I frequently encourage you to ask questions on the website. I love questions since they often make me think through my own positions and then give me the chance to answer. Sometimes they even become website articles and podcast episodes, just like the the question I’m going to answer here today.
Joseph actually posted two questions on the website.
Hi.
I am enjoying your podcasts. Thank you for providing them. Two questions:
1. Is a biased press a free press?
2. Could you speak to/elaborate upon states’ rights and their incapacity to halt federal encroachment and its impact on a seemingly unstoppable federal government? What impact did electing the senate versus appointing them (1913) have in the rights of states?
Thanks again.
For the answer to the second question, I’m going to point you to episode 6 of the podcast where i reviewed my essay “How the 16th and 17th Amendments Destroyed the Republic!” Today I want to answer the question about a biased press.
Like so much in life, the answer Joseph’s question is… it depends.
BIAS: A leaning of the mind; inclination; prepossession; propensity towards an object, not leaving the mind indifferent.
That which causes the mind to lean or incline from a state of indifference, to a particular object or course.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
So a bias is simply the the inclination, propensity, or preference for a certain object or course of action. Does that mean it is not a free press? Well, the First Amendment gives us an answer to that question:
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
U.S. Constitution
So the answer to Joseph’s question depends on who is creating the bias. Since I am unaware of any law that Congress has passed to bias the press one way or the other, then yes, today’s biased press is a free press. The First Amendment means anyone can speak, print, or otherwise distribute their opinions based on their biases without government interference.
Everyone has a bias, a worldview, or a starting point from which they form their opinions. Since the major media outlets are mainly in progressive parts of the country, it’s not surprising that those working there have a similar bias. The fact that they let their biases color their reporting simply means they are bad at their jobs, but it does not mean they are not free. I hear a lot of talk about having the government set standards for media, content, and providers, which is the exact opposite of a free press. Net Neutrality, The Fairness Doctrine, and calls to regulate Facebook and Twitter are all attempts to stifle (or abridge) speech that some people don’t like, all in the name of “freedom of speech, or of the press”. You cannot have free speech and a free press when someone controls what is being said.
The next logical question is: Can we do anything about it? As I said, an organization that claims to be providing news while not following stringent measures to control the biases of their content providers (reports, editors, and publishers) is simply bad at doing their job. Therefore, the proper course of action is the same as if it were a bad restaurant, grocery store, or home improvement company: You stop doing business with them. If your favorite restaurant started serving lower quality meals at the same price or advertised a 16oz steak but only delivered a 12oz one, you would complain. If they did not rectify the situation, you would find somewhere else to dine, probably complaining to all your friends and family how sad it was they went downhill. The same action would be used for a grocery store that monkeyed with their prices or a home improvement contractor who could never finish on time or on budget. Then why not do the same for a media outlet that claims to be fair but is demonstrably biased? If you know you’re only getting half the story, why do you give them all of your time? Media today is a business like any other; they observe what attracts more customers and what causes customers to leave, and then adjust their tactics accordingly. Americans have trained the media that “if it bleeds it leads” and that controversy sells. So why are we surprised these outlets provide what we’ve shown them will draw us to it? The way to diminish bias in media is to stop supporting media that shows an obvious bias regardless of whether that bias agrees with yours or not. It’s not like when I was a kid and there were only three news programs and one local newspaper; there are now thousands of media outlets between cable, satellite radio, and the Internet. I recommend finding several different sources, preferably with different biases, compare what and how they report the news, and then adjust your consumption according. If you can’t find the type of reporting you like, consider starting one for yourself. Today it’s cheap and easy to start a blog and write articles that are important to you or to start your own podcast. It may not become a national sensation, but the best solution to bad speech is more speech, not less. As President Obama said:
“the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech” – President Obama
Or, if that particular bias doesn’t suit you, then in the words of Louis Brandeis:
If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. – Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).
