Skip to main content

Dear Media, This Is The Reason We Don't Trust You

It is no secret that the media has a leftist bent when it comes to reporting the facts. However, that bent is not always easily seen by everyone. That is why it is important for us to point out the bent whenever it is obvious. This has been easier to do over the last couple of days. Two major incidents make my case incredibly clear.

First, many in the media praised Kevin Spacey for coming out as gay, even amidst allegations (which he quasi-admitted to) that he attempted to sexually assault a 14-year-old boy actor named Anthony Rapp. The headlines from many media outlets mentioned this fact. Here are some:

"Actor Kevin Spacey Apologizes After Accusations of Sexual Advances Toward Teenage Actor"
-The Blaze

"Kevin Spacey Apologizes For Alleged Sexual Assault With A Minor"

However, there are several news sources that do not mention this fact, but choose instead to focus on Kevin Spacey coming out as gay. Here are some:

"Actor Kevin Spacey Declares He Lives Life As A Gay Man"

"'I Choose Now To Live As A Gay Man': Kevin Spacey Comes Out In Emotional Tweet''
-ABC News

Let me be one to state the obvious: sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with a person's responsibility for sexual assault. You don't get a free pass because you say that you are gay(1). Apparently, many in the media did not get this memo.

This, however, is not the only incident within the last couple of days in which the media has demonstrated their bias and unwillingness to address the important aspects of a news story. More recently, they have failed to properly address the terror attacks in New York. In essence, they refuse, in many cases, to acknowledge that this is a radical Islamic terrorist who committed this attack. Here are some of the headlines concerning this incident:

"Trump Responds To NYC Deadly Truck Attack"
-ABC News

"New York Truck Attack: Trump Calls For End Of Green Card Lottery"
-BBC News

"Trump Attacks Schumer Over NYC Attacker And Visa Program"

Notice that the one thing that is missing from these headlines is ANY mention that the New York truck attacker was an Islamic terrorist who claimed to do this in the name of ISIS. I see quite a few headlines about what Trump is doing in response to this, but considerably less about the attack itself. In addition, many of the stories which do address this refuse to acknowledge that the suspect yelled "Allah Akbar" during the attack. The closest that some in the media come to acknowledging this is the claim that he yelled "'God is great' in Arabic". Yet this is not entirely accurate. This runs the risk of implying that the God of Christianity is the same as the god of Islam. Christians and Muslims serve two different Gods. To conflate the two runs the risk of causing unnecessary, disparaging views of Christians and is unfair to the Christian population in this country, who, by the way, are peaceful people. The media doesn't care.

Dear media, this is why we do not trust you. You are biased, and largely refuse to acknowledge it. You twist the stories into your own version to fit what YOU THINK the story should say. You twist reality with your words and place the focus on areas that should not be the focus. You refuse to acknowledge even the most basic facts if it conflicts with what you want to be true. If you do acknowledge them, you bury them so deep in your story that they rarely ever get read. This is why we cannot trust you. How do you fix this problem? There are several things you could start doing:

1.) Tell the truth.

If you start telling the truth, even when it conflicts with what you WANT it to be, people will start trusting you more. This is probably the most important thing that you can do to restore trust in what you say. A Republican commentator who can critique both Republican and Democrat policies based on a set of principles that is shared by his or her constituents is more believable than someone who fawns over every little thing that one Party does, while critiquing every little thing that the other Party does. The reverse is also true. The truth is a double-edged sword that will make you uncomfortable at times. Start speaking the truth no matter where it leads, and people will start to give you some credibility.

2.) Stop the bias.

It is no secret that you are incredibly biased. If you are not going to be objective, at least acknowledge that you are not going to be objective. This should be a fairly simple concept. It doesn't appear to be, however.

When Steven Crowder handed more than one major news station undercover footage of Antifa members claiming they were going to become violent against those who disagreed with them, you walked away from that story. You, for the most part, refused to even acknowledge that Antifa was violent at that time. Very few of you had any interest in exposing a violent organization like Antifa since they aligned with your leftist bias. Stop the bias and report the facts, and people will believe you.

3.) Stop conflating opinion and fact.

It is also no secret that you often report opinion as though it were fact. In doing this, you deceive many into believing that your opinion is actually fact. You contribute to a culture in which people are no longer taught how to think. Rather, they are told (by you and others) what to think. Stop conflating opinion and fact. This will restore at least some trust in your organizations. Until you stop conflating these two, people who know how to think will continue to not take you seriously.

There are other things that I could place here, but these three things are a good place to start. Until you implement these things, people will not trust you any more than they trust an email from a Nigerian prince.


(1) I just want to state, for the record, that I do not approve of homosexual actions in the first place. However, it is not just individuals like myself who have given Spacey backlash over his statement. Organizations like GLAAD have also condemned Spacey.


Popular posts from this blog

5 Things That Are Best Explained By Theism

When discussing my faith with non-believers, I find that the average person is oblivious to the explanatory scope of theism. That is, God's existence explains several things that would be difficult to explain in any other way. In this post, I am not presenting any formal arguments, but am just pointing out what these things are. Arguments will be addressed in subsequent posts.

1. The Origin of the Universe

Neither atheism, nor alternative views of God can adequately explain the origin of the universe. Modern science has lead us to the conclusion that the space-time universe that we inhabit had a definite beginning some 14 billion years ago (give or take a little). The problem for the atheist comes when we realize that any contingent thing has an explanation for its existence that is not found within itself, and that if something had a beginning or could have failed to exist (which describes the universe), it is by its very nature contingent. Neither do other views of God adequatel…

7 Problems With "Lack-Theism" Atheism

In recent years, atheists have increasingly attempted to redefine the words "atheism" and "atheist". Now, rather than being the negative position on the question of God's existence, many atheists have redefined atheism to be a mere "lack of belief" in God. They do not seem to care that there was already a term for this position ("non-theism"). This is often done in an attempt to avoid the burden of proof that comes from taking the negative position on God's existence. Yet, in attempting to eliminate this burden of proof, the one who redefines atheism in this manner has jumped from the frying pan into the fire. Here are 7 reasons why this definition of atheism is problematic for those who use this definition:

1. It Is Rooted In The Etymological Fallacy

In order to justify this redefinition, many atheists will appeal to the etymology of the word "atheist." The term "atheist" comes from two Greek roots, "a-" me…

Profile Of A Modern Pharisee

The Pharisees were one of the major Jewish sects in the days of Christ. Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus consistently clashed wit h this religious group on multiple issues. Even though the Pharisees do not exist in the way they did in the 1st century, many religious leaders and laypeople today still fit the profile of a Pharisee. Here are some traits of the Pharisees, both ancient and modern:

1. The Pharisees cared more about their traditions than they did about obedience to God.
The Pharisees believed in the Law of Moses, and observed it strictly. They were so careful to observe the Law of Moses, in fact, that they observed additional guidelines that were meant to help them avoid violating the Law. The Pharisees ultimately observed these guidelines to the neglect of the finer parts of the Law, such as justice, mercy, and love. Jesus clashed with them and called them out on this point (see Matthew 23:23-24). Today, we call this practice "legalism". Legalism is a hallma…