Examination of Media Bias in Katha Pollitt’s Article “Kissing & Telling”

In the country, Katha Pollitt suggests in her short article 'Kissing & Informing,' that the media oppresses liberals, and furthermore, her views. In his post for the National Review, 'Bias Basics,' Allan Levite argues that the media is biased against conservatives. Both writers present arguments with deficiencies. They both have motives to be biased. One of them must be correct, but using the evidence the two authors provide, it’s impossible to determine which one. The two reporters each write biased columns that fail to substantiate their points adequately.

In Pollitt's argument, she asserts that the media overlooks the primary issue - a man harassing a woman. She states that the media ignores other instances of more severe offences related to the same subject. She cites two other examples that she believes are more commonplace than extraordinarily naive grade-school children. Her first example is a case involving a sixth-grader who received death threats, but it isn't explicitly stated what type of hatred was involved. It could have been sexual harassment, or it could have arisen merely because she sported Spam on her forehead. She only puts forward two instances as her evidence. So in her idyllic 'bad people bash feminism land,' her argument is just as prevalent as the issue she criticizes, or perhaps less so. No one is consciously trying to undermine feminism. This wasn't intended to happen (I hope).

Moreover, young children in grade school aren't usually preoccupied with coaxing their aides to engage in sexual activities in exchange for promotions. Personally, I believe children are naive. Even I was an unsuspecting child. When I was in third grade, a boy named Tommy bit my ear. I didn’t cultivate a taste for sado-masochistic gay sex revolving around ear-biting as a result of this incident. Tommy didn't develop a habit of biting people's ears and taking pleasure in it. He now works as a pool cleaner. I doubt either of us cared much at the time, although I do remember shedding a few tears. People who wet their pants in grade school generally don't continue this behavior as adults, even after ascending to positions of power in the country. If they did, we would certainly hear about it. Many children develop peculiar habits as they grow, but they often outgrow these. For instance, I used to believe Bon Jovi was the greatest band ever. Now, I laugh at my past naivety since I no longer hold this belief. Children are typically clueless about what they are doing; they are 'innocent' and 'adorable' (and surprisingly, they often engage in more sexual play than I do, despite their inability to understand or execute multiplication).

Pollitt seemingly concedes my argument that the child doesn't know what the hell he is doing. 'De' Andre's entire family was famed, until they ceased responding to reporters' calls after he punched and bit a teacher.' The child probably won't mature into an adult that goes around punching and biting teachers.

Pollitt also attempts to illustrate her point by asking, "And how can we raise children to respect another's boundaries at 13 - let alone - 30, if we think it's cute when they don't?" She compares the children's actions to 'sexual aggression and violence.' This seems like a rather strong comparison for a group of children who probably still wet their beds. They certainly don't have secretaries to bribe with promotions or wives to assault. When I think of violence, the first thing that pops into my mind isn't the ripping of a button from a skirt. Honestly, I don't think these children are grappling with anything more sinister than their own naiveté. Charge them with stupidity or immaturity. After all, these kids aren't even old enough to snicker in health class whenever someone says the word 'penis.'

Another point Pollitt proposes, one that rings inherently false, is a hypothetical scenario involving John Leo, who penned his own column on the event. She questions whether he would have found the situation so amusing if the boys had kissed other boys. Would the principal have considered such behaviour as sexual harassment and proceeded with suspensions? I have my doubts.

Pollitt's past experiences also suggest a level of bias. She carries apparent resentment towards those who antagonise others as children. She doesn't seem to hold a centrist view on the punishment of children who mistreat other children. In fact, she likely harbours an intense emotional grudge against children who torment others. She may have written this column thinking that Jonathan and De'Andre are no different than the individuals who tormented her in the past. This hypothesis could be seen as a source of bias. Furthermore, there is likely a good reason why this article appears in a publication that leans so far left it's practically communist.

Levite's making use of the most exceptionally thick, as well as dumb concept I have seen in a long time. To make a decision whether the media is liberally or cautiously prejudiced he uses a keyword search. Placing words right into a keyword search is by no stretch of the creativity reliable for anything. Instance: If I type 'complimentary porn' into the Web search, Infoseek I get some crap against youngster porn, some Palmala Anderson non pornography stuff, some crap on pay me some money 'complimentary' service, and also actually only one genuine 'Free Pornography' website. Key words searches take two words and locate them throughout the record. If I stated, 'I can see out over the airplane's wing as well as on the best side I see a bird,' according to his search I am a pinko commie liberal bastard. A far better instance of keyword searches: I put the words ultra left and extreme rights right into the searches. Right wing offers me info on cults. Left wing provides me information on flying. Take into consideration Waco, and Montana cults and militias. That was front web page news each day, and also I do not appear to understand of any kind of left wing cults. Probably due to the fact that utilizing a true Democrat a left wing cult can not exist unless it takes place to be a different country. (See Aaron Burr) The reality that Levite did not actually inspect to see what ever before the posts get on, or he just overlooked to discuss what they were about. If he did not mention them, might it be because it might injure his argument so he left that subject out? If he did not even check the write-ups, why? Does he have an actual life? Or do his statistics prove what he wishes to say so he determines why go any further?

I also question just how he decided upon what terms were thought about offending to every event. Some terms considered to define the right wing include every little thing from white supremacist abundant capitalist to Nazi. Most of the psychotically harmful extreme right people I understand miss the broach 'ultra liberal' and also 'liberal attack,' and go straight to 'you pinko commie bastard' or the ever before prominent and multi-useful disparaging comment, 'fag.' As other essay's talked about in class columnist can use the terminology more often than others, but there is still the very same amount of columns biased on both sides. This is likewise effected by various other elements, such as editors that value comic strips more than writer etc

. The approaches used by Levite are not adequate evidence of the claim he does so well to say in the first paragraph. He uses data that is based on the real amount of press reporters as well as editors that are liberal and traditional from the Los Angeles Times, and also The Media Elite. If he would certainly have utilized more data like the ones he used in the very first paragraph then there would certainly be no chance to actually say his whole essay. The first paragraph of the essay goes to verify his point magnificently. Damn pity the various other 3 pages are completely ineffective because of the data he uses. (unless you lack toilet tissue) Rather perhaps Levite's information could be reviewed by a left wing sustaining reporter and reversed in his face with a check into the real posts Levite makes use of in his search.

If you intend to show how something, such as the media, is prejudiced, the individual conducting the research must not be biased in the first place. Biased researchers tend to search for data that supports their initial prejudices rather than seeking the whole truth and may ignore information that contradicts them. My suggestion is to involve someone who dislikes both sides and will hence maintain objectivity.

Did you like this example?

269

11