The Bias, Balance, and Independence of Journalism

While some are focused on the bias in media regarding the political campaign, Bing West opens a can of whoop-ass on Nir Rosen and the Rolling Stones.

Rosen described how he and two Taliban fighters deceived the guards at a government checkpoint. Suppose during World War II an American reporter had sneaked through the lines with two German officers wearing civilian clothes. “When we caught enemy combatants out of uniform in the 1940s,” a veteran wrote in The American Heritage, “we sometimes simply executed them.” The Greatest Generation had a direct way of dealing with moral ambiguity.

"I am a guest of the Taliban." Rosen wrote. Supposing in 1944 he had written, “I am a guest of the Waffen SS.” It is doubtful if Rolling Stone would have published Rosen’s article during World War II. The norms and values of American society have changed enormously in the past half-century.

Yet had Rosen been captured by Afghan soldiers, it is likely Rolling Stone magazine would have asked the US military to intercede for his release. But if the reporter has no obligation toward the soldier, does the soldier have the obligation to protect the journalist? Should Rosen, if captured, have been released or put on trial for aiding or abetting the enemy?

Not fully trusting the Taliban, Rosen employed the threat of murder more commonly associated with drug lords than with Rolling Stone magazine. “… Those I accompanied knew that they and their families would be killed if anything happened to me,” Rosen wrote, alluding to shadowy Afghan associates who had arranged his trip. But supposing Rosen had died and in retaliation six children were beheaded. What is the difference between the Mafia and Rolling Stone, when reporters are protected by threatening to wipe out families?

Thomas Barnett is taking a shot at the folks who claim media bias in the election. In his larger point, he is correct, but he is only correct up to the point where one side or the other calls for a mandate of balance applied against the perception of bias. Barnett's larger point is that bias has always been the springboard for the side losing an election, and the historical trend of victories by the GOP doesn't support the claims of media bias for the left. He is right, Americans find their media sources where Americans want to find them, and the evidence to support his claim is best illustrated by the decline of the print media in general as other options are now available to Americans.

The argument on the right is that there is political bias in the mainstream media, but on the left we have a similar call towards the "fairness doctrine" to balance political speech in talk radio. If there is bias in media, why would the right be against a "fairness doctrine" to insure a sense of balance? If there is no bias in media as the left claims, then why would be need a "fairness doctrine" at all? Both sides are stuck in a catch-22 regarding journalism independence in politics.

Dr. Barnett does use terrible judgment with the term anti-intellectual to describe conservatives or Republicans, whichever he is doing, but when attacking the other side, politics has a tendency to bring out the worst in people. It is why in general, I like to keep it off the blog, and why I have ultimately decided to withdraw my book from the Obama line and run it independently, I simply don't want the political attachments.

In this discussion as we think about what Bing West is discussing, the cry of bias and calls for balance in politics are applicable to the larger issue of journalism independence, and that is where Bing West is focused.

I think this idea of "journalistic independence” Bing West is discussing is influenced by the demagoguery of the political media. Both sides of the political spectrum are participating in this demagoguery, whether it is the claimed bias of the New York Times, MSNBC, Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh; at its essence complaining about media bias or calling for media balance is a bipartisan tactic. I think it is all interconnected, and it manifests itself occasionally with articles like that of Nir Rosen's Rolling Stones piece.

Bing West calls for a national debate regarding the subject of journalistic “independence” during a war. I think it is an important topic for a national debate, but it is a lot more complex than people realize. There are moral obligations that trump media independence, but the application of morality only applies as a national war obligation for protecting the nation-state from its enemies. The issue though is who are the enemies? The politics in America is entertaining to be sure, but the media has lost all moral objectivity in its bipartisan bias. Depending upon who you listen to, Barak Obama is a smooth talking Muslim who intends to bring a caliphate upon America as he saves the planet with Marxism while aborting all your babies; while John McCain is a senile cancer patient who intends to bomb Iran funded with your 401K while the middle class without health care dies of cancer due to the pollution caused by new oil derricks in Anwar.

With moral judgment like this from the media in our political election, are we really surprised by what Nir Rosen has done?

With that said, can we really mandate moral responsibility on the media domestically if we desire a healthy democracy? I believe the distinctions where a moral obligation overrides is critical to the national debate of what "journalism independence" is. There is a tendency for people to suggest that the market for media should be allowed to work this out. Really? The Rolling Stones no doubt sold many copies thanks to Nir Rosen's article, so there is a legitimate argument the market approach will not be sufficient if that media industry refuses to police itself, much less acknowledge a problem.

Does our elected political leadership have the wisdom to make moral distinctions on media content in wartime regarding domestic media coverage of the war without influencing our system of free political speech through the media? I don't know, but I do know that regardless of the best intentions, it isn't as easy as it sounds.