Throughout recent weeks, I have noticed my use of media bias as an idea in my columns. The varied responses I have received have heightened my interest in this issue and I would like to take a moment to clear the air of this matter. 

First, to highlight a recent example of this phenomenon, I will use the case of Jack Abramoff. There is an overabundance of mafia-esque allusions between the lobbyist and a corrupt Republican congress, emphasis on the GOP. Not surprisingly, there is a relative silence in the mainstream about Mr. Abramoff’s connections to prominent Democratic congressmen.

Another current example is found in the reporting of a Washington Times article uncovering the controversial idea that al-Qaeda training camps existed in Iraq before 9/11. Because this discovery contradicts mainstream wisdom it is swept under the rug and is if everything goes right, forgotten completely. The examples abound but they still leave questions and uncertainties about this issue.

Many have attempted to quantify a measurable and identifiable means to rate bias among news organizations, as you might expect these go largely unreported and remain in conservative and media watchdog circles. I would contend however, that the goal of these reports is amiable but fruitless due to different factors and the various subjective interpretations people have of media bias.

First, to address the common sentiment that categorically no such bias exists, if you are the type to believe there is no discernable leftward slant in our media, have you ever seen a FOX News report and thought it was conservatively biased?

With that out of the way, how do people define the bias they see? Some might think that back room meetings take place where Al Gore, George Soros, Michael Moore and Dan Rather concoct their next plan of attack. This sounds ridiculous, and it is. What is a little more likely is that one or two people in charge of a media outlet or newspaper manipulate the type of stories that are released and their timing. Their power as top editors allows them to leave out critical information, what isn’t reported is sometimes more interesting than what is.

Now even this type of media control seemingly isn’t pervasive but it is certainly possible. When I think of a media bias I see it as almost subconscious. I can recall surveys and polls indicating that a majority of the people who make up our mainstream media think and vote towards the left especially when it comes to politics. To say that just because they are professionals means that they are completely objective is to forget that they are human too. There is one final element to add to this confusing equation. It’s safe to say that a sensational, controversial story trumps every other story set to print. We can’t deny that ratings drive what gets reported and that something shocking or disturbing boosts the bottom line. 

With that side of the situation analyzed there is the perception of the individual that we must not ignore. It is important to keep in mind that each of us holds our own inherent biases. Certainly people who are vehemently anti-conservative will do what they can to deny any liberal bias just as most liberal media bias theorists probably see more than is really there. It is obvious we can’t attempt to regulate or otherwise censor what is said or reported in order to somehow make it fair. The simple solution is to diversify. Don’t just become a lifelong New York Times reader. If you listen to Rush everyday tune into Air America every now and then. Set MSNBC as your homepage one week and FOX News the next. 

When Lord Acton spoke the words “power tends to corrupt” he wasn’t just talking about the ruling elite. The power of our news media is evident, and in a truly democratic manner, change will happen within our actions, perceptions and personal choices.

Steven Ross is a senior in Transportation and Logistics and marketing. Please direct any and all comments to [email protected].