The Liberal Media Bias, Part Three

The day before yesterday I explained how the mainstream media distorts the news but both WHAT they choose to cover, and how they choose to cover it. Using the example of the homelessness in America, I (hopefully) showed how journalism activists choose how they want a story covered, rather than simply stating the facts.

Today I’ll give you an additional illustration, again using the book “Bias” by Bernard Goldberg as my reference point. I highly recommend this book, which I consider to be the Bible when it comes to media bias. And while my liberal friends will find fault with Mr. Goldberg’s findings, they hopefully should approach it with an open mind. Rather than coming from the point of view of a right-wing pundit or television critic, Goldberg is a CBS reporter with over 30 years on the job, and a self-professed liberal who has never voted Republican in his life. He refers to Rush Limbaugh as “The Antichrist”.

I promise to keep today’s post shorter than yesterday’s, and as you’ll see in a moment, I don’t always keep my promise. It’s just that I feel very passionate about this issue, and it’s easy to go on and on. Let’s look at how the left portrays another issue in the mainstream media. (NOTE: Before I start, let me address the fact that I am not making light of any of these issues, homelessness or AIDS. These are REAL problems in our society, and I DO want to see these issues covered and addressed, but they need to be covered objectively. )

AIDS: At the time of the writing of Bias, the big push in the press was to move AIDS from a homosexual/I.V. drug user issue to a heterosexual epidemic waiting to happen. I believe that their fear was that not enough people cared about the gay or addict populations, and as such AIDS funding would not receive the attention it deserved. And the sad truth is, they were probably right.

Now the left likes to accuse the right of always trying to scare people, but I think the left is just as good at this as the right, if not better. The fact is that while AIDS does not discriminate, there has never been any proof that it is or will become a mainly heterosexual disease. There are THEORIES, and it’s okay to report on those theories, but make sure that you report them as theories, not fact. In 1987, Oprah Winfrey reported on her program “Research studies now project that one in five – listen to me, hard to believe – one in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three years. That’s by 1990. One in five. It is no longer just a gay disease. Believe me.”

One in five in three years? Okay, Oprah Winfrey isn’t exactly mainstream media, but where did she get the information from. At the same time as Oprah’s announcement, our government was spending over five million dollars for an “AIDS Doesn’t Discriminate” ad campaign focusing on the one group that wasn’t in real danger: Heterosexuals who were not having sex with junkies.

Now to be fair, there was a lot that we didn’t know about AIDS at the end of the 80’s and beginning of the 90’s. But while there were plenty of “experts” theorizing about the path AIDS was going to take, the fact is there was no proof that heterosexuals were likely to be the biggest group at risk for AIDS. At one point in 1986, CBS News reported that “over the last year the number of AIDS cases among heterosexual men has doubled.” What they didn’t tell you was that A) it doubled from 2% to 4%, and B) that year the CDC had made the decision to move ALL AIDS sufferers of African and Haitian origin into the category of heterosexual AIDS.

I’ll come back to the reporting in a moment, but let me give you a few numbers first. In 2005, the last year we have numbers for, 40,540 people contracted AIDS (29,766 men and 10,774 women). These were new cases. In 2005, 12,140 men died of AIDS. Of those 12,140 men, 5,929 were gay men, 3,159 were intrevenious drug users, and 1,364 were both gay and I.V. drug users. Another 1,584 were “high-risk” heterosexual contact, meaning the men were having sex with women who were either I.V. drug users, had sleep with I.V. drug users, or had sleep with bisexual men. The final category, “other”, which includes heterosexual men who were not known to have slept with “high risk” males.

Again I feel the need to stop and say what a horrible disease this is, and in no way am I trying to say that one persons life means more or less than another because of their sexual orientation. Some may see my comments as mean-spirited and homophobic, nothing could be further from the truth. Stay with me and I think (I hope) I can pull all of this together.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs monitored the network TV stories in 1992, and concluded that “TV’s visual portrait of AIDS victims has little in common with real life.” During the period studied, 6 percent of the people shown on the evening news were gay men. But in real life 58 percent were gay men. On TV, 16 percent were blacks and Hispanics. In real life 42% were black or Hispanic. On TV, 2 percent of AIDS sufferers were IV drug users – in real life 23 percent were?

So? Like I said earlier, we know a lot more now about this horrific disease then we did when these articles first came out. But lets forget for a moment about what was real and what the “experts” thought. Why, when the press needed to put a “face” on this disease, it was – like the homeless face from yesterday – a heterosexual white male.

Why would the mainstream press present an inaccurate portrait of this disease. My take on it is that, like the homelessness issue, the journalists covering this issue had taken on the role of activist. They knew that, as unfair as it was, most of America was not going to “get behind” finding a cure for a disease that mainly afflicted gay men and I.V. drug users. By making it a “everyone” disease, they were able to drum up more support and funding.

And that’s a good thing, right (the correct answer is yes, it is). However, should this be the role of the supposed “objective” journalist, manipulating the news for what they see as a good cause? And if we allow it here, what next? Isn’t this what we are talking about – Bias in the media? Does it matter if there was a “good reason” ?

Personally, if I was a gay man, I’d be pissed off. Why? Think about it. Think of all of the money spent to fight the heterosexual AIDS (non) epidemic. What if that same amount were directed to fighting AIDS in the gay community. How many lives were lost because the mainstream media was overly sensitive? I can only imagine. Also, imagine a news director saying essentially “We have an epidemic in the gay community. We need to put a face to this tragedy – just make sure it’s a straight face.” Yeah, the left is such a sensitive crowd.

And as I stated, 42% of the new AIDS cases were white or Hispanic. Imagine that same news director saying essentially “We have an epidemic in the African-American and Hispanic communities. We need to put a face to this tragedy – just make sure it’s a white face


One other thing hit me when I was putting this story together. Even though AIDS is still with us, there is a lot of good news with regards to this disease. For example, in 1992, 894 children under the age of 13 contracted AIDS. In 2003, 50 children under 13 contracted AIDS. Now that is still 50 too many, but that is a HUGE step in the right direction. At the peak of the epidemic, in 1992 and 1993, about 80,000 new cases were being reported each year. As I reported above, in 2005 just over 40,000 new cases were reported. And the annual deaths from this disease has dropped from over 51,000 in 1995 to 17,011 in 2005.

Again, AIDS is not cured, and there is still a lot of fighting to do, but why aren’t the advances in this fight, some amazing advances when you compare it to the improvements in other diseases (Diabetes, Breast cancer, etc….), why aren’t these advances trumpeted?

My opinion, and this is only my opinion, is that it’s the same reason that the advancements in racial issues have not been trumpeted. Because the left is afraid that if we say we ware winning the fight, that no one will care any longer. We can only care about this tragedy as long as it is an epidemic and out of control.

Which leads me to my closing thought, which I level at ALL media, regardless of it’s slant: Why does the media feel the need to scare the hell out of us. Ratings? Really, is it worth getting people all worked up so you can get your ratings up. Remember Oprah telling us one in five will be dead in three years. And like I said, this is not a left or right issue. Both sides are equally responsible for the state of fear we live in.

I don’t have a statistic, but living on the California Coast our local news stations are constantly running stories on sharks, and the danger we all face if we are even close to the Ocean. Between 1959 and 1990, 12 people have been killed by sharks in the U.S.. Last year alone, 341 people in the U.S. drowned in their bathtubs. That means you are 880 times more likely to die in your tub than be attacked by a shark. Oh my God, I have to go, I have two tubs I need to get out of this death trap….

Join me tomorrow for the final segment in my liberal media bias series. I will have information that, if you tune in, it just my save your life…… Film at 11:00.