I'm so sick of seeing Bernard Goldberg's face all over TV whining about liberal bias in the media. OTOH, there's some whining around these parts that the media are biased in favour of Bush. Maybe the real problem is that they aren't biased
enough--or at least that they aren't consistent and clear as to what angle they take.
I strongly dispute the notion that reporters should eradicate all traces of their political or philosophical points of view from the articles they write. This is, first of all, impossible: students of postmodernism know that absolute objectivity is unattainable.
But even to seek to approach impartiality is sure to result in uninteresting and uninformative stories. The issues of our time are contentious by nature, and even the "facts" are in dispute. I frankly believe that my political perspective is the "real truth", and I don't believe any news account is "accurate" unless it reflects that perspective. (I bet many of you would agree.) I'm sure my political opposites (paleocons, primarily--but even "liberals" on certain issues) feel just the same about their side; but I don't especially value "balance". I believe my opponents' views will eventually be as discredited as those of the pro-slavery and anti-women's suffrage camps have been.
Thus I would prefer the European model: a variety of media outlets with differing perspectives, that don't feel the need to give even lip service to this Holy Grail of "objectivity". What do you think?