FACES AND PLACES: Hypocrisy, lies and the media (10/15/00)

FACES AND PLACES

by Myron B. Kuropas

Hypocrisy, lies and the media

The first time I personally experienced media bias was in 1983 when, thanks to the late David Roth of the American Jewish Committee, I had an opportunity to discuss the Great Ukrainian Famine with a Chicago Sun-Times correspondent. Laura Greene, a friend, was to have been the interviewer, but at the last minute she was given another assignment and I was questioned by Marcia Froelike Coburn.

The interview went well and the result was a full-page write-up in the "Living/Trends" section. Ms. Coburn got all the facts straight, including my comments regarding the press inclination, led by The New York Times, to ignore Soviet bestiality and praise Soviet "achievements" during the 1930s. Towards the end of her story, however, she felt compelled to provide "balance" and offered the following quote from an "East Coast-based Soviet studies professor who asked not to be identified: 'I think these kinds of statements should really be slugged out in academic journals, not newspapers. Undoubtedly, there was a famine and, undoubtedly, some Americans at one time tended to romanticize the Soviet experiment. But I think bandying these kinds of charges and accusations about comes dangerously close to red-baiting.'" Right. Nazi crimes can be "bandied about" in the mass media for 50 years, but Soviet terror should be buried in obscure academic journals.

Ms. Coburn cast more doubt on my story with her conclusion: "At the moment all Kuropas can do is tell the story to whoever will listen - and finding listeners is not always easy, he admits. 'People don't care,' he says. And then, perhaps, people are startled by his references to the 'mostly liberal' American press as exemplified by Time and Newsweek - a statement that could give both Democrats and Republicans pause." Really?

A 1947 report commissioned by Henry Luce, founder of Time, Life and Fortune, concluded that among other things, the press wields enormous power, propagates its own opinions at the expense of opposing views, endangers public morals, invades privacy, is dominated by one socio-economic class, interferes with the open marketplace of ideas. Mr. Luce was not amused.

A 1996 cover story in the Atlantic Monthly titled "Why Americans Hate the Media" concluded that the media has lost credibility because it is "out of touch with America." Research by Peter Brown, an editor at the Orlando Sentinel, later confirmed this conclusion. "With the help of a professional pollster," wrote John Leo in the April 24 issue of U.S. News and World Report, "Brown sent questionnaires to reporters in five middle-sized cities around the country plus one large metropolitan area, Dallas-Fort Worth. Then residents in these communities were phoned at random and asked the same questions." Compared to average Americans, "journalists are more likely to live in upscale neighborhoods, have maids, own Mercedes and trade stocks, and they're less likely to go to church, do volunteer work, or put down roots in a community." Journalism majors "are more likely to come from affluent homes and private schools." Journalists are also more likely to approve of abortion. According to a September column by Mark Styn in the Chicago Sun-Times, 92 percent of American journalists admitted voting for Clinton/Gore.

The "anointed" media elite is blind to its own hypocrisy. When George W. Bush was overheard calling New York Times reporter (and worshipful biographer of Ted Kennedy) Adam Clymer a "major-league a--hole," CBS "Early Show" host Bryant Gumbel intoned: "Bush may have even taken another step backward by sticking his boot in his mouth with a vulgar comment." Bryant's comments were echoed by other members of the media elite and broadcast over and over. When the same Mr. Gumbel interviewed a Christian conservative about the Boy Scout ban on homosexual scoutmasters and was later overheard calling the man a "f------ idiot," there was hardly a peep from the media.

When George W. Bush talked about the importance of religion in his life, the media elite suggested he was a prisoner of the religious right. When Joe Lieberman talked abut the importance of religion in his life, according to columnist Mona Charen, liberal publications greeted his "God-talk with generally fawning coverage."

Then there's Hollywood "anointed" movie icon Alec Baldwin's obloquy regarding the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Were we living in other countries, he declared on NBC, "we would all right now, all of us together, go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death." It was hate speech loud and clear, but the reaction from the media was barely audible.

On CBS's "The Late Show with Craig Kilborn" last August the words "Snipers Wanted" was superimposed over footage of George W. Bush accepting the Republican nomination. Even liberal Chicago Sun-Times pundit Richard Roeper was horrified at the media elite's indifference to this violent graphic.

There are other instances of hypocritical non-reporting by our media. How many of us were aware that Cuban-American delegates walked off the Democratic convention floor when President Clinton took the stage? Or that Boy Scouts leading the "Pledge of Allegiance" were booed by gay delegates from California?

Liberal pundits will never let Dan Quayle forget that he misspelled "potato," but Al Gore's many malapropisms such as "we are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur" or "for NASA space is still a high priority" are ignored. The same media blind eye is focused on such Gore lies as Al's father fighting for the Civil Rights Act (he voted against it), or Al vowing to fight "big tobacco" after his sister's death from lung cancer (he continued to accept tobacco industry contributions) or inventing the Internet (he didn't), or helping send criminals to jail when he was a Nashville news reporter (he didn't) or claiming Erich Segal's "Love Story" was based on his and Tipper's life (Mr. Segal denied it), or being lulled to sleep as a baby by his mother signing "Wear the Union Label" (the song was introduced when Al was 27 years old) or claiming his mother-in-law's arthritis medicine was more expensive than his dog's (there's no certainty his mother-in-law and dog even have arthritis).

Liberal pundits argue that "fibs" are irrelevant; more important are "issues." I ask you: Can a candidate who "fibs" about little things during the campaign be trusted to tell the truth about big things once he's elected? Have we learned nothing during the last eight years?

Myron Kuropas' e-mail address is: mbkuropas@compuserve.com

| Home Page |