By Fred Jackson, AFR News Director

July 2001 – Conservative columnist and talk-show host Robert Novak told an audience in Washington recently that one of the silliest questions he is regularly asked is: "Does the media have a liberal bias?" To which he replies, "Of course they have a liberal bias, because they are all liberals!"

Now that may be a slight exaggeration but only slight.

How did this happen?

One could argue that there has always been a liberal element in newsrooms because, like many other businesses, they are composed mainly of unsaved people who reject the Bible as the ultimate authority by which mankind is supposed to live.

The difference today is that, unlike a generation ago, newsrooms no longer even want to make an effort to balance that liberal bias.

That is why many conservative groups, including American Family Association, have started their own news services. It is the only way to ensure that a conservative point of view is included in debates that shape public policy. 

At AFR News we strive to accurately report all sides of an issue. But, because we are a Bible-based news service, we also want to present the facts without ambiguity as to what God's standards are. After all, if the goal of journalism is to relate truth, what better way to make sure we achieve that goal than to refer to the source of absolute Truth ­ the Bible?

When I entered the secular news business in the late '70s, it was stressed that my job as a reporter was to get the facts from both sides of a story and then fairly represent their accounts to an audience.

I can tell you from experience that those standards have all but been abandoned in today's newsrooms.

What caused this radical change? Believe it or not, the Vietnam War may have had a lot to do with it. Around that time, many young campus leftists discovered that journalism was a great outlet for their propaganda. As Novak noted in his recent speech, "[T]he young radical journalists of 1970 are now the middle-level management people, the bureau chiefs, the network officials, the editors of big national newspapers. It is not just a majority, it's a total hammerlock of the left wing on the media."

That's a significant observation because those groups Novak highlighted are the people who do the hiring. It's not surprising then that they hire people of a like mind. Is it any wonder that, when conservatives watch the evening news or read major daily newspapers, it becomes an exercise in frustration?

Let's look at a couple of key examples of how the major media reflect the major issues of the day.

Abortion
For the reasons we have outlined above, you can assume the reporter doing an abortion story is pro-abortion, or as the politically correct crowd likes to say, "supporters of a woman's right to choose." With that philosophical backdrop, no one should be surprised that those who are opposed to abortion are treated as a threat ­ the bad guys. They are referred to as "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life." The "good guys" are always "pro-choice." When I was working in secular news, I had specific instruction not to use the term "pro-life."

Indeed, today's news media have pretty well accepted all the terms of the pro-abortion side of the argument. Reporters use the term "fetus" instead of "baby" to describe the life inside the womb. You will also hear phrases like "threat to women's rights" to describe efforts of pro-life people to stop the gruesome procedure.

Homosexuality
The liberal media members do little to hide their bias in the debate on homosexuality. In general, reporters in secular newsrooms have already accepted as truth the idea that some people are born as homosexuals, conservatives are persecuting them for something they can't control and, therefore, they need special laws to protect them.

That is why the dominant news media over the last few years have campaigned for the passage of hate crimes laws. And that is why, when a homosexual is murdered, the story gets major play on the nightly news, but when homosexuals kill a little boy ­ e.g., the Dirkhising case in Arkansas (See AFA Journal, 5/01.) ­ the national media barely makes mention of it.

Religion
When it comes to media coverage of religion, tolerance is in, Biblical authority is out.

The nation's newsrooms are filled with people who do not believe in a God who hates sin. In fact, for the most part, they don't even believe in sin. And God, if he exists at all, is just an impersonal force who has set the world in motion and has left it up to mankind to figure out what is right and wrong.

True Christianity ­ that which holds to salvation through faith in Christ alone ­ is out. In fact, many members of the media regard such teaching as a threat to freedom and something that needs to be stopped.

That explains why the American Civil Liberties Union is a hero of the secular media. They are seen as the good guys when they go to court to stop corporate prayer in public schools, or when they try to prohibit the display of the Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" posters in public places.

This media bias against Christianity was particularly evident last year when Al Gore announced that he had chosen Joseph Lieberman to be his running mate. The dominant media could not hide their enthusiasm for the fact that an orthodox Jew was on the ticket because it would further the cause of religious tolerance in the country.

Yet, when John Ashcroft, a born-again, Bible-believing Christian, was nominated to be the next Attorney General, the news media treated him like a threat to national security and played up the gross distortions of liberals like Ted Kennedy who portrayed Ashcroft as a right-wing, conservative, racist, bigot.

The evidence is overwhelming that Robert Novak was right. Bias is clearly the norm in the secular media.