- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Walter Cronkite used to end his newscasts with “And that’s the way it is.” Does anyone believe media is giving us an unvarnished presentation of facts today?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #248 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.
Years ago, when I was in graduate school at the University of Cincinnati, studying for a doctorate in political science, I selected as my doctoral dissertation topic the local Hamilton County “Home Rule” initiative. This meant I not only could research the topic, I could also survey local residents for the public’s view, and then conduct personal interviews with leaders, pro and con, all of which I did. It was a great learning experience and thankfully I was able to write the dissertation, defend it, and get the doctorate.
During my research, I attended a few public events about Home Rule covered by local media. Then I went home and watched the coverage on television. This is where it hit me. For the first time I realized how the position and angles of cameras, the words used by reporters, and the arguments offered by proponents and opponents could, and in fact did, greatly influence if not skew what the public saw, heard, and understood about the event.
For example, I was shocked to watch one media report that used a camera angle that made it seem like only 4-5 people attended, when I had been there and witnessed a few dozen people.
I quickly learned that reporters could easily bias, which is to say misrepresent, reality by the questions they chose to ask participants and the words they selected for their report. Changing a noun or verb, adding an adjective or adverb could change the entire message. It’s what Mark Twain once said, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter — ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”
Of course, none of this was new to the political leaders on either side, so they had ways and means of responding to slanted coverage, but it was certainly new to me. I went into the office of one well-known county official who opposed the Home Rule initiative and he had his female assistant sit near me taking notes on the interview, and he made a show at the beginning of pulling a small tape recorder from his desk, turning it on, and laying it on the desk in front of me – a not so subtle signal to me that I had better not misquote him, even in a university dissertation.
This was in the early 80s before internet and social media, so at that time TV and, radio, and something we called newspapers reigned supreme. You got your current events news from these sources or not at all. Unlike today, there was no YouTube, no legion of so-called “influencers” or online independent journalists, just what today we call legacy media. So, at that time, it was more challenging to glean different perspectives and points of view.
Today we can get current events, à la “the news,” from myriad sources, legacy media, streaming, and online. But intentional bias still occurs, or if intentional bias sounds too harsh, call it selective sharing. This happens when a program or presenter deliberately shares what we now call “misinformation” or “disinformation.” In other words:
- they are not presenting what they say in court when a witness is sworn in with the oath, “Do you swear to tell the truth,” or
- the presenter shares only a selected part of what happened, what they say in court, “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,” or
- the presenter adds to the narrative, i.e., makes up or fabricates matters that did not happen, or as they say in court, “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”
“One of the unavoidable parts of being human is bias. No matter how hard we try, we will always see the world in a subjective manner, colored by our experiences and opinions…Though many journalists try to just ‘present the facts,’ even what facts they choose to present is an indication of bias…This can become a major problem, though, when we ignore facts that are inconvenient to our worldview. Sometimes, even before all of the facts come out about a specific incident, we rush to our own conclusions.”
This kind of “reporting” happens every day. And this is not just a liberal or progressive, that is leftist, problem. Assuredly, people on the left do this every day, but sadly, it’s also a problem on the right.
An then as viewers, we select what we view according to our point of view, wanting to reinforce what we think. Audiences actively seek out news that confirms their pre-existing beliefs to avoid cognitive dissonance, driven by both psychological comfort and political identity protection. The trend of choosing ideologically aligned media has resulted in fragmented audiences, where different ends of the political spectrum only watch their favorite and trusted channel, thus consuming entirely different, often conflicting, sets of information.
Meanwhile, journalistic sources can and regularly do present the world with a certain bias. Journalists or media outlets may choose to highlight specific stories while ignoring others, creating a “curated reality” that fits a particular narrative or audience expectation. Media want to “preach to the choir.” And if they are ideologically biased, they want to report in a manner that reinforces what’s come to be called the “prevailing acceptable narrative.”
In the 2016 US election, some outlets, e.g., The Washington Post, strongly amplified claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, including widespread references to controversial sources like the Steele dossier. The resulting narrative persisted in many newsrooms even after the Mueller Report found no conclusive evidence of collusion.
This certainly happened during COVID when the Administration at that time, Big Media, and social media colluded to suppress so-called “disinformation” about the pandemic, possible curing medicines like ivermectin, and the efficacy of masks, six-foot rule, and vaccines. Repeated headlines about “overwhelmed hospitals” and alarming projections — were later criticized by analysts for not sufficiently contextualizing regional case variation or data showing fewer extreme outcomes in many areas. This also occurred regarding the debate about keeping children out of public schools for so long.
