With every turn of a magazine page, every flip of a television channel, or every click on to a web page, accurate knowledge of current events becomes compromised. As fast as one can say the words "propaganda" or "slander", his or her very mind is being infiltrated by the promises and pronouncements made by the speakers of today's society. Every hour of every day, urgent voices flow like vile promises from the hungry mouths of news reporters, publicists, authors, and journalists alike. Though some of these people and their valid statements originate with clean, direct, and proper purpose, others we cannot be so sure of; for behind the scenes of a news desk or publishing company, vultures of the political and reporting worlds are continuously scheming to gain people in their favor. Winning over the naive hearts of America's society is not always an honest and natural circumstance; it is instead, at times, the profitable result of extreme exaggeration, vicious attacks, and other uncountable acts of injustice. Who is responsible for most of this web of tangled accusations that we call "accurate news"? The media - in a more specific sense, the biased media that is currently controlled by liberal thinkers.
Although it presents itself in the form of inanimate objects such as radios, televisions, books, and magazines, one shouldn't be fooled - behind these pages of dead trees lurk the living, breathing, malicious minds and words of some of the jaundiced creators of the media. The media is run by humans, ordinary human beings with thinking minds, valid opinions, and tangible emotions. However, what happens when these minds go beyond the "call of duty" when reporting the news? What happens when bribes, bandwagons, and empty promises come along? The media jumps in, and they drag society into the dark depths of corruption with them. News is a necessity, and current events need valiant, honest people to make them known. However, today's world has become so twisted and deceived by words spewing off of a myriad of soap boxes that people of all ages don't know how to think for themselves anymore, and instead choose to let slander and misinterpretations cling to them like parasites. Opinion or competition is one thing, but harsh, unfair derailment of one political party by another is unacceptable. As Americans, we must have the ability to see behind the mask of the media, to detect fact from fiction, and see beyond the distorted glass of a television screen. It is our right and obligation to stand steadfast and triumphant over lies, greed, and media bias and keep an ethical reputation to what is: black, white, and read all over: in honor of the red, white, and blue.
Since its origination, the media has gone through countless changes. From word-of-mouth, to handwritten books, to the printing press, publications and news stories have undergone many different stages, always altering and improving, usually for the better. It is unbelievable to think that what was once written on paper with a quill and bottle of ink can now be shown and read throughout the world by way of an entanglement of wires and complex devices. With digital cable, mass-printing companies and factories, and the World Wide Web, communication is at its highest. Every event that happens takes just minutes to reach newscasters, and reporters are on the scene in a flash. Any word or statement of admiration or loathing, any advertising slogan with a catchy jingle, or any major news or new developments are brought to the world's attention with the flick of a wrist. While new medical research, drama from reality shows, and warnings for the world's end are right up there in the spotlight, one group receives the most attention: politics. From George Bush's pronunciation of the word "nuclear" to the passing of a bill on social security, to the debate over the breed of canine the Obamas will choose for the "first puppy", no information is missed.
The information especially tended to is that of a scandal. What exactly is a scandal? There are several definitions and circumstances that bear this title, but it is most easily defined as "the disgraceful gossip about the private lives of other people." Scandals are always widely publicized misdemeanors against the "moral ethics" of society. Scandals come in any shape or form, but no matter the subject, they are thrown in the spotlight for days, weeks, months, years - even centuries. Although scandals among local communities are enough to draw attention, no occurrence defeats the air time of a full-blown political secret or wrongdoing. It's funny to think that these errors in judgment are so greatly displayed across America, even though they are not exactly "news". Though most political figures aim for success and support from their nation, and perform their duties well and with the best display of conduct, others fail to do so. Sometimes mistakes are made, and that is only natural. However, these mistakes can and most likely will haunt them for the rest of their lives, because certain newsmen and writers will not put discussions of the occurrences to rest. The source of the ongoing criticism of such events can change, depending on who committed the ghastly faux pas. If the political person that did the "evil" deed is a Democrat, the mistake will be recognized, apologized for, and very few hurtful statements will be made, for the media is mostly composed of reporters with liberal thoughts and support. The scandal will be joked about, the remorseful person forgiven, and then put to rest. However, if the man or woman behind the crime is of the conservative variety, there is nowhere to hide from the shameful spotlight, and support is seriously lacking.
