New York Times "public editor" Daniel Okrent has an intriguing article in which he matter-of-factly admits the paper's liberal bias -- although he prefers boss Sulzberger's description of the paper's viewpoint as "urban".
One significant example he examines is the Times coverage of the homosexual marriage debate. After giving references to a variety of front-page articles showing every sunshine-and-roses aspect of homosexual marriage that the paper can imagine, Okrent notes that the paper has published almost nothing on what he calls the "potentially nettlesome effects of gay marriage". He offers this as explanation:
One significant example he examines is the Times coverage of the homosexual marriage debate. After giving references to a variety of front-page articles showing every sunshine-and-roses aspect of homosexual marriage that the paper can imagine, Okrent notes that the paper has published almost nothing on what he calls the "potentially nettlesome effects of gay marriage". He offers this as explanation:
On a topic that has produced one of the defining debates of our time, Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires. This has not occurred because of management fiat, but because getting outside one's own value system takes a great deal of self-questioning.
This is most likely true. Whatever the management believes, the worker bees of the major media are for the most part cheerful accomplices in the dissemination of liberalism. They offer no other perspective, because they know no other perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment