Media bias, but a different kind
So, what is this post about? I did mention media bias, didn't I? Yes, I did. But the kind of media bias that caught my interest was the kind that slips under the radar. It wasn't on the front page of the newspaper, it wasn't part of the headline news broadcast, and it wasn't even on the editorial page. It was in the Datebook Section of the San Francisco Chronicle's Sunday edition today. Let me set the tone:
On page 32, it is the Pop Music section, and there are three circular photos that run the length of the page. The first photo is Mariah Carey, the second is Snoop Dog, and the third is Barbra Streisand. Now, here are the captions under each photo (the bolding is mine):
1. Pop diva Mariah Carey will perform Oct. 2 at the Arena in Oakland.
2. Snoop Dog will play October 29 at Bill Graham Civic Auditorium in San Francisco.
3. Barbra Streisand will sing Nov. 13 at HP Pavilion in San Jose.
Now, this could all be very innocent, but let's analyze this for a second. Mariah Carey, a pop diva, performs, Snoop Dog, a rapper, plays, and Barbra Streisand, a musical icon actually sings. All three are actually singing. However, is the indication that a rapper is playing rather than performing or singing? And is the indication that a pop star performs, meaning her performance is more visual than auditory? And does the great Barbra meet the only criteria that indicates that she is capable of truly singing?
Is this bias, or is this a case of the writer who tries to shake up the different ways of explaining how people put on concerts so he or she does not repeat the same wording? I suspect that is the case, or at least I hope it is. But if I was someone looking for bias in the media, and this was the kind of thing I felt passionate about, imagine how much mileage you could get from interpreting something sans explanation from the original source? That's the problem with the whole "media is biased" approach. No one is actually interested in finding out why media does what it does, but they create rationalizations based on their own hatred of the sources being criticized. Then, like "reporters" like O'Reilly, they try to bait the people to their shows in an environment they control completely and then they ramble on for days about how they've continued to offer the person they're criticizing a forum to defend himself. It was the same thing with the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff. He and O'Reilly went on a rampage against each other, and both acted like school children by trying to bait the other into their own media spotlight to continue the argument. Neither would budge, so both gained massive amounts of publicity about how the other guy was a coward and afraid to back up his words in a hostile environment. That's bias. But it's different than the kind of bias we hear about every day because the loudest voices claiming bias tend to be the ones who are usually most guilty of the process of bias, but because they control the message, they can walk around with prudish pride and claim everyone else is guilty while they are the innocent reporters trying to beat down the evil biased people.
Stumble It!

