April 22, 1998

 I've never quite understood why it's "wrong" to be "right."
 It's a rather ticklish subject to broach, simply because those of us on the right certainly aren't sinless when it comes to name-calling, but the more I read and hear, the more I really have to suspect that we have some kind of general societal bias against things bearing a "conservative" label.
 Others in the conservative movement complain about a "media bias" against conservatives, especially those of us classified as the "far right." I do believe there is a media bias, although I don't think it's an intentional one.
 As one example, read the Houston Chronicle's stories about the state education debate. Remarks from State Board of Education members Richard Neill and David Bradley are usually prefaced with the term "social conservative," or the members themselves are identified as "back by the religious right." The Dallas Morning News, Austin American-Statesman, Associated Press and others follow a similar pattern.
 To date, I've never seen remarks by, say, SBOE members Will Davis or Jack Christie prefaced by labels like "liberal" or even "moderate," nor has their political backing (state teachers' unions, gay rights' groups, associations of government bureaucrats, and a horde of political action committees) been noted. Having accessed their campaign finance records through the Open Records Act, I've seen who is backed by whom.
 But I don't think the media bias is entirely intentional. Part of it is historical, part of it is hysterical, and part of it is laziness.
 Most members of the mainstream media — myself included — are about as religious as your average rock. While each of us has his own story, what it boils down to is most often the journalistic tenet for hunting down every side to a story. We separate personal beliefs from professional beliefs, and never the twain shall meet.
 Religion has gotten a bad rap, due in great measure to the fact that its most unethical practicioners prey on the weak-minded. Let's face it, the big televangelists don't exist to save your soul, they're here to line their pockets. Blame Jimmy Swaggart , Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts and the rest. Most media types — again, myself included — have grown a healthy distrust for organized religion.
 The very salesmanship which has enabled modern Christian fundamentalism to grow so rapidly is abhorrent to those of us in the media. For all that advertising pays our salaries, news folks sneer at advertising gurus; it helps make up for the fact that they get paid a whole lot more than we do.
 The news media's bias is reinforced by our other entertainment media. For nearly 30 years, TV sitcoms have almost universally portrayed anyone with strong religious beliefs as bigoted, fascist boobs, hell-bent (pardon the pun) on forcing their beliefs on others.
 Name a movie you've ever seen in which someone who has "right-wing" beliefs is portrayed in heroic, or even sympathetic, fashion. We see the Puritans burning witches in Salem, but do we ever see what their stern lifestyle built as pioneers in the American northeast?
 Then there's the hysterical angle. Every member of the media with an address, phone number or e-mail address has been harangued by the lunatic fringe for so long, it's tempting to classify anyone with strong religious beliefs as a member of that fringe.
 I still get regular letters, for example, from the nut-case who thinks he owns the cemetery in Alief, complete with Biblical references "confirming" his delusion.
 Should this fruitcake ever actually present me with real evidence, I would probably never even look at it, because I am convinced, at this point, that he's a fruitcake.  With my luck, he'd have the story which could win a Pulitzer.
 Which flows into the laziness factor.
 We journalists aren't that much different from anyone else in that regard — we like stories which write themselves. A lot of the issues which we on the right pursue are really deep; you have to look at a lot of information before "the big picture" paints itself.
 Why spend weeks or even months researching a piece which confirms what the "radical right" is saying is true, when you can take half the time and one-tenth the effort to snag a quote from a bureaucrat calling it a "conspiracy theory," tap out a quick story and call it a day?
 
Back to Dave's Index Page