When a Republican is accused (accurately or inaccurately) of a wrongdoing, he or she is verbally attacked, and shunned by the media, and therefore most of the world. That person is brought down, completely. The funny thing is that it doesn't matter if a liberal has done something very similar within the past decade; that goes by unnoticed, ignored, shooed away like a pesky fly. But if the culprit of the act is Republican, normally the scenario will be something to this effect: liberals in the media will sink their teeth in to the hunk of gossip like a fresh filet mignon.
Scandals are like rewards to hungry newsmen and reporters. To liberal commentators, they are fun, trashy pieces of information that are highly useful, they assume, in destructing and tearing apart the opposing party. When a scandal comes along, its "pure gold", and many angles of attack are left open and vulnerable. Curiously, though, many scandalous Democrats have no worry about ever having a lack of support and unconditional love from the media and its followers. Why is this so? Why such a partnership and obliging trust between the publicists and these people in politics? Easy answer - the media elite have a strong liberal bias. Although these newscasters claim to leave their own biased opinions out of the subjects they report on, they fail to do so. Their bias strongly affects what does and does not get brought to the table, and the manner and tone in which it is presented. How does this affect society? It's simple; liberal opinions are pushed through the many news channels' broadcasts, and internalized in the minds of un-informed viewers. On most news channels, except maybe FOX News or CNN, the slant is toward the left, and so this tilt is no longer viewed as such, but instead is seen as the "fair, balanced, honest truth." It's a scary thought, to think that just by dominating the air time with Democrats and their narrow-minded opinions, that America's young minds can be molded and formed within the blink of an eye. What happened to the American idea of being independent and thinking for yourself? It vanished, right along with fair reporting and integrity in the news.
This preference given to a certain political party by the media can be shown through examples such as Clinton's impeachment. After Clinton became involved with Monica Lewinsky, he was put on the chopping block, and denied the affair. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," Bill Clinton promised to the world. However, this turned out to be a complete lie, and Clinton was to be impeached, for perjury and "obstruction of justice." Although he technically was impeached, he remained in office. To begin with, this affair was kept hush-hush by certain news channels and publications that were aware of its truth, and only really exposed and believed to be valid when Kenneth Starr, a republican attorney and previous U.S. solicitor general brought it to attention with solid proof. This demonstrates the fact that in the past, the media has shown bias towards the Democratic Party, by hiding its secrets and protecting it, and also being quick to act the opposite way towards the Republican Party.
Every four years, it's election time, which means one thing: campaigning. This race to the White House involves debate, speeches, slogans, ads, and more. Campaigns advocate certain policies, beliefs, and people, and work to sway the hopefully informed voters to the side of the candidate. Usually these candidates will fight for their positions with determination and vigor, but also with class, honesty, and integrity. Unfortunately, in a few cases, these characteristics cannot be given to the runner's campaign. For example, this could be the case in elections such as JFK vs. Nixon, and Obama vs. McCain. In these elections, the end results were not solely those of hard work, but the media elite and the extreme outpouring of propaganda from radical left - wing liberals. When Nixon and J.F.K. ran against each other in '60, J.F.K. had a huge lead. Was this because he was a strong supporter of the policies and promises that the people wanted? Not necessarily. Kennedy had the upper hand in the election, and this was very clear throughout the life of his campaign. As J.F.K. and Nixon spoke their speeches, rallied supporters, and worked their hardest to be America's president, the public fell in love with Kennedy, and left Nixon by the way side. This enrapturing of the public was a result of the media backing J.F.K up, and only him. On T.V. news stations, Kennedy was shown as a man that was new, charming, young, and personable. News reporters and television programs focused only on his charismatic personality and good looks. In truth, it is very possible that Kennedy was chosen for these qualities, and these alone. Kennedy wasn't revolutionary in his ways of governing, his ideas, or the extent of his policies. He was simply a young, refreshing face to Americans. This being said, it was also unfortunate that Republican candidate Nixon was portrayed in an unflattering manner. Richard Nixon, an older man with evident signs of aging and less camera appeal, was shown as just that - a limp, weakening, crabby man that was lacking in character. He was always shown with a frown on his face, and in an unflattering light that put people off. Perhaps if J.F.K. and Nixon were both talked about objectively, and analyzed on the basis of political platform and not aesthetic appeal, Nixon would have head a greater chance in winning the landslide election of 1960. In the case of Obama vs. McCain in the election of 2008, the same events occurred. Barack Obama was displayed as a charming, charismatic man that was always smiling and that never made a mistake, whereas John McCain was, in my view, portrayed as a cantankerous old man, and questionably, photographs of him that were shown in many different publications were in majority shots that showed him unhappy and upset. Obama was elevated to such a platform that it seemed nothing could touch him, and he was royalty or a "savior." Obama was going to bring "change" to America, and made many promises without explaining how he would go about keeping them, but it didn't matter. Everyone just wanted change, and the youngest, newest, greatest thing, and the love affair with this senator began, and was pushed and supported by the media. It seems that just by how the media displays people in certain flattering or unflattering lights, they can greatly influence a nation of voters.
