lighthouse Keeper" reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily represent the editorial position of The Nantucket Independent. Please send any comments to drake@nantucketindependent. com.

I