The Myth of the 'Liberal' Media: A Primer for my Fellow Christians

At my son's basketball practice last week, one of the other dads told me he'd just retired from the police force after more than a quarter-century on the job.

For part of that time, "I was the one who put you into a body bag," he said.

Asked why he gave up the badge, one of his reasons was simply, "It gets to you after a while."

My brother-in-law is a cop too. He told us about a case he handled once where a policeman-gone-bad killed his girlfriend and tried to clean up all the blood in the bathtub. But during the investigation, the technicians sprayed the bathtub with Luminol, a chemical that reveals, for a short time, evidence like blood proteins.

"It lit up like a Christmas tree," my brother-in-law said.

I think about that line a lot - and not just around the holidays. Because, to a lesser extent, journalists deal with the same challenge of not becoming jaded by the garbage they are constantly exposed to.

Even those of us who are not crime reporters are vulnerable. We read most of what our colleagues write, not to mention 100 stories from the wire services and 50 more during our research when we're expected to become instant experts on a subject so we can explain it to the public the next day.

I have sometimes become uncomfortable with Christian friends who are burning with indignation about some social issue or current event. With more extensive background information, and the gut assessments of human behavior that years of observation bring, journalists sometimes have a different perspective. I used to say I saw things in shades of gray, but that's not quite right. I see many sides to life and many sides to people. I see life through a multifaceted prism and am not as dogmatic or knee-jerk in my reactions as some people I know.

Seeing the world in polarized, black-and-white images is an easy trap to fall into. Keeps life tidy. No wrestling with dilemmas that take a lot of time and evaluation in a culture where time is as scarce as compassion. But prisms are our friends. Let me give you another example.

When I covered the Terri Schiavo case for the Chicago Tribune, it would have been easy to automatically, even unconsciously, side with the parents. The Schindlers were very vocal, very warm and friendly. Their St. Petersburg walkup is unbelievably modest, almost dingy, with its green carpeting and kitchen appliances that saw better days 20 years ago. The condo was a shrine to their daughter and numerous Catholic saints they petitioned to help her.

By contrast, Michael Schiavo would never talk to anyone except CNN's Larry King on occasion. He was tall and menacing, had a short fuse and insisted the case was a private matter between Terri and him. He left most of the public statements to his lawyer, George Felos, a shrewd, right-to-die attorney who reminded me of Zen enthusiast and basketball coach Phil Jackson with his confidence and his embrace of Eastern religion. In talking with him, I couldn't help but notice that there was no love lost between Michael Schiavo and him.

Yet the court that so consistently ruled against the Schindlers was run, ironically, by a conservative Christian judge. He received more than his share of threats from people of his own faith. The legal aspect that doomed the Schindlers was a procedural mistake by one of their early lawyers who allowed Felos to get an independent guardian for Terri dumped from the case without replacing him.

And the court record made it clear that, in the early days of the case, Terri's parents visited her perhaps once a month -- the feud between Terri's father and husband is really at the crux of the case, and the most tragic figure in the saga was Terri's mom, caught in the middle. Terri's siblings didn't visit much at all in the early days. Maybe Michael scared them away, maybe not.

Years later, when the media hordes descended and the camera's red light went on, the guest register suddenly became much more active. But from the beginning, her husband was there almost every day, a nursing home's "nightmare" - yes, that's the word used in the court records -- because of his demands for superlative care for Terri.

And at the very end, it was nauseating to see the way controversial "Christian" activist Randall Terry used the case to drum up donations to his own cause while, not to be outdone, representatives for the Schindlers' priests trumpeted the clergy's availability to reporters for high-profile interviews and touted their forthcoming national speaking tour. But in our sound-bite world, a lot of people missed those nuances.

Now, please understand that I'm not interested in making a political statement. I merely point out these things to say that people of faith too often make snap judgments. And they were out in droves down in Tampa Bay. But too often, the truth is in the details. You can miss a lot if you're not careful.

Are the majority of journalists liberals in their private lives? In my experience, yes. Do their biases, conservative, liberal or somewhere in between, come out in their journalism? Usually, no. All of us strive not to let that happen and, by and large, we're successful.

Is there a left-wing or an anti-Christian bias in the media? Not at all. Forget for a moment the Fox News Channels and MSNBCs of the world. I'm talking about dyed-in-the-wool journalists who strive for a balanced, fair presentation of the facts, not loudmouths more concerned with ratings points than impartiality.

You really should check out our e-mail inboxes and the "comment" sections on media websites sometime. The letters with the most darts typically come from people who dare to call themselves Christians, the ones who are supposed to have the love of Christ coursing through their souls. Instead, too many of these people are self-righteous Pharisees who eagerly relish the job of attack dog, with or without the lipstick that Sarah Palin alluded to.