Big Media have presented markedly different presentations or interpretations re immigrants, deportation, the social unrest in Minneapolis, the sad development of two shooting deaths of civilian protestors at the hands of law enforcement, and public officials’ comments.
Media across the political spectrum often use different frames that influence perceptions of immigration, e.g., criminal threat vs. humanitarian human-interest stories. This can shape public opinion by emphasizing selective aspects of a complex issue. Some outlets frequently use dehumanizing language and criminal imagery, e.g., “gangs,” “invasion,” reinforcing threat-based narratives rather than balanced policy discussion. Officials in the Trump Administration got into difficulty when some used the over-zealous term, “domestic terrorism.”
There is also selective storytelling, e.g., reporting on deportation cases while omitting full criminal histories or legal complexities, which affects how policies and law enforcement actions are perceived. For example, several media sources refuse to use the legally recognized term “illegal alien” and instead say undocumented or asylum seeker or border crosser or unauthorized migrant or new arrival, or more recently, our neighbors.
Perhaps any of these terms could be defensible, but none change the law, whether an individual is here legally, and whether he or she has a criminal record in their own country. Assuredly, there is a moral and best way to enforce the law, and law enforcement must also be held accountable to the law but calling for no law enforcement at all and for criminal migrants to be ignored invites not simply lawlessness but chaos, something a free society cannot endure.
It’s difficult to discern when what we are given is biased out of the gate. Best advice is:
- Don’t outsource your thinking to any single outlet.
- Get your news from multiple and intentionally different kinds of sources – flip between Fox and CNN, add the BBC, then seek additional sources online.
- Distinguish news reporting from analysis and opinion.
- Compare left vs. right headlines for the same immigration event.
- Separate facts, interpretation, and moral judgment.
- Watch for what’s missing, not just what’s said.
- Don’t rush to judgment on any new development – for example, wait for the investigations of the recent protestor shootings.
Finally, 8) learn to discern.
Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best.
If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.
And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026
*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Have you wondered how in the world The Walt Disney Company, with its unsurpassed reputation for outstanding family entertainment, could come to believe its mission is to lead children to question their gender identity? Or how Disney determined that radically politicizing its image is somehow good for its “most admired company” bottom line?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #34 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.
Founded in 1923, the Walt Disney Company is an American institution. Children and adults alike worldwide have enjoyed its entertainment products from cartoons to long-running favorite TV programs to feature films creating some of the most notable film characters in history.
Disney was a family company, launched and operated by brothers Walt and Roy, and developing experiences for family enjoyment on film and in their famous parks, copied but never really equaled.
Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Goofy, Cinderella, Winnie the Pooh, Tigger, and Eyore, Pluto, and many more. The Mickey Mouse Club, Davy Crockett, Swiss Family Robinson, Old Yeller, Mary Poppins, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast. The list of shows and movies and beloved characters are a playback of our lives for the past century.
For the most part, what these productions had in common was their family-friendly content. If not always wholesome, certainly for the major part Disney programming was uplifting, morally suitable, patriotic, respectful, and classic Americana at its best.
But in recent days Disney has taken a hard left turn. What was once trusted family fare is now immorality masquerading as human rights.
For months, Disney incurred “a negative backlash for its choosing to enter the political fray of the Florida parental rights law…(and) Disney elected to spot-weld a same-sex kissing scene into “Lightyear” following the conflict in Florida, during the release.”
This didn’t just happen. It was not a mistake. Disney knew exactly what it was doing. The company followed the entertainment industry in which commercials now regularly feature same-sex couples in intimate arrangements, television programs and films portraying LGBTQ+ sexual relationships, and even comic books presenting characters whose sexuality is a topic in their stories.
Most of this entertainment media promotion of LGBTQ+ relationships is focused upon adults, but what makes Disney’s new emphasis especially egregious is its focus upon children.
Disney “executives recruited the company’s most intersectional employees, including (and these are their words) a “black, queer, and trans person,’ a ‘bi-romantic asexual,’ and ‘the mother of one transgender child and one pansexual child’ and announced ambitious new initiatives—seeking to change everything from gender pronouns at the company’s theme parks to the sexual orientation of background characters in the company’s films.”
“Executive producer Latoya Raveneau laid out Disney’s ideology in blunt terms. She said her team was implementing a ‘not-at-all-secret gay agenda’ and regularly “adding queerness’ to children’s programming.” Another speaker indicated Disney has created a “tracker” to ensure enough trans, asexual, and bisexual characters are created.
“Corporate president Karey Burke said she supported having ‘many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories’ and reaffirmed the company’s pledge to make at least 50 percent of its onscreen characters sexual and racial minorities.” (City Journal).
