WHCD = Bias

Our media is pathetic, but then you knew that. They are biased. They are ideological. They are sycophantic. What’s even funnier though is when they pretend that they aren’t, like with the recent White House Correspondent’s Dinner.

The WHCD is a tradition which goes way back. Basically, the idea was that for one night a year, the media would call a truce with the politicians they supposedly ruthlessly cover like bulldogs, and they would all get together for a few drinks, some heavy petting and more drinks. An honorable tradition... wink wink.

But now, sadly, things have gone off-kilter. See, at one point, this was just journalists and a few politicians trading favors in darkened restrooms and coat closets. But now, Hollywood has gotten into the act. Thus, luminaries like Tom Brokaw are upstaged by Lindsay Lohan (right). . . which made poor Tom denounced the WHCD.

Poor Tom, what has become of his noble profession.

Ok, enough facetiousness. Let’s state the obvious: this whole idea is rotten to the core. The theory behind journalism is that journalists are unbiased reporters of all the ugly things that powerful people don’t want told. Indeed, being unbiased and avoiding the appearance of bias is such a big deal that it’s part of their code of ethics. It’s also the excuse they use for horrible misconduct like the guy Bev reported about who watched someone get killed by a train rather than helping or for being disloyal, like when Mike Wallace claimed he would not warn US soldiers “if he learned the enemy troops with which he was traveling were about to launch a surprise attack on an American unit.” Apparently, his duty as a journalist comes first... humanity and loyalty come second.

So how can journalists be unbiased and avoid the appearance of bias if they attend a big old get-together with the people they’re supposedly covering so mercilessly? They can’t and they know that, but they still try to justify it.

Take for example, Roger Simon of Politico, who lashed out at those attacking the ethics of those who attend the WHCD. He notes that this is just a party and it’s no different than singing the Star Spangled Banner at the ballpark. Really? So let me ask this... assume that Fox News held such a shindig for conservative politicians, do you think Simon would just excuse that as a party and being no different than singing the Star Spangled Banner? I doubt it. He’d be attacking the ethics of Fox News.

The New York Times has taken a strange, hypocritical stance on this dinner. They used to sponsor a table, but now they don’t. According to the Times:

“[W]e came to the conclusion that it had evolved into a very odd, celebrity-driven event that made it look like the press and government all shuck their adversarial roles for one night of the year, sing together (literally, by the way) and have a grand old time cracking jokes. It just feels like it sends the wrong signal to our readers and viewers, like we are all in it together and it is all a game. It feels uncomfortable.”

Interesting. So the problem is that this creates the appearance of bias because it makes it look like journalists and politicians are all playing a game together... YET it wasn’t a problem until all the celebrities started showing up and people started seeing what was going on. In other words, secret violations of ethics aren’t violations of ethics. Incidentally, the Times won’t criticize anyone who goes because they always protect their friends.

This is yet another dagger in the heart of the public’s perception of the media. According to a Pew Poll, 80% of the public thinks journalists are influenced by powerful people or organizations, 77% think they favor one side, 72% think they try to cover up their mistakes, and 63% think journalists are biased. Do you think attending this party will help or hurt those perceptions?

As an aside, here are some other interesting findings from Pew. Apparently, 46% of CNN’s coverage and 45% of Fox’s coverage in 2012 was devoted to news. The rest was opinion. Pew thinks that’s bad because it means the public is less information and it used to be well above 50%. Oh... and I should mention that MSNBC was examined too. They didn’t do so well: 15% news, 85% opinion. No wonder their audiences are idiots.

Here are some other things you may find interesting about the media:

● There are now 40,000 fewer employees in newsrooms than in 1978.

● Local TV news coverage of government politics has been halved since 2000.

● One in three people reported that they stopped going to particular news sources because they felt they no longer offered them the news they were used to getting.

● In 2012, only 27% of statements about candidates records were from news reporters, the rest came from partisan talkers, which is a complete reversal of 2000, when 67% came from reporters.

None of this bodes well for the media. On the plus side, it does seem to open the door for whoever is smart enough to seize the market the media is abandoning.

Thoughts?