Media
The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, among other rights, grants freedom of the press. It specifically states: "... Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press ..." As with the rest of the Constitution, a brilliant political principle without question. With its brilliance though, it does not regulate the quality of the free press and throughout our history we have seen both outstanding journalism and pitiful examples of a free press. In the second decade of the 21st century, there are two strong political ideologies (left & right) controlling the political dialogue in this country. During the 2012 Presidential Election, spin from the left and right are presented as mainstream information and what was formerly mainstream, balanced & unbiased information sources have changed or evolved their format to the point that unbiased reporting is unavailable. In the 2016 Presidential Election, there was no effort at all to cover up the biased reporting of the mainstream media. Today's news sources are targeting specific messages to gain specific ideological audiences, thereby presenting bias. This bias is most times unidentifiable, not completely truthfully nor presented with perspective and context that the reader/viewer/listener requires and expects. Shockingly, sometimes this bias is purposely (NBC) camouflaged (NY Times - 4th paragraph down) from the reader/viewer/listener. In our polarized society, these strong messages on both sides overpower the ability of people with limited time to evaluate issues to find a center, compromise, reasonable or mainstream position. Especially when each side is also saying they offer the center, compromise, reasonable and mainstream position, whether they do or not. There are media watchdog organizations out there, but they also represent an ideological left and right. Much of this website is dedicated to shedding light on the bias in current American journalism. While we long for that great post-WWII journalistic era, where we were served by responsible, professional and largely unbiased journalism, unfortunately, we are no longer so served. That makes it difficult for American citizens to find the truth among the hype, agenda peddling and biased reporting. If you look at the bottom of this page and all pages on this website, you will find major (and some not so major) news organizations listed based on their political leanings, Left or Right. You will immediately notice there are none listed in the center. While there may be the occasional article in any of these news sources which could be a center, balanced and truthful report, by and large the reporting from that news source is defined by its L-R political leanings. The Gray Area is attempting to help its readers by so identifying the biases of the news source from which a report originates to help you identify the spin within the news piece you are reading or watching. We will include an article in the center if we believe it represents the center, a thoughtful, balanced and honest perspective. That way, presented with facts and recognizing the source, you can make up your own mind. In this 'media' section, we comment on the egregiousness of some reporting so that you may see the best and worst of what we must today use as our sources of information. From an analysis of all the sources, THE GRAY AREA HAS CREATED ITS OWN SPECTRUM OF MEDIA BIAS.
Archive Related Items

The SCOTUS decision reveals political activism in the media

6/21/24
from The Gray Area:
6/21/24:
Media political activism is evident everywhere, all the time, but today's Supreme Court decision on preventing people who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from having firearms is the latest. It is also a primer on how to see the political narratives they constantly use. Here is a couple of paragraphs from the Washington Post report on the story. The bolded words and phrases are specific to progressive Democrat positions and political narratives on this issue. The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prevents people who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from having firearms — its first major Second Amendment decision since a 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights. The court said the Constitution permits laws that strip guns from those deemed dangerous, one of a number of firearms restrictions that have been imperiled since the conservative majority bolstered gun rights in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland praised the court’s decision, saying the law “protects victims” by keeping guns out of the hands of people who threaten them. “As the Justice Department argued, and as the Court reaffirmed today, that commonsense prohibition is entirely consistent with the Court’s precedent and the text and history of the Second Amendment,” Garland said in a statement. Rather than discuss the rationale for the decision, WaPo focuses on repeating the gun control political narratives and attacking the Supreme Court.
  • 3 regarding the '2022 Bruen case' and the Supreme Court.
    • 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights
    • the conservative majority bolstered gun rights
    • the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
  • 1 restating the political narrative that firearms restrictions that have been imperiled.
  • 1 restating the often used narrative 'commonsense' prohibition.
This discussion could and should go into the fact that this was an 8-1 decision!  I thought the media and progressive attacks on the Supreme Court said that no fair minded and non-partisan decisions could be reached.  Well there have been several and here is another one, on gun control even.  But, no, lets ignore that because it does not support our political narrative regarding the dangers of the conservative supreme court. And, what about Justice Thomas as the only dissenting justice? It supports the narratives around Justive Thomas that he was the one who dissented and he dissented on gun control.  But, it doesn't help the preferred narratives to go into why he dissented.  He is concerned over the simple of issuance of a TRO being abused to limit gun ownership.  Domestic abusers, as the other justices states, should not be able to acquire firearms.  But do you come an take away someones firearms if they are in a contentious divorce?  This is an important discussion to have, but, not one that is of interest to WaPo because it does not support the gun control political narratives. The language we use regarding political issues defines the debate on those issues.  And, our 'mass' media control the language and the emphasis.


365 Days Page
Archive Related Items
Comment ( 0 )