Bias Hounds
"Media bias" doesn't send me into an apoplectic, sputtering tailspin like it does some people. Bias is normal. My feeling is, you notice it, object when it's offensive, laugh when it's amusing, and otherwise just go with it. Write a strongly worded letter from time to time. Snort derisively here and there. The idea is to take note of it, yet try not to let it dominate your life. Unless it's your job. You've got to make a living, after all.
Beyond that, I try to care about it (since media bias hounds seem to be having such a great time), but, for some reason, I don't much. Feel free to inveigh against the Powerful Forces that have conspired to spin every news item in such a way that it undermines all that you and other right-thinking people hold dear; but be prepared for my eyes to glaze over while my mind drifts to more pleasant, intriguing matters.
That said, Rod Liddle has an interesting take on BBC bias in the latest Spectator. He notes a tendency on the part of BBC presenters to draw conclusions that plainly run counter to the facts they have just presented, using examples from coverage of the recent British election to produce a list of "Things the People of Britain Are Not Allowed to Think Despite Being Palpably Self-Evident." He attributes all this to "institutionalized political correctness." Much as I distrust the formulation "institutionalized whatsit" (which usually means "whatsit that only I can detect with my superior powers") I think he may be on to something:
ItÕs a sort of terror of the truth, arrogant in its assumptions because it believes ÔordinaryÕ people cannot cope with the truth and need it either sweetened or altered entirely.You could see it at work during the war in Iraq. Now, I was opposed to the war but I was aware that the military campaign was carried out with devastatingly brilliant precision and speed. And yet, watching television Ñ Channel 4 or the BBC or, for that matter, Sky Ñ there seemed a determination to present at every juncture the worst-case scenario as if the war, because it was inherently ÔimmoralÕ, could not therefore possibly be expedited with success. Maybe it is just my imagination, but I seem to remember being told, every night, that the prospect which awaited our troops was a ÔquagmireÕ of Ôhand-to-hand street fightingÕ. WhereÕs the quagmire, huh? Where are the fights? I donÕt object to the speculation; just the one-sided nature of the speculation Ñ as if it were in some way indecent to have someone suggest that the war would be over by the end of next week and very few people would be killed.
The night before the election I watched a BBC News report about the two British Muslim suicide bombers. It was, for the most part, a perfectly good piece of journalism Ñ until the last line. The correspondent, Niall Dickson, concluded by saying that the vast majority of British Muslims were vehemently opposed to such violent attacks. Howja know that, Niall? You asked them all? You havenÕt, have you? You just made it up. You sort of hope itÕs true. ItÕs an article of faith that we have to believe such things, so bung it in the end of the report. Like Welsh people really love their assembly and the people of Burnley arenÕt racist and the Tories canÕt possibly win. ThereÕs no evidence for any of this stuff Ñ indeed, thereÕs rather more evidence to the contrary Ñ but letÕs say it anyway because the alternative is, frankly, too unpleasant to contemplate.