Yet the Bible clearly states that, if we want to judge somebody, we should start with ourselves and our fellow believers (1 Peter 4:17). And if you're truly a Christian, it should also make you quake with humility that "judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13). Are we showing mercy to those we disagree with? Doesn't look like it.

Journalists see the hypocritical behavior and hatred of the bad apples of the Christian church. When we're not hearing from the poison pens of the self-righteous club, we're the ones who have to go to the police station to pick up the mug shot of the youth-group leader who sexually abused the 14-year-old girl under his care. We're the ones who have to circumvent the bureaucracy of the archdiocese for the truth about the priest who fondled an 8-year-old boy.

We see the worst that a sin-soaked human nature has to offer. When you see that every day over the course of a career, you start growing a shell like an enormous turtle. You get cynical. You lose a sense of wonder, and the possibility of human goodness disappears as quickly as the evidence technicians cart off the jailed pastor's computer that's caked in child pornography. Journalists don't need threats; we need people of faith to pray for us as we deal, like a cop or a lawyer or a therapist, with a fallen world's fallout.

Yet I see too many Christians not using the minds God gave them, content to march in lockstep with whatever their leaders are telling them. They seem more interested in politics than prayer, more keen on Republicanism than revival.

They view themselves as the new chosen people because they are Americans, conveniently ignoring the fact, as others have noted before me, that this country was born through the genocide of one race and built through the enslavement of another. The New Testament clearly admonishes us that we evangelicals are aliens and strangers on this planet. But too many of us are sinking roots in the wrong, weed-choked soil. If you want to call someone to repent, we should be first in line.

Follow Patrick Kampert on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PatKampert

Comments

[emncaity]

The notion that MSNBC is a left-wing network (as the writer implies) is just another indication of how far right this country really is.

Secondly, the talk about "liberal" and "conservative" is mostly useless. The more useful concepts are "authoritarian" and "anti-auth­oritarian,­" as John Dean suggested. Journalists predictably tend toward the non-authoritarian or anti-authoritarian, since it's the nature of the job to question the status quo. With many notable exceptions, other criticisms of the media are valid--sheeplike, sensationalistic, shallow, superficial, glib, pushing product more than informing, etc. But the charge of "liberal" just doesn't hold up under any real evidentiary test.

In fact, the media is, as several astute people have demonstrated, tilted distinctly to the _right_. Look at the coverage Clinton received. Or take the non-coverage of the Alaska Independence Party, G. Gordon Liddy, and the Council for World Freedom and how McCain and Palin were involved with these in clearly substantive and advocating ways, and compare that with the treatment Obama has received on the tangential and insubstantial associations with Ayers and Wright. McCain has gotten a free pass.

He's also gotten a pass on the question of exactly why he "knows how to win wars," when he's never strategized a single battle or a single campaign, never "won a war," and never led troops into battle at all. Absolutely nobody that I know of in the "liberal media" has ever asked him these questions.

[AProudRepublican]

This is a good article, and I so agree that too many Christians don't step back and think for themselves. There are too many sheep... but then again, in our world, that doesn't just apply to Christians.

"Is there a left-wing or an anti-Christian bias in the media? Not at all." I find it hard to believe that you truly believe this to be true. even among "...dyed-i­n-the-wool journalists who strive for a balanced, fair presentation of the facts." Even among these journalists that try to be fair, cognitive dissonance will find a way to creep in... This is a great article discussing this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pam-atherton/why-some-smart-women-thin_b_137416.html

[YourBrother]

Patrick, your column makes me sad. Do you miss the irony? Your popularity as an evangelical on the HP is based on your willingness to criticize your fellow brethren. What more of a liberal bias do you need? Take time and read "Bias" by B. Goldberg. You will see your unfair *judgement* about the objectivity coursing through the souls of our country's journalists contradicts human behavior. Consider. Liberal reporters, when given room and freedom to exercise judgement, will pursue stories they are interested in. We all need to stay charged in what we do. Creations, however, will reflect their creator. And we are all fallen, with many sins. So even if someone struggles to make themselves objective, which implies a faith in the unseen reality the reporter does not know, that process is compromised. A newsroom of likeminded reinforces each other's liberal worldview. But accuse a reporter of bias and they will largely act bewildered and their hackles will be raised. Is this humble self-examination? You see, it doesn't take an anti-Christian or anti-conservative bias is largely unconscious. If newspapers were responsible, they'd have a mechanism to monitor, root out, and deal with biases. They'd give out awards for the most objective reporter. They'd make that a major part of one's job evaluation. I've worked at many newspapers, and I've never, ever, seen bias taken that seriously. Ever. Newsrooms, comprised of privately liberal individuals, are collectively biased. It's so intuitive, you could call it fact.

