Liberal Media Bias in Action

When Matt Stearns, a former KC Star Reporter, posted the following on Facebook, it made us wonder what evidence of his views we could find in his articles:

DADT repeal a major step forward for our society; a victory for all Americans. Congratulations to the US Congress for overcoming demagoguery and willful ignorance.

Did Stearns, despite his  views, give issues like Don't Ask Don't Tell and gay marriage a fair, unbiased and objective coverage while he was at the Star? The answer is no. Looking at his past articles gives us a good example of how the liberal media uses subtle tricks to control its coverage.

Stearns wrote three main articles dealing with gay politics:
-Gay Marriage issue gets national forum (2003)
-Danforth seeks GOP shift -  In a new book, the former senator warns against the influence of religious conservatives. (2006)
-Cleaver at odds with Clergy, other lawmakers - The congressman, a minister, opposes amending Constitution to bar gay marriages. (2006)

All three articles share a common theme: in each one, pro-gay marriage advocates were given chances to explain and editorialize their views, and conservatives weren't.

A large part of the bias originates in how he chooses subject for his articles. For instance, Stearns opted to write about about Danforth's book that attacked religious conservatism, allowing him to repeat its arguments at length without ever introducing an alternative perspective. Surely he doesn't need to get a view from one of the groups Danforth attacks, right?

He employs a similar trick with Emanuel Cleaver, writing a political 'profile' piece to allow Cleaver to go on at extreme lengths about his views, with very little to no explanation about the views of the other side.

In the third article, his opening line includes a description of gay marriage as "simple, pure and good: Equal rights for all Americans". There's no opposing perspective anywhere in the article, besides letting one conservative group say they think it's a 'big issue'.

Looking at his coverage holistically reveals patterns that would be hard to identify by just looking at one article. It's abundantly clear that he employed subtle but consistent devices to control the slant of his article - to give one side of an issue positive coverage and make sure the other side stayed underdeveloped.

This is a good example of why reporters, just like elected officials, need accountability through public scrutiny.

Comments

[Slackjaw]

While they celebrate the repeal of DADT, one must wonder if they really have thought this through. All DADT repeal did was strike the provision to remove just that. Now as a good old country boy who can think on his feet can see, would this striking out that provision just revert us back to the original way of handling GLBT soldiers before DADT? I think it does unless they strike the older provision completely from the law. Challenges are sure to come as I hope they do. Sometimes the liberals don’t think very clearly before acting as I think they have done in this case. Time will tell.