USA Today’s Rem Rieder pointed out in a column today that a recent survey noted that only 24% of people think the news media reports the news without bias. That is fully 17 points lower than just a year ago.

“It appears that the negative news stories about such high profile news media personalities as suspended NBC news anchor Brian Williams and ABC’s George Stephanopoulos have taken their toll on news media credibility among Americans,” the report says.

“It is also possible that the public is reacting negatively to media coverage of the high profile events in Ferguson and Baltimore over the past year.”

Nearly all of the clients we deal with at Bottom Line Communications firmly believe the news media is biased. Many of them not only rant about obvious political biases, but also a real bias/hatred of businesses.

My response? Yes, the news media is biased. Recognize it and deal with it the best you can.

An editor saying, “Look into ACME Company and how diverse its employee base really is,” is a signal to a reporter that the editor doesn’t believe ACME is diverse enough in its hiring. The reporter has his/her marching orders and is expected to slant the story to fill the narrative.

How do you respond? By arranging for the reporter to interview a high-ranking minority employee armed with facts and figures showing the company’s commitment to diversity.

A classic example of media bias was the Kansas City Star’s coverage of a speech by Chelsea Clinton at the University of Missouri-Kansas City campus in 2014. The event was the launch a women’s Hall of Fame and the McClatchy-owned newspaper sent Mara Rose Williams, to cover it.

To no one’s surprise (the Star will undoubtedly be endorsing Hillary Clinton for President) Williams wrote a puff-piece on the event (Link) that was very similar to press materials handed to her (by a former KC Star reporter who is now the spokesman for the university).

It should be noted, the Clinton team had final approval of all media materials.

All was well and good until the Washington Post did a follow-up story on the event. It showed that the Clinton team demanded complete control of the event, even going so far as “final approval” of which media outlets were authorized to cover the speech.

In other words, in an embarrassing revelation that should send chills throughout the journalistic community, the Star’s Williams was only allowed to cover the event because she was given permission by the Clintons.

Only in the Post story did readers learn that Hillary Clinton was asked to speak at the women’s event, but her fee was an astounding $275,00! The college then decided on Chelsea Clinton, whose fee was $65,000 (plus expenses).

The Post acquired more than 500 documents pertaining to the event and they provided these insights:

* Chelsea Clinton would only speak for 10 minutes with a 20-minute moderated discussion (by an approved moderator) as part of a five-page contract of demands.

* The college would lose money on the event, but ”University officials say the event was intended to boost attention for the new hall of fame, not raise money.”

* According to the Post, “The contract stipulated that Clinton would have final approval of everything, such as the selection of her introducer (celebrities, journalists and elected officials were prohibited from consideration), the onstage setup (there must be “room-temperature water” next to her podium along with “two comfortable armed-and-backed chairs” for the question-and-answer session) and the type of microphone provided for her use (both lavaliere and handheld).”

After the Washington Post’s story broke the Kansas City Star responded in a column by Mary Sanchez, who attended the event. She ignored the damning details of the story (such as media pre-approval), but instead said the event was “pricey,” but ”was paid by private donors and supported a worthwhile cause not tied to politics.”

Her column omitted many of the key facts of the Post story. In fact, she wrote the Post story was simply “political” and made it seem unfair.

“It’s unfortunate that the goals of the Starr Women’s Hall of Fame got roped in as an offshoot to the political coverage,” said Sanchez.