COLUMN: "Liberal Bias, Thinly Disguised"

From Stephen Jamison's "On the Green," Fall '92 Others choose to blame the incident on the "poverty of values," the lack of a strong work ethic, the proliferation of television shows with social messages and even Madonna's new family picture album. I, however, assign much of the blame to those scrappy defenders of the First Amendment, the thinly-disguised liberally-biased media. Unfortunately, some bias in the news media is an unavoidable fact of life. Subjective decisions are made by opinionated editors and journalists as to which items are considered newsworthy, the placement and positioning of news stories, and the implications and thrusts of the pieces. Some publications and programs make no excuses for their slanted views. The Wall Street Journal and The National Review are unabashedly conservative, pro-business, freedom-loving publications. Others, such as the The New Republic, The Village Voice and The Militant don't attempt to disguise the fact that they are pro-government, anti-individual, commie bastards. And that's OK. Biased reporting only becomes indefensible when primary media institutions, cowardly lurking behind the pillar of objectivity, deny their partisan leanings. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of bias that exists in the standard, generally accepted sources of popular news. The New York Times, with "all the news that's fit to print", Time Magazine, with its "let's interpret the news for the uneducated masses" theme, and our beloved Daily Pennsylvanian are all examples of deceit at its finest. And I'm not even going to attempt to explain what goes on in Hollywood-land. Even though everyone, including editors and reporters, is entitled to his opinion, the profession of journalism has an extraordinary number of opportunities to abuse its powers. While understandably protective of the First Amendments right to free speech, the media usually seems too quick to dismiss the other parts of the Constitution when it suits their agenda, such as the right to bear arms. Instead of being objective chroniclers of world events, many journalists see themselves as catalysts for change. Who cares if there aren't quite 3 million homeless people? Who cares if the global warming trend is highly disputable? Who cares if there aren't quite that many AIDS victims? "We're exaggerating this stuff for a good cause, you see. Besides, educated people should care more about these things." As perhaps the most powerful and unregulated institution in America, the media should start practicing what they often preach to the business community -- namely, ethical responsibility. Did you ever wonder why your "Independent Student Newspaper of the University of Pennsylvania" doesn't seem so independent? Or has it ever crossed your mind that the DP has an incestuous relationship with Billy Clinton? Just in case, your favorite neighborhood columnist took it upon himself to investigate the extent of student bias at the DP. My rudimentary calculations show that 73 percent voted for Bill Clinton, 96 percent consider themselves to be moderate or liberal, and 100 percent are pro-choice. These figures do not automatically constitute bias. However, while the DP may try hard to appear objective, it is nonetheless very difficult to overcome this amount of prejudice. I could go on and on about how this-or-that particular story was particularly slanted, but the Rodney King affair, one of the largest events of the early 1990's, quite clearly shows my point. While there were many factors and influences at work, the media's distortion of the truth aggravated already tense race relations among those city residents involved. Were the four officers that were charged with assault with a deadly weapon guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? I have no idea whatsoever. But I do know that Rodney King was not an "innocent passing motorist," as portrayed by a sympathetic media. He was a convicted felon who led the police on a eight-mile car chase at speeds over 110 miles per hour. He was still legally qualified as drunk six hours after the incident. More importantly, the media continually neglected to show the entire video tape, which showed Mr. King lunging at officers and physically resisting arrest before any of the police became questionably violent. He even continued to attack after being electrically zapped twice by a stun gun reportedly strong enough to "knock out a buffalo." And one wonders why many sensibilities are provoked when television refuses to tell the entire story and just shows the small bit which shows the officers in a negative light! In conclusion, the purpose of this piece is not to attack the DP in particular. I think that they do a commendable job in covering campus events and providing a forum for discussion. Nonetheless, such political homogeneity in an "unbiased" organization is unhealthy at best, and this evidence should induce a large dose of skepticism in every reader. Finally, I myself am tired of being told by the media that all our problems are a result of Reagan's disastrous economic policies, that we should all be required to understand what it's like to be a minority, or a lesbian, or handicapped individual or a Democrat, and that everything would be dandy if we would just all care more and love one another. Maybe these points have some validity, but I don't need a bunch of condescending members of the "cultural elite" informing me of how to think. My solution: "Annoy the Media -- Bush in '96." Steven Jamison is a senior Finance major from McKeesport, Pennsylvania. "On the Green" appears alternate Fridays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.