An American woman set a record at this year’s Olympic games. She became the first woman and the first summer Olympian to medal in six consecutive Olympics. Only one other athlete in the entire history of the Games has matched this feat (an Italian man who competes in the luge). Contrary to the massive (and deserved) accolades that Michael Phelps has received for his world-record 23 total medals, this American athlete has gotten only a few by-the-way mentions in the press.
Why the cold shoulder, you might ask? Her success happens to be in a sport that the press isn’t fond of. Kim Rhode is a skeet and trap shooter, and guns cannot be shown as anything other than a menace to society. In addition, she’s a woman who shoots guns, she’s a gun rights advocate, and she recently voiced her support for Trump. All these make her a heretic to the Left, which reserves its greatest scorn for those who clash with the required political leanings of their identity groups.
It would be rather impolitic, however, to attack Ms. Rhode openly, especially given the backlash generated by the nastiness directed at Ginny Thrasher, another American medalist in shooting sports. It’s easier, therefore, to simply talk about something else. Ms. Rhode is an inconvenience to a fundamentally biased press corps, which must entwine its political proclivities into all its coverage. Wanna bet that, if Ms. Rhode happened to be a vocal supporter of strict gun restrictions and prohibitions, that she’d have received far more coverage of her feat (and ubiquitous co-coverage of her opinions)? I guarantee it.
This is how today’s political hacks, including most of the press corps, operate. That which doesn’t fit the narrative but which cannot be spun or rebutted effectively is instead ignored. It’s the devolution of discourse and politics into distinct echo chambers, with news outlets serving more to confirm the biases and prejudices of their ideologically aligned audiences than presenting actual and dispassionate news.
This is especially tragic when it comes to the Olympics. In olden times, the constantly warring city-states of ancient Greece would actually cease their hostilities for the duration of the Games. Such an “Olympic Truce” has been called for but gone unheeded in modern times, but we might imagine that the raw partisan politicization of the Press might be put in abeyance as a show of respect for the Games’ tradition… who am I kidding? There is no high tradition any more. There is no sportsmanship or honor in such endeavors. Scandals are ubiquitous, both in the Olympics and in other sports. Doping is rampant, with a large fraction of the Russian team suspended. The organizations themselves have been exposed as corrupt, with bribery tainting both the IOC and FIFA. If the sports themselves aren’t behaving in an upright fashion, we’d be kidding ourselves if we expected news organizations to suddenly find the Olympic spirit.
Unlike in decades of yore, when bringing America the news was a money-losing but nevertheless important arm of the major television networks, today’s news organizations are profit-driven. With a seemingly infinite number of sources to choose from, it is possible that the major media outlets embrace bias because it better serves their bottom lines. Given all we know about the ideological proclivities of most of the press, I suspect that the possibility that money is driving bias is a slim one. “Socially conscious” investors routinely forego profits by eschewing investment in “sin” stocks, oil and gas stocks, and companies that do business in politically unpopular places. We should not be surprised to consider that news organizations forego profits in order to maintain ideological biases.
All news organizations must make choices about what to cover. Economics and simple logistical reality demand it. Some criteria must govern such choices and decisions. They might be financial i.e. what’ll make us the most money, near-term and long-term. They might be principled i.e. what’s the news that matters most to the readers and viewers, or what’s the most significant news of the day. They might be ideological i.e. what best aligns with the editors’ values, politics or goals. What they don’t cover can be as important as what they do cover, and omission is as powerful an editorial tool as slant.
Sadly, the elevation of ideological bias over a duty to report what’s newsworthy claims innocent victims. Ms. Rhode should be celebrated for her success. The political inconveniences associated with her story, however, have superseded her achievement.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is a follow-up to yesterday’s Sins of Omission.
Loading ...
Ironically, the proliferation of first, cable and now internet based news reporting has required traditional network outlets to now turn a profit instead of being a value-add loss-leader – enabling ideological editorials rather than fact based news reporting in order to secure market share.
What’s left out by omission, or buried in the next ‘news cycle’ is indeed telling. Indeed, as telling as Olympic shooting is – most haven’t heard a thing about our USG sending an additional $1.3 Billion in cash to Iran, following the original, comparatively paltry sum of just $400 Million – which has now been admitted as ‘facilitating’ the release of US hostages. Nope, you didn’t hear that.
“We should not be surprised to consider that news organizations forego profits in order to maintain ideological biases.”
__________
Fascinating insight, Peter. The Old Grey Lady is wheezing along, revenues declining, as if she were on life support. The WaPo may have slipped into remission with Mr. Bezos’ involvement . . . but will we see a change in its ideology?
I take hope from Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” Your thoughts?
As long as there are rich NYC liberals, NYT will endure in some form. The former need the latter to tell them what to think. Even free markets cater to niches.
As for WaPo? I thought that Bezos might shift it in a slightly more libertarian direction, but I think that Bezos isn’t immune to the typical plagues that infects the very smart and very wealthy i.e. they find far greater reward in leveraging government than in competing in a true free market, and their success in business makes them think that they’re smart enough to “run things” and manage others’ lives via government.