There has been a lot of argument in the last several years as to whether or not the media has a liberal bias. No news journalist – print, broadcast or Internet – wants to admit that the media has a liberal bias. We like to think of ourselves as objective, like a good news medium should be.
But that is simply not the case. America’s major news sources give us stories in which only one side is being told – the liberal side.
Have you ever noticed, for example, that almost all the news to come out of Iraq is about fighting? For the last several weeks, all the news has been touting are stories of the “civil war” in Iraq.
What we didn’t hear about were the soldiers who gave aid to 300 displaced residents of Jemuria Ula after a flood swept away their homes. You probably didn’t know about the $250 million reconstruction contracts that have been awarded to women-owned businesses in Iraq, either.
Some news media may not even know that they have a bias. Blood and guts stories will sell more papers than stories of the members of the 67th Armored Regiment distributing more than 1,000 wheelchairs to disabled Iraqis.
It is our major news sources that are omitting this information from reaching us. I get the Washington Post via e-mail, but I hadn’t heard of any of those stories until I did a little independent research.
And even if no biological or atomic weapons of mass destruction have been found, Saddam Hussein himself could be considered one. According to the U.S. Department of State, “Over one million Iraqis are believed to be missing in Iraq as a result of executions, wars and defections, of whom hundreds of thousands are thought to be in mass graves.”
As a journalism major, I’ve been taught that you must represent both sides of a story. That is what makes it objective. It makes me a little sick to know that the major media moguls I’ve been taught to admire, The New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, ABC – the list is endless – are not living up to that standard.

Author