Selective skepticism

Inconsistent media display their bias

The Los Angeles Times website has a button to click if you want to “Contact Reporter.”

But anymore, you needn’t contact a reporter to find out what he or she thinks. It’s fairly evident in their writing – in the words they use, and in the overall tone the words set.

One reporter writing about former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s nomination as secretary of energy made it fairly clear, albeit subtly, he takes a skeptical view of the nomination.

“President-elect Donald Trump appears to be on the verge of picking the former Texas governor,” the reporter writes. “Appears to be on the verge of” sounds as if Mr. Trump were standing on a cliff and were about to make a fatal mistake.

He follows that up by noting that Perry once wanted to eliminate the department – and, pointedly, now stands “to run the department that builds and maintains nuclear weapons, regulates fracking and offshore drilling and monitors the Iran nuclear deal, among its many responsibilities.”

Factual, certainly. But rather than just reporting on the story, the reporter seems to be building a case for the energy department’s being indispensable – which it obviously isn’t, since the country operated fine without it until 1977.

“In Perry, Trump would have another oil industry ally and climate-change skeptic in his Cabinet,” the reporter goes on – seemingly trying to warn readers rather than inform them. Why didn’t he go all out and write “yet another …”

Even in the objective facts you choose to highlight, you can show bias. This reporter writes that “Perry’s background and worldview contrast starkly with the Energy secretaries under President Obama, both of whom are physicists – one a winner of the Nobel Prize, the other a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”

In other words, these other guys were smart and probably right. Perry’s probably going to be wrong. Still, the job isn’t splitting the atom – it’s carrying out the president-elect’s policies.

Again, the reporter seems to want to build a case rather than report a story: “Obama’s secretaries’ extensive background in science helped them chart a course for an agency that takes the lead in managing America’s stockpile of nuclear weapons as well as global nonproliferation efforts. The current Energy secretary, Ernest J. Moniz, was deeply involved in negotiating the Iran nuclear deal, which Perry has said should be scrapped.”

Oops. That last item happens to be one we agree with. We also don’t agree with the “physicists’” decision to mothball nuclear waste depository Yucca Mountain.

Then again, news stories shouldn’t be something you agree or disagree with. They ought to just tell the facts in a fair-minded way.

Did you notice this amount of skepticism about Mr. Obama’s Cabinet selections? We didn’t.

Then again, when it comes to Democratic administrations, the media seem to have lost their ability to question things. Skepticism, the keystone to an inquiring mind, used to be a hallmark of American journalism. We remember the “Question Authority” stickers that used to be passed around in the days of Vietnam and Watergate. Today, the media are more likely to question those who are questioning government.

Where is the skepticism of the Iran nuclear deal? The media seem to trust the mullahs in Tehran more than they trust a former governor of Texas.

Where is the skepticism toward the Russian hacking-of-the-election claim? Where is the evidence? Where is the skepticism of global warming? Where are the deep inquiries into voter fraud? (Did you see that a large portion of Detroit precincts had more votes than voters Nov. 8? How is that possible?) Where is the skepticism toward government spending; when are the media going to actually wonder if Washington needs all the money it’s taking in, or focus on how it’s being spent?

Consistent skepticism is the lifeblood of journalism. Selective skepticism is just bias.

Tom Golden 7 months ago
Accusing others of selective skepticism here is simply too much. 

This is clearly the least self-aware editorial board on the planet.
Roy Whitley 7 months ago
There are no such things as "reporters". Each and every one are editorialists.
Dee STAFFORD 7 months ago
It appears that the left---which includes the politicians and the media---believe it is their birthright to have all the leftist positions as permanent inscriptions on the agendas of the U.S. no matter whom the people have elected to represent them.

The Department of Energy could be eliminated with no loss of protection to the country.  The same goes to the Department of Education as well as many agencies and commissions.
Tom Golden 7 months ago
"No matter whom..."

In your consideration of what will and will not be politically feasible over the next 4 years, you should at least be honest with yourself -- even if you are incapable of being honest with anyone else -- whom the people elected to represent them.

Hint: it wasn't the Electoral College winner.
Jeffronimo Badas 7 months ago
Always funny to me when a supporter of Hitlary accuses ANYBODY of being dishonest about ANYTHING. 
SANDRA CLOKE 7 months ago

The fraud found in Detroit where more voted than resided within the voting precincts, felons given the okay to vote, BHO encouraging illegals to vote and on and on and on.


Hillary would not have even come close to winning the popular vote if it had not been for voter fraud.  Too bad those phony votes can't be recalled and an accurate number of legal votes be counted.

Dee STAFFORD 7 months ago
Clinton's vote margin in CA alone gave her the popular vote margin.  NYC and LA county alone give her her margin.  If the Dems had their way the country would be run by NY, CA and IL
Dee STAFFORD 7 months ago
Tom, What specifically are you talking about. There's no reason for a personal attack. Are you saying  Clinton was the winner and should be president? If so, that's a misunderstanding of our Constitution.

My point is the bureaucrats think they are untouchable and can do whatever liberal agenda they wish no matter whom is put in to represent the winning party of the election.
Dave Brown 7 months ago
Watching the main stream media is a hoot.  Watched part of Face the Nation yesterday.  One of the members of the press was complaining about how Trump was hostile to them and how unfair.  Good grief,  these clowns in the press have denigrated and called Trump everything but to diner.  Now they expect Trump to be courteous, considerate and respectful?  What a crock!  Oh, Hillary has a double didgit lead in Pennsylvania.....Trump can't win...

More

Wed, 03/29/2017 - 23:51

Lower taxes prudently

Wed, 03/29/2017 - 23:51

Leave entitlements alone

Wed, 03/29/2017 - 23:51

Holding out for Candidate Trump

Wed, 03/29/2017 - 23:50

Rick McKee Editorial Cartoon

Around the Web