The latest illustration of this company vision is “a scene from ‘Baymax!’ a Walt Disney Animation Studios production…raising eyebrows for normalizing the radical notion that men can have periods.
As noted earlier, the animated film “Lightyear” features a kiss between a same-sex couple. “At least 14 Middle Eastern and Asian nations have refused to release the film, while China has not yet said whether it will allow the movie unless the kissing scene is cut, which so far producers have refused to do.”
“What’s more, Tim Allen was replaced as the voice of Buzz by Chris Evans, who called those objecting to the smooching scene ‘idiots.’”
Meanwhile, “The Walt Disney Co. is the worst-performing stock in the Dow Jones Industrial Average for the past year. The stock plummeted 31 percent in the last 12 months. Disney has seen its stock drop the most on a percentage basis compared to the other 30 companies that comprise the Dow.”
Disney used to be a place of innocent fun, aspiration, a place where you could wish upon a star and lose yourself in a dreamworld of color and imagination. But no more.
Parents are interested in a safe place for their children, so much so we’ve coined the phrase “safetyism” to indicate just how far young parents are willing to go to isolate their children from any conceivable threat. But Disney is attuned to this trend only insofar as it fits their new woke prime directive.
“Somewhere along the line Disney executives decided family values weren’t cool anymore. While they’ve been slowly purging those trusted values, we’ve grasped at anything good there was left to hold onto. But there is little to hold on to when Disney executives are no longer just purging family values, but aggressively attacking them altogether…They have been ill-advised, bullied, and intimidated into believing abandoning their core mission and alienating their consumer base is the “cool” thing to do.”
Disney’s eagerness to embrace identity politics and to virtue signal its views with moral superiority are writ large. It seems Disney executives believe they know better than parents or the public what’s best for children.
Disney leaders even admit they are trying to groom children. They have yielded to pressure from LGBTQ activists arguing that discussing detailed sexuality with children 5 to 9 years old is somehow a human rights issue.
And what Disney leaders want, like so many in media, is the accolades of their peers, most of whom have long since demonstrated they live by an areligious, amoral, “Do what’s right in your own eyes” worldview.
Disney’s Magical Pride Days and LGBTQ Pride March are other examples of the company’s wholesale embrace of LGBTQ orthodoxy.
“Disney World and Disneyland have decided to ban the use of "gender greetings" within their parks — so the terms "boys and girls" and "ladies and gentlemen" will no longer be uttered by employees on Disney grounds.”
The company suggests that it must thread a needle of extreme political polarization of its staff and its customers. But this is only because it has bought into the idea it must speak on all matters of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” and that all sexual identity matters are civil rights issues. But once a company takes this fork in the road, it is no longer able to please everyone or anyone. Disney would be better off if it adopted the non-political stance most corporations and business tycoons historically observed, including Walt Disney himself.
Disney should “learn from the sports industry and realize American consumers don’t want agendasshoved down their throats, they just want to enjoy a good game and have fun at a park.”
Disney is the highest profile casualty so far in the worldview civil war. The company’s actions and continuing defensiveness aligns it with those who promote a worldview thoroughly at odds with the Judeo-Christian values upon which America was founded and flourished.
Disney is no longer a safe place for your children. It proselytizes for a set of values that are more about a kind of religious fervor for the sexual revolution than politics or civil rights.
In the end, though, it may be good to remind us all that Disney, like politics in general, is downstream of culture. What Disney is becoming, American culture already is.
So, while boycotting Disney films or parks may be a defensible, even a good or wise option for some, this action won’t fix the problem. What we really require is revival in American culture.
Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com.
And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2022
*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.
Biased News
Expired- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Is there any other kind of news? All news sources are biased, in some way, even if unintentionally, but many today are intentional.
So, the only way around this is to read multiple sources. And I say "read" because reading is better than watching or listening. The depth available in a print source, even digital, is often better than the rush-to-judgment infotainment on broadcasts. Plus, in print you can avoid commercials and self-promoting celebrity anchors.
I take umbrage immediately w/pieces alleging news bias is "Conservative" or "Liberal," i.e., the other bad guys. Baloney. They all do it. You don’t detect bias in the news sources with which you agree because bias is in the eye of the beholder. To hear ideologues and partisans talk, you’d think “their side” was always right, never got anything wrong, always supported the best leaders, yada yada. But, of course, this is simply not so.
Tapping into international sources once in a while is helpful, even if you don't like what they might say, because they see us/US from a different angle. This doesn’t mean these international news sources are not biased, just that they’re biased in a different way so you hear a different take and perspective, which in my book is good for thinking.
