On November 9, 2008, Spiritual Perspectives printed the article, “The Day Journalism Died.” This conclusion was reached after watching how major news sources treated both candidates in that election. Fair journalism is still dead, and most of the polls are pretty sick after being exorbitantly off. But this article is not about the warped election coverage for which The New York Times apologized, the fact that there was collusion between CNN and Clinton campaign regarding Presidential debate questions, or other signs of a prejudiced press. Americans now see through attempts to discredit and disparage individuals they do not like.
Instead, the idea here is to show how reports of various events can be manipulated. The study of logic is quite helpful so that people can recognize ad hominem attacks, red herrings, and other means that are used to keep from getting at the truth. But Bob Kohn, in his book on Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted, explores the subtleties used to slant the news. He does not take issue with the opinion pieces of the New York paper; he objects to slanting what is supposed to be the news portion.
Justice cannot be done to the book’s 321 pages and to all the techniques used. A few will have to suffice in order to make a spiritual application. Kohn’s book was published in 2003; preceding it were Bernard Goldberg’s book, Bias, which demonstrated the prejudice of his colleagues at CBS (published in 2001), and Ann Coulter’s Slander (2002). Probably a great deal has been written since these landmark books as well.
One would think that public media would want to be fair and employ both liberals and conservatives to have a fair exchange of ideas. Yet virtually no Republicans work for National Public Radio or The New York Times (25). What kind of healthy discussion can one expect from one-sided institutions? (By the way, most college campuses are the same.) The Fox News Channel may not be perfectly “fair and balanced,” but they employ several liberals who are not bashful about challenging conservative thought. Compared to CNN, MSNBC, and other news networks, they shine as beacons of impartiality.
The New York Times once held lofty goals. In 1896, for example, their goal was: “To give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect or interests involved” (27). In 1924 The Detroit News believed that a journalist’s “views, his personal feelings and his friendships should have nothing to do with what he writes in a story” (28). Textbooks in Journalism even taught that a news article should “give no opinions” (28). “Those were the days, my friend,” as Mary Hopkin might sing. A more modern textbook provides the new philosophy: “Rule Number 1: There are no rules….”
Headlines and lead paragraphs usually describe the gist of the story that follows. USA Today had a good opening to the news of USA troops capturing Baghdad. (April 10, 2003). They wrote:
Saddam Hussein’s government lost control of Iraq’s capital Wednesday as U.S. forces extended their reach deep into the city. Jubilant crowds tore down a 20-foot statue of the Iraqi leader and dragged its head through the streets in a scene reminiscent of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 (273).
This is a fair description of what occurred. Other newspapers reported similarly. The Los Angeles Times went so far as to record that crowds were dancing in the streets and calling out: “Victory! We are free! Thank you, President Bush!” (275). So what did The New York Times have to say? “Much of Baghdad tumbled into America’s hands today as Saddam Hussein’s image was pulled down from pedestals and portraiture in the city.” Seriously? Our forces did not apparently defeat Saddam Hussein; Baghdad just tumbled into America’s hands. Why, how fortunate we were there when it fell! Although the sentence mentions the statue of Hussein being pulled down, nothing indicates that the citizens of Iraq were involved in it or how happy they were to be rid of an evil tyrant (273)!
Most newspapers tend to be on the liberal side of things, but most of the major ones had the proper emphasis with this story. They described within the first two sentences: “Cheering, dancing Iraqis swarmed city streets”; “Exuberant defiance created an indelible image of liberation”; “Cheering Iraqis…yanked the monument to the ground”; etc. (274-75). However, the Times opened with no references to the ecstatic mood of the Iraqi people. After the opening sentence, all they could think of was to pour cold water on the celebration by saying: “But American and British commanders said the war in Iraq, including the battle for Baghdad, was not over and faced critical days ahead” (273).
One way to distort matters is to quote those who agree with the newspaper’s position—but refrain from mentioning anyone’s name. Sometimes confirmation for a “fact” comes from unnamed sources, administration officials, or someone equally invisible. Apparently the need to document what is stated is alleviated by an obscure reference to: “experts feel,” “critics believe, “observers say,” or, “It is widely thought…” (127). As Iraq fell, the Times reported that 170,000 artifacts were stolen from the National Museum. They further stated that the loss was “likely to be reckoned as one of the greatest cultural disasters in Middle Eastern history” (278). One Muslim archaeologist was cited. What did the truth turn out to be? Only 25 were lost. “Likely”?
