Slanted Media

For most of my life, I have been a staunch news junkie. I seek out news from various sources. I got disgruntled around 2016 at the reporting around the polls and the presidential election, and cut myself off of news for a while. After about 18 months or so after that, I got back into news.

If I see a new story in one place, I might follow-up and seek out additional information on that same thing from other sources, and those sources include going to other traditional news sources in print, television and radio; blogs; podcasts; and newsletters and magazines. Getting information from multiple sources, even if some of them are not always valid or reliable sources, can offer different perspectives and lead the reader to opportunities to further research the topic. . . almost like a research paper. Our news shouldn’t be that way. But with the decline in the quality of the news reporting of today, the onus tends to rest with the reader to ensure they are getting the complete picture. The reporters and journalists don’t do that for the reader like they once did. I always find it interesting to see and hear varying points of view, especially when they are so diametrically different from what others are reporting. I wonder if they are reporting on the same thing given the news reports are so different.

In addition for my amusement, I like to seek out news from very right-slanting and from very left-slanting sources —- and from sources in between. That helps me to see which ones are more or less trustworthy. Some of them give a story that leans to their intellectual and political vantage point and not necessarily based on what is factually accurate. I long ago realized that news professionals don’t follow the code of ethics, or as I like to call them the commandments of print and broadcast journalism. One of the biggest ones that gets violated is this: News professionals should not produce a story based on a personal opinion or a personal interest or based on partisan interests. There are some others, but this is the one I see news professionals trampling on more than any of those others.

This came to light as I flipped through the news channels on the evening of 4 April 2023, the evening following the formal criminal charges brought against former President Donald Trump. On one channel, the news personnel on air and the guests commended the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office on its efforts to promulgate this indictment. On another channel, the opposite occurred, calling it a travesty of justice. Still other channels presented a mixture of viewpoints. All of them strayed away from the idea of remaining neutral and reporting on just the facts rather than interject opinions based on emotions.

Approximately 10 years ago, I attended a public, County Council meeting for the county where I live. Afterwards, I saw news clips about it, and some of the comments for one of the presenters were cut off, which made it appear the individual actually made one point but had made an entirely different point. Had I not been present, I never would have known. I began to realize some media outlets lack integrity.

I think back to when the shift began toward news professionals strongly opining over the new about which they report. Well, I can’t say when it started; however the first time I recall noticing was in the late 80s during the Congressional inquiries and hearings that preceded the criminal trial of Lt. Colonel Oliver North. North stood trial regarding a scandal during the Regan administration, in which North acknowledged responsibility for selling weapons and ammunition to a counterrevolutionary group, the Contras, from Nicaragua. It became known as the Iran-Contra Affair.

By way of background, Iran and Iraq were at war, and Iran sought an advantage through a request to the United States to secure weapons. The only problem is, there was an embargo against doing business with Iran. But President Regan thought this deal could be perfect to help secure the release of American hostages.  By the time the deal was done, by the time the sales were discovered, more than 1,500 missiles had been shipped to Iran. Three hostages had been released, only to be replaced with three more, in what Secretary of State George Shultz called “a hostage bazaar.”  Some people in the administration felt it was wasteful, since new Americans were captured after the hostages were released. North was convicted and sentenced to a three-year suspended prison term, two years of probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours of community service. His conviction was eventually overturned. An appeals court decision ruled that some witnesses could have been affected by portion’s of North’s immunized congressional testimony. It’s all moot though. There was the buzz that once the appeals were over, Regan would have pardoned him if the courts did not rule in North’s favor. After all, North fell on the sword and didn’t implicate Regan.

This ordeal unraveled when then-Attorney General Edwin Meese discovered Iran had paid only about half of the $30 million it promised while negotiating the deal. The scandal blossomed from there. The whole ordeal was very complex and convoluted; you can go and research it for yourselves. I recall the news media was quite divided in its reporting of it. Some vilified the whole deal. Others praised it. Some condemned North for taking the blame and not naming others in the Administration who probably should have gone down with him. There were some media outlets that directly attacked President Regan for authorizing the deal. The way things were going, some people like myself who watched the Congressional hearings and North’s trial thought Regan came razor thin close to being on trial himself.

I imagine that’s probably not the first time the media was widely divided on it’s reporting. But I don’t have a recollection of an incident prior to this. How does an entire industry make such a broad shift? Even with some media networks that have had a reputation of having objective reporting, you can still see stories that are obviously slanted. Will it ever go back to how it was? No. I highly doubt it.

Many look back to news icons such as Ed Bradley, Walter Kronkite, Barbara Walters, Mike Wallace, Connie Chung, Dan Rather, or Tom Brokaw. People respected them because their reporting was generally objective and middle-of-the road. I suspect those days are gone forever.