Gone are the days of Huntley-Brinkley, and gone is Walter Cronkite. But they weren’t unbiased either. So check multiple sources if you really want to gain as much perspective as you can on the breaking “news” of the day.
Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2018
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.
Carnival Cruise Catastrophes
Expired- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Media coverage of Carnival Cruise Line’s cruise ship problems has been extensive.
This week, it’s Carnival Legend, which developed sailing speed technical problems. Within the last month, it was Carnival Dream with lost power and stopped toilets and Carnival Elation with steering system breakdowns. Worse, Carnival Triumph, a 4-turned-8-day cruise in the Gulf of Mexico, garnered wall-to-wall coverage as 4200 passengers were slowly tugged and towed to Alabama. They reputedly endured stopped toilets, sewage on floors and walls, low-to-no-to-bad food, stuffy stinky staterooms, and a lot more. But they came ashore alive and relatively well.
Far worse, January 13, 2012, Costa Concordia ran aground at Isla dl Giglio, Tuscany, Italy with 3,206 passengers and 1,023 crew aboard. Some 32 people died, 2 are still missing and presumed dead, and 64 more were injured. Costa Concordia is owned by Costa Cruise, which is in turn controlled by, you guessed it, Carnival Corporation.
Certainly the Costa Concordia disaster was a catastrophe in the sense that people lost their lives and others were hurt. What’s most disturbing about this episode is that it all seems, even now after months of investigation, so unnecessary. In my estimation, Captain Francesco Schettino is guilty of criminal negligence, dereliction of duty, and an assortment of other crimes rooted in his incredibly unprofessional and inept leadership, or I should say the lack thereof. His actions and inactions contributed to if not caused the grounding. On top of that, he abandoned his ship. He and other top crew members are facing indictments, trials, and possible prison terms.
Aside, though, from the clearly tragic Costa Concordia incident, the rest of Carnival Cruise’s problems should be characterized more as corporate managerial challenges than as bona fide catastrophes. Yet media dutifully portray each cruise ship incident as unbearable pain for the passengers.
With due respect to the older folks caught in these ship snafus and with due concern for children who might have been scared, Carnival’s cruse ship problems are not that significant. Certainly not the end-of-the-world scenarios played out in media. People were discomforted and annoyed, but they still had something to eat, were not in life-threatening situations, and were soon headed home.
Put these cruise “catastrophes” alongside a host of other more dangerous situations around the world and they just don’t measure up.
People are living in the midst of civil war (Syria), in refugee camps (Lebanon), under oppressive dictatorships (North Korea), and in impoverished environments (Haiti). These people are suffering. These circumstances, not cruise ships with broken generators, rank as human catastrophes worthy of media attention.
So let us continue our concern and care for the people harmed by Costa Concordia, and let us keep the rest of the incidents in perspective.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2013
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
In December, we launched the “Making a Difference with Rex Rogers” video column. It’s been fun to say the least, and we’re learning. You can view one of these video columns in an inset on the right side of this website.
First allow me to salute some friends. The idea for the video column initially came from Publisher David Vanderveen. His vision for what can be done in online Christian media today is the prime directive behind our effort. And Dave is a man of character whose friendship I’ve enjoyed for the past couple of years.
The video column is published by Dave and Faye Vanderveen’s “West Michigan Christian News” for its E-Edition and website and eventually for their Christianenews.com and MissionsInMedia.com websites. Bob and Debra Foster of BoDe Productions produce the videos. Faye, Bob, and Debra have become new friends whose desire to honor the Lord is evident in everything they do.
As I said, we’ve learned a few things. For example, I’ve worked with a teleprompter only once before. So learning to focus on the text and not lose my place, while not also looking like I’ve got tunnel vision, is a developing skill. It gets easier.
Relaxing on camera is a major consideration because it affects the appearance and ease with which a viewer can engage the topic. I’m not an actor and until now haven’t done much on camera—on radio, yes, but not on television or video. With repetition, though, you become comfortable with your surroundings, at ease with the lights, camera, and process, and your body begins to take on its normal habits—meaning you begin to move naturally when you speak rather than looking like a robot. It gets easier.
Props are important. At our first shoot of several columns, I switched out sport coats, shirts, and vests. OK, but we’re going to go with sport coats for a while. And in the inaugural shoot we used a green, well, really green, curtain backdrop. It’s a goner. For the second shoot we switched to a black curtain backdrop, pulled back the camera to reveal more table, lowered it so I didn’t look up so much, and stayed with a white shirt. It gets easier, and we plan, more creative.
Ideas and writing are what motivate me. But for content to make a contribution or an impact it must be shared. Publishing print is one way, posting is a new way, videoing is a newer way. It’s all fun…and it gets easier.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2012
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers