Editor’s Opinion

Gnashing of teeth over liberal bias in the “media” tends to percolate every so often. These claims may be overblown, but discerning consumers of the nation’s largest newsmagazines cannot ignore the shift from objective reporting to presumptive opinion-sharing in their pages.

The two most notorious perpetrators of substituting opinion for facts in news articles are Newsweek and Time magazines. Consider this news item in the Aug. 18 edition of Newsweek (Page 8): “In a surprise move, the top Justice Department official who has been a key architect of administration policies in the war on terror plans to announce his resignation this week. … although a strong conservative, (Larry) Thompson is a widely respected professional whose low-key style contrasted sharply with that of his boss, Attorney General John Ashcroft.”

Although he is a “strong conservative”? So Thompson is still widely respected despite this crippling impediment? When will we see an article in Newsweek asserting, “Although Al Gore was an environmentalist, he still had some credibility in Washington, D.C.”

I know, that was a cheap shot. But speaking of environmentalists. … Those earnest and sincere environmentalists out there who say they grow tired of my tirades against the environmental movement can take heart. First of all, my salvos are directed at the elitist organizations that appeal and litigate every project under the sun. And, if it’s any consolation, I’ve experienced the same frustration from the other end of the spectrum. I grow tired of the mainstream press’ tirades against the Bush administration for its supposedly slipshod environmental policies. Consider a typical environmental news story from Time.

“Fireproofing the forests (the headline reads): Logging doesn’t work. Neither, in the long run, does fire fighting. Now, as flames envelop Western forests, the debate over a radical form of tree surgery is heating up” (Aug. 18 edition, pages 53-56).

Logging doesn’t work? Well, that’s rather a sweeping statement, considering the author of the article didn’t bother to interview anybody from the natural-resource arena who has seen the devastation caused by insects and disease left unchecked to spread from unsalvaged snags into green forest. Of course, an “ecologist” from the World Wildlife Fund enjoyed prominent treatment in the article. This admirer of natural processes predictably praised the 500,000-acre Biscuit Fire in Southern Oregon, calling it “not a catastrophe” but a “process that drives biodiversity” (unless that biodiversity happens to include spotted owls, which lost a huge slice of their habitat to the fire).

Then, there is this doozy, found in the concluding paragraph of the Time fire-prevention article. The author observes that “thinning has come to the fore at a time when neither the White House nor Congress seems inclined to take environmental protection seriously.” OK. We appreciate your editorializing, Time magazine, but why don’t you leave the partisan observations for your opinion section?

Oh, but that’s right: Newsmagazines these days are nothing more than opinion sections dressed up as objective news. Liberal bias in the national media? Depends on where you look, but as for Newsweek and Time, I think we can make up our own minds.

Anyone with comments about “Editor’s Opinion” can contact David Carkhuff by calling 575-0710 or by e-mail at editor@bluemountaineagle.com.