The Glade 4.0

The Truth About Media Bias
Every reporter has political beliefs
John Stossel | September 24, 2009

When I announced last week that I was leaving ABC for Fox, some readers complained about my "bias." I replied: "Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine."

Look at today's burning issue: President Obama's pledge to redesign 15 percent of the economy. Virtually every reporter calls his health care plan "reform." But dictionaries define reform as "improvement." So before they present any evidence, reporters pronounce Obama's plan an improvement. Isn't that bias?

The New York Times took its bias to an absurd length. Its page-one story on the big anti-big-government rally in Washington, D.C., referred to "protests that began with an opposition to health care. ..."

Apparently, in the Times reporter's and editors' view, opponents of the Obama health care plan oppose health care itself. (The online article was later changed.)

Economic-policy reporters usually present the views of supporters of new regulations as objective and public-spirited. For a contrary view, at best they'll ask a Republican or a representative of the regulated business, who is portrayed as self-serving. (Republicans tend to offer a watered-down version of the Democrats' proposals.)

A recent Bloomberg report on President Obama's plans to rewrite financial regulations is typical: "Obama has proposed new regulations overseeing the systemic risk posed by large financial institutions." The reporter quoted White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers in support of the plan. Although there are plenty of reasons to doubt that regulators are competent at judging systemic risk, no skeptical economist was quoted. Readers are led to believe the program is perfectly feasible.

Most reporting on the "stimulus" package has the same flaw. Just to call it "stimulus" is to editorialize, since the idea that government spending can truly stimulate an economy is at best doubtful. Many good economists say it can't be done. After all, the money is taken from somewhere else. But the economists rarely are quoted.

In addition, reporters seem to think they've done their job if they merely describe the intentions behind the proposed "reform." But the burden of proof should be on the sponsors of regulation and spending. They should have to make a convincing case that their new rules are superior to the free market. Who cares about intentions?

Fuel-efficiency standards, intended to save gasoline, give us less crashworthy cars, so more people die. Subsidies to American farmers destroy Third World markets. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged shaky subprime mortgages and helped cause the housing and financial turmoil.

The long list of bad results that have emerged from well-intended regulation ought to dim reporters' enthusiasm. But it hasn't.

I admit that my guiding political and economic philosophy—libertarianism—now shapes my reporting, in this way: It prompts me to ask questions that others don't ask.

I don't claim to be the expert. But some of my colleagues who write about business know nothing about economics. Many are comically hostile to profit—they dismiss it as "greed" (although they bargain for the highest salaries possible).

On my former ABC blog, some people called me a biased "conservative."

"Your (sic) a shill anyways John. dont (sic) let the door hit you in the you know what."

I'm surprised that the self-described enemies of intolerance can't tolerate even one MSM reporter who doesn't share their statist premises. The interventionist state has been the status quo for generations, so I must be something other than "conservative." "Liberal" is what my philosophy used to be called. It's the statists who are the reactionaries.

Not all the blog comments were hostile:

"Congratulations. The mind boggles at the thought of giving free reign on air to someone who actually understands economics."

"Stossel challenges conventional wisdom, so I hope Fox lets him do that."

I assume Fox will. My points of view on things like immigration, nation-building, and the war on drugs differ from those of many at Fox, but libertarians like Judge Andrew Napolitano still seem to thrive there. The alleged "conservatives" are pretty tolerant.

I think they'll tolerate me. See you there next month.

John Stossel joins Fox News on October 19. He's the author of Give Me a Break and of Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.

COPYRIGHT 2009 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Heh, in his second paragraph he clearly shows his own bias. Stossel is just as guilty as anyone.

I admit that my guiding political and economic philosophy—libertarianism—now shapes my reporting, in this way: It prompts me to ask questions that others don't ask.

I'm aware of that. I believe his premise is flawed, that announcing his bias ahead of time somehow makes him a better journalist.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

Heh, in his second paragraph he clearly shows his own bias. Stossel is just as guilty as anyone.

Does pretending you don't have a bias work better?

Not if you aren't actively trying to report facts.

My point is that journalism is about reporting facts and trying your best to NOT color the information that you are presenting.

Yes, it's an impossible task. There will always be a little bit of bias that is unconcious.

However, I believe that embracing bias, and stating it up front does NOT create better reporting.

I'm not interested in some reporter making up my mind for me, I'm interested in seeing the facts as clearly as I can and making it up for myself.

Open biased reporting does not assist me in that endeavor at all, in fact it very actively hinders it.