[emncaity]

This "liberal bias" thing has been dissected time and again by objective researchers, as opposed to a right-biased twit like Bernard Goldberg. If you care to look up the actual research rather than just prattle on after reading people who agree with you, do so. This really isn't even an open question. There are too many examples to list in a response of this size, but it's out there if you actually are interested in the truth rather than just confirming and reconfirming what you already believe.

And yes, I've read Goldberg. It's absolutely ridiculous stuff, just wallowing in anecdotal garbage, no research validity at all. Zero.

[YourBrother]

Sorry Emncaity, UCLA did a study of left-wing bias and was surprised what they found. ""I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions ...there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left" Like what I said. It's human nature to be biased. Take note Kampert.

[1will]

You can pretend all you want that there is no Left Wing bias. This election has proved what people have been saying for years. The vast majority of the media supports the Left. Up until now they at least tried to appear fair but the love of Obama was too much. They can no longer even pretend.

[DEl19713]

" I suppose you are one of the Self -righteous Pharisees who eagerly relish the job of attack dog, with or without the lipstick that Sarah Palin alluded to.

Yet the Bible clearly states that, if we want to judge somebody, we should start with ourselves and our fellow believers (1 Peter 4:17). And if you're truly a Christian, it should also make you quake with humility that "judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13). Are we showing mercy to those we disagree with? Doesn't look like it. "

[respectingothers]

there's many anti-Obama fanatics accusing MSM of being biased for Obama in the comments of this post on ABC site. help me fight the fight. leave a comment

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6099188&page=1

[tm68]

"They view themselves as the new chosen people because they are Americans, conveniently ignoring the fact, as others have noted before me, that this country was born through the genocide of one race and built through the enslavement of another. "

This is an extremely powerful line and very true. How easy we forget these facts.

[jlarue]

Dear Mr. Kampert, I must take issue with your statements about "supposed" Christians. I know how easy it is to mutter those words and how many times I myself have heard them. I remind you, we are justified by faith and although, as a pro life evengelical myself, I have disagreed vocally and vehemently with my brothers and sisters in Christ, I still consider them part of the body of Christ. It is above my pay grade, if I may borrow that phrase, to decide who is a real or "supposed" Christian. I am disheartened by the campaign of McCain/Palin and think their hate filled, divisive, simmering bigotry is shameful and the filthiest campaign I have seen in more then 30 years of voting. But it is valuable for all to see what lays under the surface of the far right so that the quieter religious left can stand for once without shame and say "we do not agree!" I have often made jokes about my Christian bashing liberal friends and I remember times when it was hard to admit to being a Christian. But I proclaim now, proudly, to be a pro-life evangelical Christian who supports Obama/Bide­n....remem­ber Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were evangelicals. The Pharisees were fundamentalists.

[JerryJerryJerry]

I don't have a proplem with people who believe in "God" - Hell, I used to believe in Santa, The Easter Bunny, and The Tooth Fairy. I do beleive that Jesus of Nazarath did walk the earth and that he was crucified on the cross as many jews were. But that is as about as much as can reasonably accept as plausable. Too many people let their religion and the fear and loathing that comes with it, effect how that live life, how that lead government, how they teach our children, how they treat or ilnesses, how they police our neighborhoods, etc. -- I would be more appreciative if people kept God in their minds, in their hearts, in their churches and not in my mail box or on my doorstep at 8 am on a Sunday morning.

[GPMeg]

Mr. Kampert, I cannot say how much an article like this means to someone who is the daughter-in-law to be of a family that so often judges on the basis of a vote, a news channel, and church going activity. I believe my future in laws to be good people, with good hearts, but they are often "content to march in lockstep with whatever their leaders are telling them." I was offered a job with the Georgia Democratic Party, and when my fiance told his mother she said, "Oh, great. Well, she's just going to fit in GREAT with THIS family."

I was raised Baptist, and Christian values have had an impact on my values system, but because I don't want to condemn people for being human, more often than not I find judgment rather than mercy.

I think radnip said it best-- "I see a lot of good done in the name of religion; but I see a lot of bad as well." If only those who are bad could accept such a level approach as yours without blaming you for being a liberal media elitist, which has quickly become the replacement of covering one's ears and eyes and going, "I can't hear you, lalalala..."

[ckncook]

It's no myth ... http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1

Agnostic, atheist, non-theist ... in the liberal media, those are labels for enlightened thinkers, but a Christian label is practically an epithet representing a backwards, science hating, homophobe who does not deserve to have an opinion.

