Media should stop taking their neutrality in reporting to extremes: Wrong is simply wrong

I am all for open-mindedness. Considering other perspectives is vital to a tolerant, healthy society. Socrates, though, taught that virtues have extremes. Too much as well as too little of a virtue is a flaw. Modern society, though, abandoned the Socratic medium for open-mindedness long ago. In an attempt to express open-mindedness to its fullest, we seem to have misplaced our judgment. We have conceded our ability to claim something as good or bad. Bill Maher on his popular show, Politically Incorrect, stated that in the war on terror, America has "been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly." The terrorists, steering their plane until impact, were most definitely "not cowardly." Maher bent so far over backwards to sympathize with the terrorists and their plight that he perverted the very moral he cited. There is no virtue in what the terrorists did. What they did was unquestionably bad.

Similarly, Ted Turner recently stated that "at the very least the terrorists were brave." Turner, as the chairman of AOL and CNN, certainly has a right to espouse objectivity. Objectivity, though, does not mean sacrificing the ability to discern right from wrong.

Ted Turner, according to Reuters, shouldn't have even been using the word terrorists. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," the news agency claimed, defending their decision to not use the word "terrorist" in reference to Sept. 11. There indeed are terrorists in the world and the 19 attackers on Sept. 11 are perfect examples. Why are so many sources incapable of seeing terrorism as something universally bad? Why is there an obligation to sympathize with evil people?

The examples abound outside of the war on terrorism. In a recent interview Dan Rather was discussing Bill Clinton, saying that Clinton was "an honest man" and that "you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things." Wrong, Dan. Honest people don't lie. Clinton lied, and lying is wrong. What is so difficult about admitting that?

Some may say that it is not media's job to say what is right and wrong. Fine. The examples cited here, though, are not simply reporting the facts. If they were just reporting the facts, then Reuters would say that 19 terrorists hijacked a plane, and Dan Rather would say Bill Clinton did lie, under oath at that. In those cases, it would be intuitive for the reader that the action described was in fact morally wrong, in any moral code. But no, the media has taken it upon themselves to remind us that we are in no position to condemn an action. Who are we to say what is right and wrong? The media has taken the position of defending obviously wrong actions, making excuses for the inexcusable. This is not media objectivity. The media has scurried to the moral high ground, only to find that when they got there, there were no morals to be found.

Andrea Yates is a confessed murderer who drowned her own children. Surely, as a society, we can agree that the murder of one's own children is wrong. Nope. An August announcement from the Houston area National Organization for Women announced a coalition to raise funds and sympathy for Yates, claiming she was "driven to murder by postpartum depression." Who are we to condemn this murder? Surely we could have done the same thing. Be objective and put yourself in her shoes.

Indeed, there are things in society that are just plain bad. The increasing teen pregnancy rate, the number of children growing up missing a parent, these things are bad. People flying planes into buildings is evil and lying under oath is morally wrong. A mother killing her children is wrong. Being non-judgmental does not mean forgetting what is right and wrong. Progress in society does not come from accepting everything, but deeming that some are right and some are wrong. Right and wrong oftentimes are as simple as black and white. Let's stop looking in the gray.