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

WaPo ends the year with another political narrative display

12/31/23
from The Gray Area:
12/31/23:
This Washington Post (WaPo) article displays, as most every article in this newspaper, a primer on political narrative use, designed to drive opinion, not report on news. This is not the only one. You will find many examples on the pages of this newspaper every day. In the first two paragraphs of his article,  E.J. Dionne sets up the message he wants the reader to leave with, the political right is the problem! 1. He introduces 'extremists', and describes conditions under which they flourish. An accurate statement in and of itself, until he attaches it only to the 'far right'. 2. He then introduces a 'center left' and 'center right' component, giving the impression of fair and balanced thinking.  He never describes who is the 'center right' or 'center left' are, leaving the reader to ponder who those reasonable people might be. 3. He then introduces the 'far right' as the 'extremists'.  Unlike 2 above, he introduces the 'far right' with an 'extremist' definition, leaving it to set there as a broad brush to allow the reader to ponder any and all Republicans. Since he is setting up a defense of Biden's economic policies in this article, he wants this intro to tell the reader that anyone who counters his economic arguments, must be <em>'extremists'.  'Extremists' are not only 'far right', they belong to both parties and if he was being fair, he would state that the 'far left' are also creating problems we see today. Did you read any comment about 'far left' 'extremists' causing problems? Did you read any comment defining 'far left' 'extremism'? Did you read any comment about the conditions that 'extremists' flourish in being attached to the 'far left'? The answer to each is no. (Even though, the Trump years included the exact framework for 'far left' and 'center left' Democrat 'extremists' to create trouble that Dionne describes above, starting with the first day of his 2016 campaign to after he left office in 2021) Now look at another Washington Post article on the right of this page, The 10 worst things President Biden did in 2023. Now wait a minute you might say, why do you have an article in the reliably 'far left' Washington Post displayed on the right side of your website? Because it is written by Marc A. Thiessen, a reliably right-wing commentator from FoxNews. WaPo provides him space to attempt to display their fair and balanced approach. :-)  Anyway, read his article. It is as you would expect a right-wing attack on Joe Biden's 2023 record. Does it include any false political narratives, opposite messaging or gaslighting style deflection from reality? The answer again is no. It is simply his opinion on the facts, no irresponsible and negative adjectives or randomly inserted name calling.  You may disagree with his analysis, but his opinion does not assign political narratives. The message from the continued use of political narratives is to provide a preferred message to the reader, focused on progressive themes and regardless of reality. In this case, the message is that you should remember to beware of 'far right' 'extremists'. You can also be expected to take that message and attach it to President Biden's MAGA 'extremist' messages, like, MAGA Republicans are a bigger problem than terrorism and the biggest threat to America! You see how the narratives extend. And, that is just the first two short paragraphs from Mr. Dionne's article. The rest of the article ..... reinforces these narratives. It even adds that 'the 'far right' presents a particular challenge to progressives.'.  Aww, what a shame! That actually is the real issue, challenging progressive ideology! In the same paragraph, Dionne has the hutsbah to state; "we are in a moment when our core democratic institutions are under assault". Here he uses the other popular tactic, to state the opposite of reality as truth. Everyone knows our institutions have been under assault and we only recently enmasse came to realize it. Schools, colleges, religion, FBI, DOJ, Supreme Court, government bureaucracy, corporations, Wall Street, etc, etc, etc. That assault has been and continues to be from the 'far left', progressive, cultural Marxists. Didn't see any commentary on that did ya! Only a suggestion that the far right is attacking our institutions. False political narratives and opposite messaging, which is like gaslighting, is designed to take the readers eye off the reality of any issue. The tactic is rampant in this article, as in most articles within the 'left wing' media.. This one is easy. Its the 'far-right', MAGA Republican's fault, because they won't let the 'far left', progressive, cultural Marxists complete their plan. That plan, as Barack Obama announced in 2008, is to 'fundamentally change this country' and 're-distribute it 's wealth'. More From The Washington Post (subscription required):


365 Days Page
Archive Related Items
Comment ( 0 )