In politics, perception can be shaped and molded by how the argument is framed.
Still, journalists are often the first to deny the mainstream media bias.
But that’s often because their bias is built-in to the system at its very core.
Many news outlets follow the AP Stylebook issued by the Associated Press.
Others, like the New York Times, follow their own, yet similar stylebooks.
The original intent was to guide reporters and editors to check capitalization and common spellings, as well as to find more “neutral” sounding terminology for their articles.
Instead, the AP Stylebook as it reads today has been weaponized against conservative viewpoints.
The mainstream media bias has become baked in.
Take, for example, how the AP Stylebook says to write about abortion:
Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice. Avoid abortionist, which connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions.
That’s because the anti-life, pro-abortion crowd (and their pals in the mainstream media) realized long ago that pro-lifers not only have the benefit of being right on the issue, but pro-lifers benefit from the framing on the issue.
Funny . . . baby killers don’t like being called out for what they are.
Likewise, a recent op-ed published in The Hill notes:
The stylebook also instructs writers to use confusing language about guns in order to create a negative impression about them. Semi-automatic rifles that have add-on parts intended to increase shooting accuracy are to be called “assault weapons,” despite the fact the term has referred to fully automatic weapons used by the military for years. The latter are now referred to as “assault rifles,” and the two are often conflated. Adding even more to the confusion, the phrase “military style” is recommended to describe assault weapons.
Although AK-47s — which have been used in some fatal shootings — used to be fully automatic military weapons used by the Russians, that’s no longer the case — but the stylebook still instructs that they be labeled “AK-47 assault rifles.”
Of course there are many more terms baked into the system that cast the conservative viewpoint in a negative light — “climate change denier,” “alt-right,” and even labeling something as “controversial.”
So how can you believe the mainstream media when they claim to be unbiased?
Is the media’s own bias a systemic problem?
Let us know in the comments and share with us some of the examples of built-in media bias you’ve seen.
Many years ago, I quit a newspaper subscription because of its “unbiased Republican opinions”. Years later, I quit my subscription to a paper for its “unbiased Democrat opinions”. Today I subscribe to no papers and take all media news with a grain of salt. Their “newspeak” approach to “reporting” the news today is, for want of a better term, laughable were it not so rabidly pathetic. Instead of reporting the news they are now framing opinions, most not worth the air they use to say them or the tortured brain cells they abused to dream them up.
Trump is always referred to as Beleaguered or shaken and his administration is in chaos and scandal ridden.
While the string of the obama disqualifiers and the Illiar treasons go unmentioned or praised.