As a student of journalism, I have been taught that objectivity is the cornerstone of a free and responsible press.
Words like “trust,” “fair,” “balanced” and “comprehensive” are thrown about all the time by the media as they work to lure the American public into accepting the notion that their news is securely nestled in the nice, warm blanket of impartiality.
For the most part, the average viewer assumes the mainstream media is telling the complete, unabridged truth when they report a story on the nightly news or in a newspaper or magazine.
However, the media’s nice, warm blanket of impartiality is actually a dark, distorted fleece of wool, and the media have discretely pulled that wool over the eyes of the viewing public.
The sad fact is the American public cannot completely trust the mainstream media because more often than not, the media report the news with an ideological slant.
There are many examples of this bias, but let’s use the situation involving Richard Clarke and CBS News as an example.
CBS News interviewed Clarke, a former White House anti-terrorism adviser, on the network’s highly-rated news show, “60 Minutes.”
In the interview, reporter Leslie Stahl allowed Clarke to come forward and give us the “inside story” on how the Bush administration could have prevented Sept. 11.
The interview also was a means by which Clarke could promote his new book, “Against All Enemies,” in which he claims Bush and Co. were slow to act against the threat of al-Qaida.
However, CBS and “60 Minutes” failed to mention that the CBS’s parent company, Viacom, has a direct financial stake in Clarke’s book.
In other words, CBS News could indirectly make money off of the sales of Clarke’s book.
So, by allowing Clarke to ramble on for two segments promoting his book, was CBS News informing the public of important information, or was it advertising a book through which CBS News could benefit financially?
CBS News was aware of its financial connection to the book but did not report this fact to the American public because of an “oversight.”
CBS did add a disclaimer to its Internet coverage of the book the weekend of the interview, but CBS did not point out its connection to Clarke in its heavy television promotion of Clarke’s “60 Minutes” interview.
As for Clarke’s background, I guess it also was an “oversight” that CBS News didn’t mention that as a member of the Bush White House, Clarke was demoted and passed over for a job in the Dept. of Homeland Security.
Because he was passed over, it appears that Clarke, the media’s darling, may have an axe to grind with his former employer.
But, I guess CBS deemed that info irrelevant.
CBS also left out the fact that Clarke has ties to Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry through Kerry’s national security advisor, Randy Beers.
Does anyone really believe that Richard Clarke is a martyr for the truth, as CBS News is portraying him to be?
I sure don’t because, to me, it looks like he’s pining for a potential job in John Kerry’s administration.
But, enough about Richard Clarke’s lack of credibility — let’s focus on the inconsistencies in another CBS News story.
Turns out that earlier this year, Stahl also profiled another author/Bush critic, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, on “60 Minutes.”
In that instance, O’Neill was hocking his analysis of the ineptitude of the Bush administration in his book, “The Price of Loyalty.”
By the way, CBS News also stood to benefit financially from the sales of that book as well, and CBS again failed to inform its viewers of that bit of information.
Because of these “oversights,” CBS News completely lacks any semblance of credibility, at least with me.
And, unfortunately, CBS is not the only news organization that consistently fails to accurately and report the news.