Chris Matthews, Newsbusters, and Media Bias
- Posted by Justin Higgins on June 18th, 2007 in
An interesting story has popped up over at Newsbusters today, talking about how Chris Matthews believes that media has always been biased here in the United States. He's trying to justify a biased media, which comes to no surprise to anyone who watches his sham of a show on MSNDC. Here's the transcript from our friends at Newsbusters:

Ana Marie Cox, Time.com: "I also want to say that this idea about voice being very important to the current viewer and, and Eugene’s right that it’s true, that this idea that we should be aiming for objective truth in, in journalism is a relatively new thing for us."Chris Matthews: "I agree."
Cox: "And I think what’s important is that people trust, they could trust an unbiased [sic], they could trust a biased source."
Matthews: "Okay, this country was built on biased reporting."
Cox: "Yeah."
Matthews: "Common Sense by Thomas Paine built this country and it was a point of view -- better independence than British rule. There’s a point of view!"
First off, the folks at Newsbusters aptly point out that Paine was a pamphlateer, and Common Sense was hardly a piece of journalism or reporting. Common Sense was a propoganda piece, and whether it was true or not was secondary. I suppose it all comes down to agreeing with Tim Graham's final conclusion:
But when we at MRC attack "biased reporting," we are not saying that reporting facts with a point of view is bad. We’re not saying that National Review can’t have a fantastic article because they’re not sworn to be objective. We’ve always focused on those media outlets describing or implying themselves as objective. We're saying mangling facts in a partisan fashion and pretending you don't have a point of view is the worst combination.
Agreed, and that applies any station that claims to be objective. We all know that FOX says they're fair and balanced but lean both ways on certain things. Also, with some of these news anchors, Matthews included, it's hard to be fair and forget personal objectives. Just admit you're not objective, and we're fine Chris. Still doesn't mean I'll watch MSDNC, though.



About Propaganda
Ah propaganda... it reminds me of a great book I read a while ago Pr!: A Social History of Spin (http://www.amazon.com/Pr-Social-History-Stuart-Ewen/dp/0465061680/ref=sr_1_1/102-3569845-8798525?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182209435&sr=8-1).
Propaganda wasn't always pejorative as documented in the Online Etymology Dictionary:
1718, from Mod.L. propaganda, short for Congregatio de Propaganda Fide "congregation for propagating the faith," committee of cardinals established 1622 by Gregory XV to supervise foreign missions, prop. abl. fem. gerundive of L. propagare (see propagation). Modern political sense dates from World War I, not originally pejorative.
Just recall Edward L. Bernays' book called "Propaganda" (originally published in 1928) and thanks to Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-Edward-L-Bernays/dp/0970312598/ref=sr_1_1/102-3569845-8798525?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182209268&sr=1-1) provides this great quote:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true rulling power of our country.
and
During World War I, [Bernays] was an integral part of the U.S. Committee on Public Information (CPI), a powerful propaganda apparatus that was mobilized to package, advertise and sell the war to the American people as one that would "Make the World Safe for Democracy."
and
[Bernays] became an outspoken proponent of propaganda as a tool for democratic and corporate manipulation of the population