 |
|
Leftist Bias in the Print Media: Exhibit A by Steven Yates
Be all this as it may, it is always useful to have examples at hand that we can point to and say, this is what we are talking about when we say that a leftist bias permeates the dominant media. While traveling through Atlanta the other day I came upon a copy of a recent issue of Atlanta’s city newspaper, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. An unsigned editorial fit the bill perfectly, involving just the right kind of linguistic manipulation to illustrate what Goldberg and others are going on about. Since the editorial was unsigned, we can assume that the opinion represents the official position of the newspaper as a whole on its subject. So I’ve quoted extensively from the editorial and provided a translation manual that no doubt can be applied to other newspapers. I have also inserted comments of my own. Everything is carefully marked, and readers are encouraged to use this as a model for exposing the leftist biases in their own newspapers. (Disclaimer: this article is about the leftist bias in a single unsigned editorial, not about the nomination of Charles Pickering whose track record and circumstances I have not researched.) The title of the editorial is, "Extremist judge is unfit to sit on appeals court." We begin with a negative sentiment before we know why the judge is extremist. A certain frame of mind is created. (See comment below on this use of extremist.) Editorial: "President Bush is using his widespread popularity, a result of the easy rout of the Taliban, to shore up a domestic agenda that most voters find too conservative." Translation: President Bush is using his widespread popularity, a result of the easy rout of the Taliban, to shore up a domestic program that writers of unsigned editorials do not find to be sufficiently liberal, or as kowtowing to liberals. Comment: The editorial supplies no evidence one way or the other that the voting public finds President Bush’s domestic agenda "too conservative." Editorial: "The latest example of that is Bush’s nomination of a right-wing extremist, Charles Pickering, for the federal bench in New Orleans." Translation: The latest example of that is Bush’s nomination of a conservative who doesn’t play by the rules established by liberals, Charles Pickering, for the federal bench in New Orleans. Comment: when was the last time you read a reference in any dominant media outlet to a left-wing extremist? Goldberg asked this question, too. And we still don’t know what makes Charles Pickering an extremist. Editorial: "In offering Pickering for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the president is making a mockery of the bipartisan cooperation that he has touted since Sept. 11. Pickering has such a shameful record on civil rights that even moderate Republicans are having second thoughts about his nomination." Translation: In offering Pickering for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the president is abandoning the implied cave-in to the Democrats that existed well before Sept. 11. Pickering hasn’t endorsed every affirmative-action or other leftist program of redistribution of wealth and jobs; thus those Republicans who have caved in to Democrats are having second thoughts about his nomination. Comment: a-ha, now we’re getting somewhere, since left-liberals typically paint critics of their agenda on race as extremist. Editorial: "Pickering has offered no apologies for a law review article he wrote in 1959 suggesting ways to strengthen a Mississippi prohibition on interracial marriage. In addition, he falsely denied any contact with the Sovereignty Commission, a segregationist organization." Translation: Pickering has failed to get down on his hands and knees before the thought police and beg for mercy, for having penned occasional political incorrectitudes. He has been associated with groups that do not have the approval of the same thought police. Comment: who is this Sovereignty Commission? I know I had never heard of the group before. Probably most people reading the editorial had never heard of the group. But by calling it a "segregationist organization" without further ado, again the right seeds are planted in the reader’s mind, that being whoever the Sovereignty Commission is, its members must be very evil people. And anyone associated with them must be evil. (Note also the media’s association of the word sovereignty with the idea of segregation, and then ask what subtle effects this kind of association could have on defenses of this country’s national sovereignty somewhere down the road.) Editorial: "He also worked tirelessly against the 1965 Voting Rights Act." Translation: "He didn’t support leftist incursions into voting that would ensure the election of more liberal Democrats." Editorial: "His anti-abortion stance is far more extreme than that of Bush or most conservative jurists." Translation: He rejects the government-invented ‘right’ of women to kill their unborn babies with far fewer compromises than Bush or the rest of the conservatives who play by leftists’ rules. Editorial: "If Bush wants his nominees to move more quickly, he should withdraw Pickering’s name and choose a more mainstream candidate." Translation: If Bush wants his nominees to move more quickly, he should withdraw Pickering’s name and choose a more leftist-appeasing candidate. Editorial: "If judges like Pickering were appointed, American justice would be skewed beyond recognition." Translation: If judges like Pickering were appointed, American justice would cease to continue servicing the country’s leftward drift toward a more centralized society. Comment: Phrases like skewed beyond recognition also carry a connotation independent of their (minimal) cognitive content, conveying a sense of distorted or warped or destroyed – supposedly the effect of a program that does not appease the centralizing left. Editorial: "If Bush will not withdraw Pickering’s nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should recommend against his confirmation. U.S. jurisprudence came too far in the late 20th century to allow it to lapse back into a time when Pickering’s prejudices reigned." Translation: If Bush will not withdraw Pickering’s nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should recommend against his confirmation. Leftists have taken U.S. jurisprudence too far in the direction they wanted it to go in the late 20th century to allow holdouts and renegades a sufficient foothold within the judicial system that the country might lapse back into a time when the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. Comment: of course, the idea of Constitutionally limited government would be unfamiliar territory for the average media left-liberal. February 9, 2002
Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com |
