Kathlyn Hotynski

Journalists are consistently thrown in the same ditch as politicians, and it sometimes gets tiring trying to defend the integrity of a profession consistently under a public microscope.

The irony is that journalists dedicate their lives to changing the dirty diapers of American politicians and exposing other injustices. We definitely aren’t looking for ways out of changing those diapers either because it’s our job.

As I watched Bob Woodward and Bob Kaiser discuss governmental secrets and Woodward’s series of books on the Bush administration last Thursday at the Devroy Forum, I couldn’t help but wonder why people question their accomplishments for the integrity of American society.

Then I remembered a lot of Woodward’s critics are usually the type of people that don’t like to hear that their God-sent leaders aren’t any more saintly than Paris Hilton.

No, reading a pundit’s book doesn’t count as proof of a media conspiracy because they have the same notion of a preconceived agenda that people claim the media holds. Nor does watching Fox News, Bill O’Reilly or Keith Olbermann and claiming their shows are hard news that speak the truth with a granite heart. In reality, they’re slightly more serious, but still comical, versions of the “Daily Show” and the “Colbert Report.”

If someone gets his or her news from these talk shows, it’s more than likely he or she is going to assume the media has an inherent bias because that person is watching someone that only analyzes an issue from one political view instead of taking an unbiased perspective despite personal beliefs.

Actually, it is true that the media has an agenda – the agenda of keeping the public aware of corruption and deceit at the hands of officials they elect to hold positions of power. Keep in mind no one in the Bush administration or elsewhere has filed a lawsuit against Woodward for his assertions about their actions.

Would the world be better off if Woodward and Carl Bernstein hadn’t stuck with the Watergate story? What about the Neil Sheehan and the Pentagon Papers or the National Security Agency and the wiretapping controversy? Think about how different history and public concern for personal freedoms would be if none of these secrets had been uncovered.

Claiming the media has a liberal or conservative bias is used with the same logic as saying the sky is always blue. The sky changes colors depending on the time of day and the weather – it can be red at dusk and dawn and is blue when sunny in the middle of the day.

Likewise, the media’s criticisms shift depending on the president’s party affiliation.

How many incumbent presidents have made statements denouncing the media’s constant probing of their lives? In contrast, how many presidents have praised the media for dogging them through each mistake they make? The answers are “everyone” and “none,” respectively.

The media is consistently in the majority party’s back pocket, attempting to track their every move. That’s what happens when someone is in a position of power – the media works to make sure he or she is serving the will of the American people at all costs.

The problem with the public accepting this fact is that people don’t like it when their trust is misplaced in anything they hold dear to them.

So when they hear of the lack of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Watergate, Iran-Contra or Monica Lewinsky, they are quick to point out that the media is just pushing a liberal or conservative agenda bent on destroying the president or any other politician’s reputation.

Another thing a lot of people don’t realize is that they are the ones who dictate what the media presents as news. I know many people, including myself, who are critical of television news’ constant focus on negatives and tragedies when there are just as many feel-good stories around the country and world.

But unfortunately, those don’t bring in ratings and people would start tuning out if the only thing they saw were human-interest stories on the 10 o’clock news every night.

Everyone is looking for negatives in everything because they make the positive look that much better, whether it be in a college workload or a war update on CNN.

And look at this issue from a journalist’s perspective. What would we gain from perpetuating the stereotype of biased news coverage? That’s what the editorial section of newspapers and television shows such as Fox News and Lou Dobbs are for – voices that take a particular side on a subject and debate their merit.

People forget that while 60 percent of newspapers may be considered liberal because of candidates they support during elections, there is another 40 percent that are considered conservative. Each one of these papers, liberal or conservative, reports on issues that affect your life every day in the same mold – unbiased and informative.

It’s too bad the people who know that are the ones holding the notebooks.

McCormick is a sophomore print journalism major and editorial editor of The Spectator. McCormick’s Musings appears every Thursday.