The Other Side of the Microphone
The egregious bias of the media was once again glaringly evident today on ESPN’s College GameDay.
A little background. As a producer/director, I can tell you that the Control Room personnel have considerable control over the sound levels of those being interviewed in front of a huge crowd. Interview subjects are typically covered by a directional or lavalier microphone designed to isolate their voices, while ambient microphones capture the background crowd separately. This lets the production team control the relative levels of the interview and the crowd behind it.
Rece Davis interviewed Sen. Ted Cruz this morning in front of an Austin, Texas, college crowd about the controversy surrounding the current state of college sports—eligibility, player compensation, etc. When Rece would speak, you could hardly hear the thousands of people in the background. When Ted Cruz answered, however, the crowd level was boosted, emphasizing boos from the Austin crowd. Then it would be lowered to almost nothing when Rece spoke. This happened repeatedly throughout the interview. It infuriates me when media outlets use their own political agendas to manipulate audience perception—NO MATTER WHAT OR WHO is involved. These kinds of production choices, when used deliberately to influence content, violate the audience’s trust.
ESPN, owned by Disney, has become so embedded in what I see as a biased culture that regaining public trust would require a fundamental overhaul in its approach—from writers and producers to directors and on-air talent. Who called for the audio choices this morning? The director? The producer? A lower-level audio technician? Whoever was responsible should be held accountable.
Disney’s progressive corporate culture has been debated publicly for years. Bob Iger eventually returned to lead the company after Bob Chapek’s tenure—not because Iger was conservative, but because he was seen as better equipped to manage Disney and its struggling public woke image, which was affecting the bottom line. Iger has long been associated with the Democratic Party and liberal views. Interesting that he switched his political affiliation to Independent around the time of his return.
After righting the ship, Iger leaves, and Disney’s new leadership presents an interesting dynamic. CEO Josh D’Amaro has built his reputation primarily as a businessman and appears determined to emphasize Disney as an entertainment company serving its customers, rather than positioning himself as a spokesman on national political issues. That may be exactly what Disney needs if it wants to broaden its appeal. Somewhere along the line, perhaps the powers that be realized that independents and conservatives like vacationing, too.
But—and here’s the but—Dana Walden was promoted to President and Chief Creative Officer when D’Amaro was made CEO. Dana Walden has been a prominent figure within Disney’s entertainment operation and has donated heavily to Democratic politicians and causes. She and her husband have also had a longstanding friendship with Kamala Harris and Doug Emhoff. President Joe Biden appointed Walden to the President’s Export Council in 2023. So, in my view, the apple hasn’t fallen very far from the tree. It just fell more quietly.
The larger problem goes far beyond Disney. Traditional media ethics largely embraced during the 20th century held that journalists should maintain independence and avoid currying favor with corporations, political parties, or politicians. Major cities often had newspapers representing distinctly different editorial viewpoints. Readers could hear competing arguments.
It was called balance.
Broadcasting was also once governed by far more restrictive ownership rules intended, among other things, to prevent too much control of local media from becoming concentrated in too few hands.
Again, the principle was balance.
Much of that environment is gone. The FCC no longer operates within the same regulatory framework that governed broadcasting decades ago, when broadcasters faced considerably different requirements about ownership and the use of the public airwaves.
No doubt, we all lean one way or another. But I believe a journalist or broadcaster with a dominant platform of influence has a responsibility to distinguish reporting from advocacy and to give audiences a meaningful opportunity to hear opposing perspectives on significant issues. I believe that responsibility extends beyond traditional journalists. Social-media influencers, Hollywood personalities, and others who command enormous audiences also wield tremendous influence by the very nature of their platforms.
I once held a position with that kind of responsibility. From 1980 to 1985, I had enormous influence over the topics, approaches, and subjects broadcast every weeknight at 7:30 p.m. to the TSA (Total Survey Area) serving Southern Ohio, Southeast Indiana, Northern Kentucky, and portions of the surrounding regions like western West Virginia—an area containing an available audience of approximately three million people.
I did not take that responsibility lightly.
I was mentored by one of the best: General Manager Ed Herbert. That experience is precisely why today’s media environment troubles me so deeply. When powerful media outlets blur the line between presenting information and influencing perception, it becomes dangerous. It is un-American. Combine that with the entertainment industry’s enormous cultural influence, and young people can easily grow up without meaningful exposure to genuinely different points of view. And that is all they are: different points of view. Not inherently good. Not inherently bad. Different. People should be able to hear opposing opinions and decide for themselves.
Too much of America’s media and entertainment culture now reflects one side of the political spectrum. I am equally concerned about the concentration of corporate and financial power behind those institutions. Whether the motivation is political ideology, money, influence, or simply maintaining power, the result can be the same: fewer genuinely independent voices reaching the public. That should concern Americans on both sides.
Because the ultimate question isn’t whether you agree with the message being amplified today. The question is whether you would accept the same power being used in exactly the same way by people whose politics you despise. I suspect many of my more liberal friends would not take kindly to it if the shoe were on the other foot.
And that is precisely the point.