One would never know that The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999) says: “Anonymity should not become a cloak for attacks on people, institutions or policies” (140). Even when studies are cited, one must be careful about how the study was conducted, but how much worse is it when an article simply reports that “studies say”?
Sometimes stories are purposely slanted. The Times decided on August 15, 2001 to do a story about refugees seeking asylum here in the United States—about how their requests were being overlooked. The story said that a “Republican-backed” law, aimed at fighting illegal immigration was to be blamed. However, the paper failed to mention that the law was also backed by Democrats, since it passed the House 370-37. Furthermore, Bill Clinton had signed the legislation into law (161). So what was the point of saying that this was a “Republican-backed” law, if not to indicate that all the blame should be lodged against them?
When a Republican used various means to ensure having a debate on a certain bill, the Times said he was using parliamentary tricks. When a Democrat did the same thing, he was commended for using time-honored procedures (176). Surely, no one would call this favoritism, would they?
The Times has also been known to fudge facts to gin up support for their causes. On March 21, 2003 they reported 5,000 people were chanting, “Peace Now,” in New York’s Times Square. That sounds like a significant number of protesters. According to the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and the New York Sun, however, there were actually only 200-300 people present (243).
Examples of the ways a newspaper can slant the news abound in this book, which shows that, as much as possible, citizens should fact check what they read, hear, or see—whether they share the ideology of the source or not. Fake news can infiltrate those on both the right and the left. Everyone should be cautious.
Biblical Application
If there’s one thing we have learned over the years, it is that cults and other religious groups can take Scriptures out of context to make an argument or advance their theology. A few weeks ago, another member and I met with a Baptist couple. It was a fair discussion in terms of both of us being able to speak and make a case. But at a certain point in the discussion, he asked if he could share with us the way in which he studies with people. So he began by reading several passages that dealt with the subject of faith, such as Hebrews 11:6; John 8:24, Ephesians 2:8-9. Finally, I said to him, “We believe these same passages and use them. Are you going somewhere with this?” He said, “None of these mention baptism. Salvation is by faith only, and these passages prove it.” I pointed out they don’t mention repentance, either. Is it not essential to salvation?
However, a better answer might have been to use the same technique that he did. Here are some Scriptures that could be used.
Acts 2:38: Neither the words grace nor faith are found anywhere in this text, although forgiveness of sins is. Does this prove that faith is not necessary?
Acts 10:47-48: Nothing is said about faith or repentance in this text. Are they irrelevant?
Acts 22:16: Ananias didn’t tell Paul to believe or repent; therefore, they are not necessary in order to be saved.
Romans 6:3-6: Faith is not mentioned, but baptism, as a burial, is.
1 Corinthians 12:13: Baptism is certainly necessary to get into the body of Christ, but faith is not mentioned.
1 Peter 3:21: How much clearer can it be? Baptism saves us. We have no need of faith or repentance.
Of course, this argument is absurd. Nobody believes that baptism, by itself, can save anyone (although those who practice infant “baptism” must think so). We recognize that faith, repentance, and baptism are all essential to salvation. Just because repentance is not mentioned in every account of salvation does not mean that some were exempt from it. Just because faith is not mentioned each time baptism is does not prove that faith is useless. To argue this way would be to purposely slant the evidence to establish a theological position. It would be reprehensible.
But why is it not equally reprehensible for people to quote passages which only mention faith—but exclude repentance and baptism? In the first place, most of the verses used are summary verses and not even dealing with an actual account of salvation. Consider Hebrews 11:6. It is in the “faith” chapter. The whole point of the chapter is to observe what faith can accomplish. All of the examples are from the Old Testament and have nothing to do with the salvation that is offered in the New. They do teach that faith is an essential quality to have in order to please God, but the text does not declare that it is all that is needed. The Bible student ought to remember that Hebrews 5:9 says that salvation is granted to all that obey Jesus.
John 1:12-13 and 3:16, as well as other passages also stress the need of faith; nobody is trying to invalidate these precious words. But none of these verses is: 1) dealing with a specific instance of someone being saved from sin (like those on Pentecost, in Samaria, and various other locations; 2) claiming that faith is all that is necessary. Those who try to use these verses in this way, whether intentional or not, are slanting the Scriptures just as the Times does its news stories—and for the same reason—to push their agenda. “Faith only” is not New Testament teaching; people try to prove it to establish their own theology. People need complete honesty in order to be saved.