You also indict Christians for "not using the mind God gave them." There are Christians who think but the media gives them no credit. Sarah Palin, for instance, seems to have a pretty well developed moderate theology. She doesn't force her faith on anyone, but she uses it to guide her actions. Isn't that what faith is intended to do? You wouldn't know that based upon how her beliefs are typically portrayed.

Here are some thoughts about how Palin uses her faith to guide her actions. http://afencepost.blogspot.com/2008/10/whats-deal-with-sarah-palin.html

You can put your faith in science or money or your own personal power and magnitude, but your faith, what you believe, shapes your actions. Personally, I think the media only has faith in themselves and that arrogance has caused a major shift in how they operate. Suddenly they are the benevolent educator ... leading the sheep, not just providing objective information. There is no objectivity in journalism, especially now.

You write, "I see life through a multifaceted prism" ... let me complete that thought for you ... "and therefore I have a better perspective on life than you. Allow me to be your thought leader."

[tm68]

I disagree- Palin is no moderate christian.

[Minako]

HuffPost's Pick

"Yet I see too many Christians not using the minds God gave them"

This is the best line in that whole article, I think. I'm agnostic, but I believe that if the Christian God is out there, He'd be proud of me for using the gifts he gave me to come to my own opinions on things, and seeking to learn more and more, instead of just believing what I'm told.

[AProudRepublican]

I agree that it's never a good thing to just believe whatever you're told, especially when it comes to your beliefs in something as important as whether or not God exists! It's hard to trust the sincerity of a person's faith if they have never questioned or sought to truly understand their beliefs.

However, as for coming to our own opinions, I don't believe that we can ever possibly understand everything, and as a Christian, I know that God values faith more than anything else... and I think having faith in Him, and seeking "His" truth, despite not having a full understanding, is what He would truly be proud of.

I grew up in a Christian home, but I questioned my beliefs... I researched my faith and other faiths. I needed to know whether or not the Jewish Bible (Old Testament to Christians) was really God's word, and after that, I then needed to know whether or not Jesus really was the Messiah talked about in the Jewish Bible. Judaism and Christianity are the "only" religions with fulfilled prophecies, and The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the Old Testament prophecies were written long before they were fulfilled. This is just one powerful example of evidence I found in favor of the Bible. I'm thankful for my time of questioning, as it cemented my faith.

I'm glad you are thinking on your own two feet, but I do hope one day you'll reconsider that perhaps there is a God? :)

[vew]

Thank you for a great article. So keep fighting the "good fight" for Christian truth.

[HeevenSteven]

Re: the last paragraph of this post.

I highly recommend to all interested "The Irony of American History" By Reinhold Niebuhr.

[BoshSpong]

Attacks on the so-called liberal media have been a bedrock for right wing fundamentalists. Anyone who travels outside of the USA will be surprised to find out that the American media is:
1 – Sensationalist, they give prominence to spurious superficial stories that belong in supermarket gossip tabloids.
2 – Politically conservative – most political issues are presented from a us vs. them style that places the US in the center of the universe and minimizes other nations, cultures or issues.

Even CNN has an international division that is quite different that the CNN we get at home. The same can be said for CNN in Spanish. For some God forsaken reason the media presents a very limited version for internal consumption. The political shift to the right that began with Nixon and reached its nirvana with Reagan has taken political discourse so far to the right that what most Americans consider to be centrist is very conservative in the world scale – by the same token policies like universal healthcare which are considered the norm in most first world countries are seen here as “Extreme Left”.

There is no such thing as the “liberal media” if you doubt this just replay the media’s role prior to the Iraq war. The US media behaved in a way that would make the old soviet PRAVDA look independent. This was done willingly, without direct government control.

[ilpostino]

Thank you for this. Journalists and all those who serve the public (police, firemen, nurses, social workers,etc.) experience the best and the worst of society everyday. They need our support and prayers.

In reading about the history of monotheism in the world's religions, it struck me that most polytheistic rituals involved sacrificial offerings of small animals and food to single or various gods for common benefits, such as rain for crops, or protection from barbarian attacks, or protection from a grain shortage. Monotheistic religions, particularly Christianity but others as well, were the first religions to seek personal salvation in the hereafter through eternal life. It was self serving of course, and this selfishness was often balanced by magnanimous acts of contrition and public charity, such as helping lepers, assisting the poor and downtrodden, etc.

The need for personal salvation and the belief in End Days attracts Evangelicals to right-wing conservatism, and the notion that "sharing the wealth" is akin to praying for rain for everybody. "I am praying for my salvation, and if you want to be saved, you need to pray to MY God. I only want rain for me and my backyard. I want to pay for health care for me, I don't want to pay for your health care costs."

An aspect which saw Christianity flourish so quickly was its need to proselytize to the masses. Notice that Buddhists or members of the Baha'i faith never go door to door...why is that?