The Media's True Colors - Part 1D
This is part of my continuing series exploring the real nature and behavior of the U.S. mainstream news media - in terms of news coverage. Part 1 of this series addresses issues of basic journalism, and previous posts covered bias in journalistic malpractice on political coverage (Part 1A), accountability for malpractice against the Left (Part 1B) and punishment for transgressions (Part 1C). This part - 1D - addresses bias in censorship.
What do the following incidents have in "common"?
They are all cases of overt censorship by major U.S. media outlets, imposed on ads, coverage or opinions considered unfriendly to (or by) the Bush administration/GOP. In contrast, such incidents of censorship on ads, coverage or opinions unfavorable to Democrats are far less. Three examples I was able to find in the latter category are:
(ii) Gary Bauer's ad against China (and urging Clinton to not visit China) rejected by CNN [note: I think this is a somewhat doubtful case because Bauer's ad was mostly against China's human rights violations - which Clinton was against as well, but I'm including it anyway]
(iii) CNN's self-admitted, self-censorship of anti-Saddam coverage for years (to ostensibly protect its reporters in Saddam-controlled Iraq) [note: again, it is quite a stretch to make this an example of anti-Bush bias because CNN had been doing this even in Clinton's time, when Clinton was bombing Saddam - but I'm including it anyway; also see this note from FAIR providing a different perspective]
The fact that censorship of ads/coverage/opinions considered unfavorable to (or by) the GOP far exceeds any censorship of ads/coverage/opinions considered unfriendly to (or by) Democrats shows that on the issue of censorship the media is biased quite conservative, rather than liberal. (It's no surprise that well-known conservatives themselves either overtly or indirectly long for censorship of facts, opinions or portrayals they don't like).
P.S. I am not covering censorship that may be hidden and not known to the public because it is impossible to prove and/or quantify in any meaningful way. I am also excluding here the censorship of views expressed against media outlets for their coverage on certain (non-partisan) issues, but I've mentioned the few such incidents here.