YOU AND THE MEDIA (part two)

Surveys seem to reveal that people have less confidence in the integrity of their politicians than the media that watchdogs them. It’s like the public presumes that bad guys are ushered into the political arena and good guys become journalists and reporters.

While politicians must give an account to the public, the media – sometimes equally influential in the affairs of society, and often more so – gives account to no one. The politician is paid to service the community that elected him; the journalist and reporter are paid to service the corporation that employs him.

I see a comparison between the priest and the reporter. Both are at the bottom of a very large ladder. On top of one ladder is the pope, on the other is the president of a media corporation. The voice of pope/president works its way down the ecclesiastical/corporative ladders and the priest/reporter verbalize their dictates. If they refused they would be out of a job.The American media, left-wing and pro-liberal as it is, favors the left-wing and pro-liberal, and is biased against conservatives committed to traditional values.

Media people often can and do determine the outcome of an election. Imagery is their specialty. They can make a candidate appear honest or untrustworthy, competent or amateurish, a winner or loser – whatever their inclination.

Likewise they have the finesse to make themselves appear unbiased, professional, people of integrity. Ironically, people depend on the media to convey to them the quality of the media. The media reveals government corruption, but who exposes media corruption?

Media personnel are no worse than those of any other profession. Nor better. Media corporations are not less honest than other enterprises. Nor more so. The difference is their ability to appear better and more honest. (Again, imagery is their trade.)

I share the conviction of many that, generally speaking, both the American and Canadian media are in the hands of lefties and liberals. The bulk of North Americans, however, are not left-wing and they are not pro-liberal. The media’s mentality toward, and coverage of, the abortion issue reveals the problem.

According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a Washington, D.C. based organization that scientifically monitors the American news media, a full 96% of the media elite are pro-choice. I said 96%! America’s majority, however, is pro-life. It would be unreasonable to expect the coverage of the abortion issue to be unbiased. And it isn’t.

The media has not presented the facts on this issue in an equitable manner, but rather has tried to sway the public to its pro-abortion convictions. To do this, while making a show of being fair and unbiased, is easy for media professionals. There are many tricks of the trade:

For example, if there is a huge gathering of, say, 10,000 pro-life demonstrators, the media could show a picture of a small portion of the crowd and neglect to mention any numbers (this makes the rally seem insignificant). If any pro-choice people show up, they could point the camera toward this smaller group in such a way that it looks like they are the majority. They could interview a demonstrator from the smaller group and give that person equal time to one from the larger group, or better yet, only interview pro-choice representatives. The media could interview a number of pro-life people and pick the one who says something stupid. They could place a favorable report to the pro-life cause in a small corner of a back page, or give it a cursory mention in the newscast. (“Well we reported it, didn’t we?”) The media could bring in one of their hand-picked “experts” to give his or her perspective. All these unethical ruses, and many more, have been used by the media to further the pro-choice cause. I quote Marlin Maddoux from his Free Speech or Propaganda: “If there were laws against slanting a story, a large number of journalists would go to jail for the way they cover the issue of abortion.”

I used the abortion issue as an example to expose the determination of the media to steer the public toward its anti-Bible standards. The media, generally, champions many causes that do not have the support of the majority: the ‘new’ morality, humanistic mentality, gay rights, excessive feminism, etc. Politicians are supposed to leave their convictions at home, but the media never fails to take its convictions to work. And those convictions seem to be destructive, biased, anti-family, anti-decency, anti-Bible and anti-Christ, convictions likewise expressed in most magazines, sit-coms, soaps and talk shows.

It would be so helpful if the public knew the people who were feeding them their daily dosage of media-words. Do they believe in the Bible? Are they committed to the family? Are they humanistic, liberal, socialist, atheist? How many Christians are on staff determining media content? (Is the number relative to the number of Christians they serve?) Knowing where they were coming from would help the reader/viewer/listener make mental adjustments.

As a rule, the North American media champions the anti-Biblical point of view, steering our nations away from God’s blessings. God does not smile upon a nation that kills its unborn. To Him, homosexuality is a stench. And the family is His invention. It is self-destructive to anger the holy God of righteousness. The greatest tragedy, however, is not the leading of a nation from God’s favor, but leading a nation away from God’s salvation (Jesus Christ).

To the degree you trust in and rely upon the media, the media is drawing you from Christ. Be cautious. The media, generally, is blind to people’s need for Jesus. Do not lean upon the media for truth regarding spiritual matters and moral issues.