From my point of view, reporting should be as neutral as possible with all weight put on the facts of the situation.

I disagree. I'd rather a reporter tell me which way the reporter leans. If he does, then I am able to use that to filter what he is reporting. If the reporter pretends he is unbiased I have to expend that much more energy to discern which way they lean.

If all things are equal, and we assume they are trying to uphold journalistic standards, then a reporter who is aware of their bias and informs me of such is much more reliable to me as they are:
1) Aware
2) Have informed me
3) Trying to be a journalist with integrity
4) Trying to limit their bias because they are aware of it

A journalist who doesn't inform me of their bias may not even be aware of their bias, and therefore can't attempt to limit it. Heck, they may be aware of it but not the extent to which they are biased, which will lead to too little introspection on their part. By failing #1, they fail the rest. If they fail #2, I can't be assured of the rest either.

First of all, you're assuming that having a bias is "wrong" when it's really just an unavoidable circumstance.

Within the context of journalism, that is reporting the news (NOT to be confused with editorial comment), bias is and always will be "wrong".

It's really pretty silly to call something totally unavoidable "wrong". Ok, fine, it's wrong. Everyone has it and there's no way to eliminate it. Then why mention it? The only reason you brought it up was to claimt hat Stossel wasn't praiseworthy for admitting it, but if everyone else is the same in regard to having it, why would being one of the few to admit it NOT be praiseworthy?

Admitting it might not make the reporting better in and of itself, but at least putting one's own bias up front allows the viewer to look at what's presented with that in mind. That certainly improves the reporting's end result.

You're talking like everyone has huge amounts of bias, which I believe is incorrect. There are many news reporting sources that are quite good for relatively bias free journalism. The Economist, NPR and The BBC all come to mind immediately.

I'd even throw in the Wall Street Journal as long as you only look at the financial information. Yes, each of those sources have some amount of bias, yet ALL of them strive very hard to be fair in their journalism. And from my viewpoint the primary reason they strive to be fair is because they have all believe that bias in journalism is BAD. That is undesireable for true journalism.

If bias isn't bad, then you can report selectively on only that news or information that helps your cause. The end result is that you miss-inform people and end up actually affecting society instead of reporting on it. I believe that people like Stossel, who have begun to use open bias as some sort of honor badge have opened a VERY dangerous pandora's box.

Please explain how pointing out the use of loaded language by others is bias.

Heh, in his second paragraph he clearly shows his own bias. Stossel is just as guilty as anyone.

Look at today's burning issue: President Obama's pledge to redesign 15 percent of the economy. Virtually every reporter calls his health care plan "reform." But dictionaries define reform as "improvement." So before they present any evidence, reporters pronounce Obama's plan an improvement. Isn't that bias? The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber

You're talking like everyone has huge amounts of bias, which I believe is incorrect. There are many news reporting sources that are quite good for relatively bias free journalism. The Economist, NPR and The BBC all come to mind immediately.

Most of the media at least get their facts right. Stossel is even better than most in that respect, even with the bias he (like all journalists) put into their work.

I have an issue with Stossel going to Fox, however. Most of the media can be at least somewhat trusted or respected. However, Fox doesn't have media personalities. They have hacks and mouthpeices and schills like O'Reilly, Beck, Goldberg or Hannity, etc. Oh, there's a few on other networks too (who let that self-righteous indignant buffoon Olbermann have a show?), but up until now FoxNews ONLY hires this type of ****. I feel that by moving from ABC to Fox, yes, Stossel may get more freedom to show people the truth and how economies really work (or don't work), but the people he needs to reach won't be listening, because to them he'll just be another Bill O'Reilly. On 20/20, he was a mildly conservative, sensible mouthpeice coming from a slightly left-leaning media outlet. This put him on display like he never will be on Fox, where his sensible policies will be overshadowed by the other morons who will drown him out with their idiocy.

...but up until now FoxNews ONLY hires this type of ****.

I like listening to NPR. They often have interesting stories, and do some indepth reporting that you don't get from the 24 hour news cycle places. But one thing they are not, is unbiased. For instance today I was listening and they had an extended segment talking about manditory health insurance. Their two guests that they used for this segment? A person that was a big proponent of the Massechussets health care plan that has a manditory health care clause, and a huge proponent of Obamacare. The entire segment was a big lovefest for manditory healthcare.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

All of their reporters and reports assume a few basic things that may or may not be true:
...
3. That Juan Williams is in any way credible.

Juan Williams