Following the presidential elections in the USA, the media was attacked from left and right, on its pre-conceived agendas which influenced its coverage.
From the left, in an article termed shame US American media the following topics are raised: the lack of unearthing and relaying of facts; framing and contextualizing of events and new information; double measures (holding different players to different levels of responsibility); bias toward balance; process obsession; systematically misinforming; critical tension between the Press’ self-perception and its failure to defend norms.
Reality and criticism brought about a confession by the New York Times titled we blew it on Trump, in which they admitted failure in the coverage of the presidential elections, and rededicated to “honest reporting”. In the publisher’s letter “to our readers” they pledge that the paper will “striv[e] always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.”
The impartiality can be measured in numbers. The businessinsider did a thorough check of the endorsements of the two candidates, and deduced that they were lopsided completely in favor of Clinton; all major newspapers endorsed Clinton, while only 19 endorsed Trump. When the press goes all in one direction, it is a clear sign of lopsidedness and pre-conceived conception.
It would seem that the media has not learnt its lesson, taking the Iran case into consideration.
While central figures in the Republican field voiced significant reservations, calling for “scrapping the deal” or enforcing major reforms, from President elect Trump, through National Security Advisor nominee General Mike Flynn, CIA Director nominee Mike Pompeo (see wsj) and Ambassador Bolton appealing for “regime change” as the only solution (see twitter), and while the UN itself warned of Iranian violations once again (see WSJ), and while the House of Representatives saw due cause for renewing the Iran Sanctions Act (see washingtonpost) , major media outlets reported on these concerns but did not seem to share them. In their op-eds media outlets like The Guardian, CNN, Washington Post, latimes, nytimes, nytimes were busy raising “fears” relating to tampering with the deal, floating reasons to support the deal and even giving excessive exposure to the Report, signed by 76 “experts”, despite the fact that the report was prepared by NIAC, accused in the past of being a pro-Iranian regime lobby and even defeated in court on this matter.
Can it be that they do not share the concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear and other aggressive behavior?
Perhaps they are disconnecting from reality on this issue as well.