In my latest reading of War on the Middle Class: How the
Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on
the American Dream and How to Fight Back, Lou Dobbs criticizes how
the news media feel they are doing their job by featuring both the
Republican and the Democratic sides in the name of balance, rather than
digging deeply into issues. On page 91, Dobbs says glibly:
"The
truth stands by itself. The idea that fair and balanced is a substitute
for truth and fact is mindless nonsense that has captured too much of
the national media. There seem to be only two sides, both political, to
every story. Does that mean that if we had three major political
parties there would be three sides to the truth? If we had four
parties, would there be four sides?"
I used to be more of an
advocate of a "fair and balanced" news media. I felt that the media were
too liberal and should feature both Democratic and also Republican
perspectives. When I was in high school, I wrote letters to my local
newspaper against Channel One, a news program that students were
required to watch each morning. I thought that Channel One was biased
towards the left and did not include an adequate number of conservative
voices. Over time, however, it did appear to make more of an effort to
be balanced. James Dobson and Beverly LaHaye were interviewed, and, in a
retrospective about the Vietnam War, students in a fictional 1970's
classroom were debating the war, as some defended it and others
criticized it.
But "fair and balanced" media can get on my nerves,
to tell you the truth. When I got cable, I was excited that I could
finally watch Hannity and Colmes on Fox News. When there were
debates about public policy on Fox News, then that could get
interesting. But where I got annoyed was when Sean Hannity (the
conservative) would accuse liberals of doing something wrong, and Alan
Colmes (the liberal) would then retort that conservatives have done the
same wrong thing, or when one side acted as if the other side were to
blame for our country's ills----as if life is that simple. In my
opinion, those debates really went nowhere.
While I enjoy debates
on public policy, however, maybe Lou Dobbs has a point that even those
are flawed, in terms of how the mainstream media in the U.S. present
them. Why should we assume that Republican and Democratic ideologies
are the only ways to see the world? There are other ways, as well.
There are ways that are further left or further right, or even
independent.