Yes The Media Can Be Biased, But What About Your Obligation To Check Facts?

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T

By Dan AbramsJan 27th, 2021, 1:00 pm

On my daily radio show on Sirius XM, after a monologue or interview with a guest, a good part of the program usually involves taking calls from listeners. It is my favorite part of the show and I have long found it invaluable to hear directly from smart people across the country, with very different perspectives, about the political and legal landscape. My show is broadcast on Sirius XM's POTUS channel — which tends to have many politically moderate listeners from both parties and a good number of Independents.

I do my best to provide fact-based opinion in an effort to welcome both sides of the political aisle. For example, in the past week I criticized what I viewed as many in the mainstream media fawning over Vice President Kamala Harris , and the next day, in the context of a discussion on impeachment, denounced the explanations from those still questioning the election results.

While I am regularly criticized by what I would characterize as the extremes on both sides, recently I have endured more incoming vitriol from those convinced the election was not above board. Some are not even Donald Trump supporters as much they are just furious with the news media, and welcome the opportunity to vent at a member of said community. That desire for media accountability is always a noble and fair goal, but I also demand accountability from them. It's not their profession, but when they have the megaphone on social media or on radio, the obligation should go both ways. In my humble, and totally biased opinion, the debates that sometimes ensue make for pretty compelling radio.

What I have found most frustrating as of late have been the sweeping indictments of the media based on falsities — mostly election fraud talking points that have infected the public discussion. Not opinions or nuances or bias, but facts. It's not a problem exclusive to this topic, but the virus of disinformation about this election remains particularly potent and treacherous.

"Why didn't the media cover the fact that 205,000 more people voted in Pennsylvania than there were registered voters?" (Because it's not true.) "How can you ignore what I saw with my own eyes with those Georgia officials kicking out observers and taking out those hidden ballots under the table?" (Because we know exactly what happened and they did nothing wrong.) "Why won't you talk about the hundreds of dead people who voted in Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania?" (Because it didn't happen.) The list goes on and on. I never know which conspiracy I will have to respond to on a given day so I have to be prepared for anything and everything.

Former President Trump, Rudy Giuliani and some of their media allies have been wildly effective at lumping together every possible error or mistake — which occur in most every election — with false claims of wrongdoing and fraud and a smattering of constitutional and procedural arguments, making for a confusing disinformation stew.

Sometimes I am blindsided by a random claim about a particular county and have to fact check it in real time on the air. Armed with bits and pieces of information and heaps of fury and confidence, callers seek to hold me, and by proxy the media, accountable for failing to cover the election fairly. I appreciate the sentiment but in the vast majority of these cases, these mostly savvy and educated callers, simply didn't review the known facts or are unwilling to take the time or make the effort to do so. Only when a wild theory like the Dominion and Smartmatic voting machines supposedly changing votes becomes so thoroughly debunked, does a new one become the focus.

To be clear, there are real issues to evaluate about how our elections are conducted. In every major election, there are rules and procedures that are determined by courts before, and sometimes after, the election — rulings that are legitimate subjects for debate. Which ballots should be accepted; how people should be able to vote; what should be the cutoff date; what is the proper procedure for curing a ballot, who gets to decide the rules, etc. But many have been lumping together legal decisions about voting systems with which they disagree, and broader claims of voter fraud. "It just doesn't add up" seems to have become the vague, blanket, and all too common refrain. That dodge is not, and should not be, enough. I have enormous respect for my listeners so I demand that those who criticize the media for ignoring facts about the election come to the table with more than just passion and opinions.

I am a proud member of the mainstream media but I am also a critic. For example, I take serious issue with what I view as an unwillingness by the mainstream news media to admit a left-leaning bias that has fueled distrust from many on the right. I started Mediaite in part because I felt there wasn't enough accountability for the often self-righteous and pious leaders of the highly politicized media on both sides. There can be, and is, bias in how they/we cover stories. But on something factual like mass election fraud, there isn't right and left, just right and wrong. While those of us in the media critic business regularly engage in hand wringing about mistakes or errors in judgment, is it too much to ask those who go public with their theories to do a little research before virtuously wagging fingers?

I truly appreciate the callers who disagree with me. In fact, I tend to take their calls more than ones who will just echo my viewpoint. But since they can and should demand accountability from me, I will continue to do the same from them.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

Filed Under:

2020 ElectionDan AbramsDonald TrumpMediaRudy GiulianiSiriusXM Previous PostNext Post Previous PostNext Post