All the News That Fits

The New York Times motto, "All the news that's fit to print," needs to be carefully parsed these days. There has always been a false assumption by many readers that the motto means the Times prints an assortment of current events that are "fit" in the sense of being sufficiently broad and unbiased to inform the public, while maintaining an air of professionalism. Not a scandal rag nor repeater of gossip, the Times can be trusted, so the thinking goes, to provide the essentials necessary for sound thinking and good citizenship.

The problem is that no news organization is free from bias. The simple decision to run one story and not run another is bias against the story not run. The editing process pares down (or fluffs up) the reporter's submission according to the editorial policies of the organization. Money has always played a part in editorial choices both from the standpoint of the need to sell papers and the less obvious need to keep advertisers happy. Finally, the world-view of the reporter and the editor impact all five journalistic W's: who, what, when, where and why -- especially the why.

Given that a survey by Media Research Center indicates the vast majority of big city journalists today are left-leaning in their politics, liberal in their social views, and atheistic or agnostic about religion, is it any wonder that conservative issues do not get reported fairly? One has only to listen to Diane Sawyer's interview of Mel Gibson after The Passion of the Christ became a surprise box-office hit. The look on her face as she asked Gibson if he actually thought the Bible was true tells the whole tale. She was astounded that he professed to believe the Bible. The liberal elite simply do not grasp the concept that millions of their fellow countrymen still believe and at least attempt to live by the ancient truth of Scripture.

I am gradually losing all respect for people who bash Fox News because they think it is biased. Of course it's biased. Every person who mouths opens his mouth speaks from a personal bias. But their complaint says one of two things about these people. It may simply reveal an innocent ignorance, either of media bias in general, or, as is often the case, ignorance of what Fox is all about because they won't watch it. More seriously, it may suggest that the person who can't abide Fox is so thoroughly immersed in the world-view presented by the liberal media that anything outside of the New York Times box is disregarded as unimportant.

Fox News is biased; they admit it, in a manner of speaking. I know the phrases "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide" seem to indicate even handedness and neutrality. But in fact, they do what every other media outlet does: they cover the news in a way that satisfies a segment of the population. They openly admit that they are conservative in their views and hope to please enough viewers to stay on the air. If success is measured by numbers of viewers, then Fox is a resounding success. This shouldn't surprise anyone who understands America. We are liberal on the coasts and conservative in the heartland. People in New York and LA think they are the rulers by which all things are measured. They are different from Fox in that they pretend to be unbiased.

(Notice to the coasts: though you may think you are the majority because you and your buddies are packed together like sardines in a can, there are more of us running free out here in fly-over country than you can imagine. Furthermore, we hold some things dear that you have cast aside: decency, honesty, morality, and yes, God, guns and country music.)

If God had chosen this generation to bring the Christ into the world, and he could only appear on one television interview show, which one would he choose: Larry King or Bill O'Reilly? It's a trick question. I think Jesus would pick Larry. Remember what he told the grumbling Pharisees: "Those who are well have no need of a physician; I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."