How To Find Truth In Politics

Sorry, No Pictures

If one recently developed an interest in politics, then which news sources should they trust? How could a political novice possibly know which sources are biased and which are not? The answer is unattractive, which is why most Americans are politically ignorant; a lot of homework must be done.

The first thing one must do, and always continue to do, is to investigate varied sources. Listen to the confessed liberal and conservative sources, and compare them. Ask yourself who is making a more logical argument and who is emotion based? Who is more acerbic and vitriolic? What sources are being referenced? Also, compare them based on their coverage of the same stories. Look at who each news source interviewed, who they did not, and ask why. What is their coverage based on? Is their tone positive or negative? If they blame someone, then who and why?

During the 2008 election, the Pew Research Center did a study on news stories involving the two candidates. Less than one-third of stories on Obama were negative whereas over one-half on McCain were negative. Less than one-fifth of stories on McCain were positive and over one-third on Obama were positive. The University of Connecticut polled the political affiliations of 300 journalists in 2005; only 19% voted for Bush. The Pew Research Center conducted a study in 2007 involving 585 journalists where a mere 8% described themselves as conservative. What is the result of this obvious bias? It is a Gallop poll in December of 2005 that showed 74% of the American people had confidence in the military and only 28% in newspapers and TV news.

Be skeptical of any news source claiming to be objective. Liberal and conservative commentators are upfront and honest about who they are, but media sources claiming to be impartial ought to be greeted with skepticism and intensely scrutinized. Poll after poll, for decades, shows that close to 90% of all journalists vote Democrat. How can we then trust them to be fair to both sides? In fact, ABC’s Mark Halperin admitted that it “doesn’t mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides ‘equally’ accountable.” Once an NFL referee was pulled off of a Saints game in week two because his Facebook page showed pictures of him in Saints garb. Why should journalism be judged any differently?

Deborah Howell, former Washington Post ombudsperson, wrote an article on August 17, 2008 where she admitted of her own paper, “Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories…Obama has been featured in 35 stories on Page 1; McCain has been featured in 13…” She added, “This is not just a (Washington) Post phenomenon. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has been monitoring campaign coverage at an assortment of…newspapers, broadcast news shows, news Web sites, three major cable news networks, and…radio outlets. Its latest report…shows that for the eighth time in nine weeks, Obama received significantly more coverage than McCain.”

When Chris Mathews says that the sight of Obama gives him a thrill up his leg and that as a “journalist” his “job” is to “make (Obama’s presidency) work successfully,” or David Brooks marvels at the “crease in Obama’s pants” and thus he would make a great president, then how can you believe a word these commentators say? Peter Jennings, formerly of ABC News, said in 2004 that he was “concerned about this notion everybody wants us to be objective,” when reporting the news.

When Dinesh D’Souza interviewed Obama’s friends and family for his documentary “2016” in Kenya, Indonesia, and other places, they said they had never been interviewed before. Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw, on national TV just prior to the 2008 election, admitted, “We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama.” It was clear that the media had no interest in properly vetting this man, or any Democrat politician for that matter.

Not properly vetting a presidential candidate is one thing, but when Dan Rather, formerly of CBS, ran with forged documents regarding Bush’s National Guard Service, then the line had been crossed. ABC, CBS, and NBC combined for over 75 stories on Bush’s National Guard service, but virtually none on John Kerry’s feud with the Swift Boat Vets or his scandalous anti-war behavior.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs did a study, which showed that Bush received twice as much negative press coverage as John Kerry did. Negative stories between Labor Day and Election Day in 2004 on Bush were 64% vs. 36% positive, whereas Kerry received only 42% negative coverage vs. 58% positive. In October it became 77% negative for Bush. If you think that is lopsided, then consider that Ronald Reagan in 1984 received 91% negative coverage!

Keeping on top of all of this takes discipline and diligence. It is not easy, and it requires much time. Sadly, this is what is necessary to figure out what is happening in the world. It is our civic duty to become informed. The consequences of remaining politically ignorant these days is simply too dangerous.