What We Need is More Media Bias?

Donald Sensing has a good take on media bias, arguing in favor of more, not less. It's not what you might think at first, though. Sensing quotes from a study by two academics, Bruno Frey of the University of Zurich and Dominic Rohner of Cambridge University,

"who studied terrorist activity from 1998 and 2005 and concluded, 'Both the media and terrorists benefit from terrorist incidents.” Terrorists gain publicity for themselves and their cause, while the media make money from greater sales and 'buzz.'”

Sensing lays out four scenarios that are likely to play out over time in the War on Terror, ranging from the U.S. suceeding in stoking political reform in the Middle East to the victory of the terrorists, which includes the destruction of Israel and the death of countless Americans (and two choices in between). Sensing then takes on the media directly:

"It is not possible to pretend neutrality here, for the power of the media to frame the public’s debate is too great to claim you are merely being 'fair and balanced.' There literally is no neutral ground here, no 'God’s eye view' of events, and hence no possibility of not taking sides. One way or another, what you print or broadcast, what stories you cover and how you cover them, what attention you pay to what issues and how you describe them - all these things mean that you will support one outcome over another. Which will you choose? How will you support it? These are the most important questions of your vocation today."