Why I Simply Can't Trust the MSM

This was a fine week for those of us who distrust the mainstream press, as it lived down to our expectations and supplied fine object lessons on how the media get it wrong.
Just this last Thursday morning, I flipped on my computer and started scanning online news articles, I came across this headline: “Bush Defends Nuclear Agreement With India.” I read the article and saw nothing that required defending. In fact, it appeared that Bush was but boasting about the treaty – as well he should have. He had just brought the world’s largest democracy, an emerging economic and military superpower, much closer to the United States without alienating our ally in the war on terror, Pakistan.
But nevertheless, the Associated Press posted a headline suggesting that there was something damaging about this agreement. Shortly afterwards, the AP changed its headline stating, correctly, that the treaty was a triumph.
My editor here at the Tribune and I disagree upon most things. I think that I could list everything we do agree upon. We both favor nuclear energy and genetically modified crops. We oppose property taxes. We both favor an income tax for Washington. And, we both favor international free trade. And we prefer proper spelling and good grammar to the alternative.
But if there is one topic upon which we disagree most vehemently, it is upon the honesty of the mainstream press. I believe it when 90% majorities of pressmen and women describe themselves as “liberals.” Further, I believe that their ideology colors their reporting. Evan Thomas of Newsweek magazine boasted that the preferential treatment that John Kerry could expect from the mainstream press would translate into a 15% electoral advantage in the 2004 election. I believed him.
So how does the press distort the truth? Well, aside from lying (recall the George Bush National Guard memo fiasco in 2004?), the press tells partial truths and distorts truth just enough to lead the consumer astray. If you read no further than the headline cited above, you probably came away shaking your head about Bush’s latest flub.
If you only read the first half of a story that appeared on the front page of this paper Tuesday morning, you have serious doubts about the judgment of President Bush on issues of national security. The scare headline read: “Coast Guard: Intelligence gaps hampered risk assessment of ports deal.” The first 60% or so of the story focused upon Coast Guard complaints that it did not have enough information to endorse the deal’s security arrangements. Journalism students learn that most readers do not read all the way through to the end and that they should frontload their writing so that the story they want to tell is told early. In this case, the writer wanted his reader to believe that the Coast Guard was uneasy about port security. If you read to the end, you learned that once the Coast Guard received the rest of the information, their concerns were satisfied and that they endorsed the deal. Readers who finished the story almost certainly asked themselves: “What’s the big deal?”
Sometime this weekend or next, in a humorous counterpoint to the Academy Awards, the Razzies will be handed out recognizing the year’s worst movies and performances. If there were a category for news reporting, the United Arab Emirates port management story would garner the most nominations in all categories. From the first, the press has gotten this story almost entirely wrong and rather than reporting the truth, it has concentrated its efforts upon scoring the political damage done to George Bush and the Republicans. You would have to dig very hard and completely ignore your local newspaper or broadcast news to learn that the deal almost certainly makes us more secure ,as the UAE agreed to security concessions and inspections on its own soil. The UAE also pledged verifiable cooperation in the war on terror.
Search your memory for how often those news items have been mentioned in your traditional information sources and compare that to how many times you’ve heard that Bush’s poll numbers have dropped again. You tell me which is the more substantive story.
While these mainstream media outlets revel in Bush’s low poll numbers, they should have a look at their own.