Perhaps the most shocking thing I have been a witness to was the rise and fall of George W. Bush. The amount of disrespect shown to a president that has not committed moral or unjust wrongdoings is absolutely despicable. With Clinton and Nixon, the men were completely aware of how awfully they were acting while serving in office, but felt no guilt and kept their evil secrets in the closet, and thus they deserve a fair amount of criticism. However, George W. Bush may have made some decisions in governing that did not turn out well, but he was not a corrupt president, always had good intent, and made every decision with the intention of helping his citizens the most. By Bush's second term, the Iraq war and other issues had gotten people, mainly Democrats, so angered at the President that a wave of "Anti-Bushism" began. An outpouring of hateful words, criticism, and extreme slander came out of many news channels, books, magazines, and people themselves. Bush was thrown under the bus by a large part of his country as countless books were published with titles that slammed him with force and criticized his performance in the terms. Television stations on a majority of the channels started to flaunt their liberalism and attack President Bush with a lack of class, dignity, and respect. Everyone jumped on this bandwagon of hate, and it's unfortunate that a president was so largely disrespected, with the media behind the wheel.
In conclusion to my report, I would like to confirm that I have indeed found reason to believe that the media is in fact biased, and this bias leans strongly towards the left. I am not saying this because I am a conservative person pushing for the domination of the Republican Party over the air of the networks, but because I believe I am a well-informed teen that would like to make her observations known. As Lincoln said, "a house divided cannot stand", and I agree with this statement. This is why I strongly believe that we shouldn't have bi-partisan news networks, but instead have news programs and media publications that are written from clear, informed, equal standpoints. As Americans, we shouldn't have to change the channel because we are being misinformed by the people who influence the entire nation; we should be given flat-out news that has no bias, but instead presents information that is written, produced, and spread from an objective view point that leaves personal biases out of the spotlight and off of the newsstands. Right now, the media has incredibly influential powers and if they have certain ideas and opinions towards policies and political figures, those opinions will be passed down to the young minds and misinformed people of our nation, shaping them and erasing their independent thinking.
Based on the fact that I have not only witnessed this biased media with my own eyes and ears, but also due to the fact that I have seen and read several reports that strongly support the thoughts and comments of my report, I believe that what I say is in fact, certainly valid. This substantial evidence, such as the kind that I have researched and located in books such as Bias, by Bernard Goldberg, is legitimate evidence supporting my claims. Being a young teenager, it is very hard to have your statements understood and trusted, or even listened to, for that matter. As a young conservative teenager, that makes my observations even more difficult to put their trust in for many people, as liberalism is the norm for this new generation. However, I believe I stay informed, or at least more than most children do. Yes, it is true that I am only human, and of course it is possible that I have skewed views and only believe that the media is liberally biased because of my own personal ideas and opinions. I am sure I will be misunderstood by many who read my essay, and I will be accused of having my own biases. I have my opinions, and I have the observations I have made; however, I have written these opinions and observations with proof of clear statements from people who are valid in commenting on this subject, as well as other authoritative quotes, figures, percentages, etc.
To me, this evidence is to an extent that I have found quite surprising. Although I always easily detected the clear bias of the media myself, I was greatly shocked by the high amount of data I have found supporting my theories of the strong partiality in the news world. I began this report with my developed hypothesis, and began writing what I personally observed, and in which situations with elections, political situations, and other examples of scenarios in which the media has been biased to the left and affected the world, very possibly in a negative way, because of this bias. I also conducted research through books, newspaper articles, and online websites that I found that were credible sources. Through this process, I have indeed found that the media, whether the majority of its administrators (or rulers) are willing to admit it.