Off of Fark: Reporter who is almost always called on by Bush during press conferences is scrutinized for possibly being White House ‘plant’.

Here’s my problem with this: It’s not so much that the Bushies are trying to manipulate the media – politicians have a long history of using these sorts of tactics to steer public opinion – it’s that I believe they may be trying to destroy any shreds of integrity left in the media.

It starts with “plants” in the presidential media pool. It’s not that big a deal if they’re linked back to the president since it’s not totally illegal. Of course, it’s easy to funnel the blame through independent conservative organizations, as they’ve already done in the linked article as well as in the past with other such media-related scandals (i.e. the “Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth”, etc.). But if the conservatives can do it, so can the liberals and, well, anyone with an agenda.

So this takes the media bias argument, which has been long blamed for sucking the news dry of any real filtering capability, and shines a fat spotlight on it, making it even *more* vital that reporters not look like plants. It gets to the point eventually where the media is now so afraid of appearing biased or planted or what have you that they stop really covering the real news. As it stands, rumor and conjecture is sat upon until cold hard facts present themselves. This has gotten worse after the CBS “Memogate” scandal which, despite what they may have told you, pushed poor old Dan Rather into retirement.

I’m not arguing that news agencies should jump on any rumor that hits the streets – I don’t want a return to yellow journalism. But editors and publishers need to stop worrying about an appearance of bias and just report the news. Hell, even if they were blatantly biased (hello, Salon) that shouldn’t stop them from reporting what they find as they find it.

Blogs, talk radio and pundits are as popular as they are specifically because they don’t let appearances of bias get in the way of getting their message out, and that really what people want – a filtered, easy to grasp and accept version of world events. Bias gives us an opinion. We can either totally agree with it (as I often do when I watch John Stewart and his commentaries on the news) or vehemently disagree with it (as I often do when I watch The O’Reilly Report or listen to talk radio). And, certainly, bias will just give lazy people their opinions for them, turning them into parrots rather than educated viewers. Then again, these typically aren’t the type of people poring over the morning edition of the New York Times every day.

While bias-free journalism is a worthy goal, I think too much stringency toward it is far more harmful than the threat of bias. So, rather than scribe breathless articles about conservatives planting reporters, paying conservative talkshow hosts to promote their programs (and if that was done with public funds, why isn’t that the scandal of the year?) and giving privileged access to those who agree with the Bush message, mainstream journalists should just do their jobs: report the real news, as it happens. And if your bias shows, screw it. It will only be pointed out by a media outlet with an opposing bias anyway. Let them get lost in the noise it causes.