Media won’t ask certain questions

Most Canadians are waking up to the agenda driven “news” industry. I have heard often, media don’t report the news they try to make it. That is only partly true. Too often it is what the media leaves out that is crucial. There are certain media that I don’t trust, therefore I will not be interviewed by them. I have had media cut and paste and even deliberately misrepresent what I have said. So why would I talk to them, they are not reporters or journalists they are activists with their hidden agenda. Actually the agenda is not hidden it is the deliberate misuse of their “soapbox” that is really the problem.

Media that refuse to ask certain questions of select people are guilty of deceptive and dishonest “reporting”. Lorrie Goldstein in the Toronto Star ( see linked article below) says “But the problem isn't just about the stories that aren't covered by the media. It's about the questions they never think to ask.”

Is it that they never think to ask: or that they intentionally do not ask?
Canadians are becoming much more aware of doctored photos, misquotes, biased reports and concocted stories. As they become even more discerning they will differentiate the good reporters from the dishonest ones.

Read Mr. Goldstein’s great column:

The unasked questions - Often it's hard to distinguish the media from the lobbyists

Original Article Online
By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun
December 17, 2006

See if the following description reminds you of any press conferences or news stories you've ever seen.

"The media are less a window on reality than a stage on which officials and journalists perform self-scripted, self-serving fictions."

Paul Weaver wrote that in a New York Times article called "Selling the Story" more than a dozen years ago.

But doesn't it sound like an accurate summation of almost any news conference today, where the advocates are in favour of, say, universal daycare, same-sex marriage, Kyoto, more social spending or greater "rights" for criminals? Indeed, do you sometimes find it hard to separate the lobbyists from the media at such events?

I do. Especially when obvious questions about the claims being made by these advocates are never asked by the media, whom, it appears, either agree with the positions espoused or, worse, seem unaware there could possibly be any other positions.

For example, if, as daycare advocates claim, Canadians overwhelmingly favour a national daycare program, why isn't that reflected in credible polls on the subject?

Why do they show that parents want a broad range of child-care options, only one of which is institutional daycare, which is often not even their first, second or third choice?

Why aren't gay activists ever challenged by the media on their absurd claim that one cannot have an opinion on same-sex marriage other than celebratory approval, without being a bigot? Why don't the media quiz them about their views on gay marriage with the same aggressiveness they do evangelical Christians?

One reason, as surveys of American journalists have shown, is that reporters tend to be more left-wing than the general population.

Another is the destruction of critical thinking caused by what is laughably referred to as our "liberal" education system, which is actually all about learning to internalize a series of rigid, "progressive" liberal orthodoxies, such as support for universal daycare, same sex marriage, "rehabilitating" criminals, etc.

'Anointed' Ones

But is something else at work as well? Thomas Sowell, whose book, The Vision of the Anointed, I wrote about last week, thinks so. (For Sowell, the "anointed" are liberal political, judicial, academic and media elites who arrogantly believe they know what's best for those they see as the ignorant, "benighted" masses.)

Sowell argues there's a natural bias in how news is reported because the media "readily dramatize an individual situation in a way in which the larger relationships and the implicit assumptions behind that situation, cannot be dramatized."

For example: "When the government creates some new program, nothing is easier than to show whatever benefits that program produces. Indeed, those who run the program will be more than co-operative in bringing those benefits to the attention of the media.But it is virtually impossible to trace the taxes that paid for the program back to their sources, and to show the alternative use of that same money that could have been far more beneficial."

In that context, it's easy to report a story featuring a parent being helped by a publicly-funded daycare program to back claims by daycare advocates that more daycare is needed.

The problem, notes Sowell, is that the media "have little or no regard (for) what that has cost elsewhere."

For example, establish a national, publicly-funded daycare program and you will exclude the majority of parents who will never use institutional daycare, even though they have all been conscripted into paying for it.

Combine that with media who don't or can't think critically about such issues and you get the kind of so-called "unbiased" news coverage that drives people mad.

Think of all the "feel-good" stories you've ever seen about how some government program helped an individual turn his life around. Now think about how many you've seen about how high taxes drove a small businessman into bankruptcy. There's no comparison,is there? But the problem isn't just about the stories that aren't covered by the media. It's about the questions they never think to ask.

• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@tor.sunpub.com

• Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to editor@tor.sunpub.com

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2006/12/17/2841324-sun.html