Even people who are moderate in their politics like to invoke the phrase "liberal media" when they come across an article that supports an idea contrary to their own. In our society, the phrase is most often used by members of conservative parties to criticize news organizations they feel are biased against their political platforms. People even make a sour face when referring to our "liberal media," as if they've bitten into a lemon.
But what I find ironic is that, in a country where our politics and most of our political debates center on the protection of our rights and our freedom, our biggest criticism of the press is that it's.......free?
The word "liberal" is an Old French word born from the Latin liberalis or liber meaning "free man." Our media system is, first and foremost, free and uncensored. News outlets may report on anything that is important to viewers or readership. It may even report information that may be critical or embarrassing for people, corporations, or political parties if they feel the information is relevant and necessary for the public to know.
The converse of this free and liberal press would be censorship, much like the government-controlled press in North Korea, Burma, Cuba, and several other countries. In North Korea, specifically, the Korean Central News Agency is the state controlled news source that promotes positive propaganda to the people. When a munitions train crashed in 2004, the press did not speak of the 150 people killed or the thousands injured. Instead, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (cpj.org), it praised the loyal citizens who rushed into their homes to rescue portraits of their “dear leader” Kim Jong Il before looking for family members. BBC News reported that North Korea’s internet is also a government-run operating system that only certain people called “elites” can use. Foreign correspondents to North Korea are accompanied by government “minders” who monitor their every move. I’m sure none of us want to live in a government like this or be subject to this sort of censorship no matter what our party affiliations.
So maybe it’s not the liberal (free) press that chafes so many butts, but rather a perceived liberal bias. We are bombarded with the constant claim that news agencies intentionally publish stories that cast conservative policies and politicians in a negative light. Well, let’s examine that. This is a portion of an infographic published by The 4th Estate, a group devoted to "statistical journalism."
This chart shows the percent of negative comments about Obama and Romney during the 2012 campaign, separated by news source. Overall, Obama had 57.4% negative press, while Romney had 42.6%. Of the eight news organizations listed, only two had a higher percentage of negative comments toward the Republican candidate. That's only 25% "liberal bias." What should we call the other 75%? Conservative bias? Good reporting? Objectivity?
Complete and total objectivity in news is next to impossible. Why? Because first, media is run by people, and people naturally have their own biases. Also, media outlets market towards their viewers. Ratings. Sales. Circulation. Media is a business like any other, and those who run the media do give their patrons more of what they want. But again, they have the freedom to do it, and ultimately that is a good thing.
I'm glad we have a liberal press. Our news organizations are free to report the news as they see fit, free to editorialize (in the proper place) and free to criticize openly. Anything other than a completely free and open press would be an Orwellian nightmare. As a consumer of information, I am also free to choose the news sources I want. But as a consumer who is free, I also have the profound responsibility to assess my information sources and choose them carefully. I have the responsibility to be circumspect about that information and not blindly swallow everything I see on TV, in papers, or on the internet. We all have that responsibility, because we all have that freedom.
And freedom (liberalis) is precious.
