Though it's undeniable that there is a huge liberal bias in the media, I do not believe that most reporters are purposely biased. They simply never question the foundations of their own worldview, and everything that they think and report springs from that unquestioned worldview. They think that they're being objective, because they don't realize the color of the glasses they are wearing.

The reason I mention this is because I saw a story reported in our two South Florida newspapers today that demonstrates this beautifully.

A headline in today's South Florida Sun-Sentinel reads: "Phone bills to soar as Legislature approves huge rate hikes" Well goodness. That's terrible. Why would the state government go and gouge us like that? They didn't just go and approve a rate hike, they approved a "huge" one! The text of the story was even more ominous. It began:

Florida telephone customers should prepare to open their wallets.

Legislators on Thursday gave final approval to the biggest local phone rate increase in the state's history and sent the measure to Gov. Jeb Bush, who's expected to sign it.

The story goes on to say that the Florida House approved the measure 90-20, and the Senate approved the plan 27-12. "My heavens," I thought, "why would these guys vote so overwhelmingly to raise my phone rates?!?!?"

Then I remembered that I am generally skeptical of the media, particularly here in South Florida. "Maybe there's more to the story," I thought. "Come to think of it, I don't think that the state even has the power to raise my base phone rates. That's the business of the phone company." The state can add taxes, but the story was indicating that this was not a matter of taxation.

So I turned to the Miami Herald to see if I could get some further info. Their headline was: "A higher calling: Phone rate hike passes." The lead (or "lede," to be journalistically correct), read:

Get ready for sticker shock.

The phone bill passed by the Florida Legislature on Thursday could more than double basic local phone rates in about four years if state regulators approve every increase requested by the state's major local phone companies, such as BellSouth, Verizon and Sprint.

The story went on to note:

The bill won overwhelming bipartisan support in the House, with a 93-20 vote Thursday. A day earlier, it had cleared the Senate with a 27-12 vote.

Gov. Jeb Bush said after the House vote that he would happily sign the bill.

Now I was outraged. Not only are my elected representatives going to raise my rates, they are apparently going to do it happily! The scoundrels!

But I was still having trouble understanding how the state could raise my phone rates. There's nothing here about a tax--they're telling me that the state is going to double my rates.

In search of more information, I went to the Tallahassee Democrat, since Tallahassee is the state capitol of Florida, to see if they could give me more insight. Their story helped clear up a lot of the confusion for me. The headline read: "Deregulation bill heads to Bush's desk."

Wait a minute--deregulation? That's not the government doing something; that's the government stopping something they were doing. This sounds different from what my local papers were telling me. The Democrat's lede also told a different story than my local paper:

An industry-backed bill that opponents say will create the biggest telephone rate hikes in state history is on its way to Gov. Jeb Bush, following its passage Thursday in the House.

SB 654 will deregulate local telephone service; a move proponents say will increase competition and keep prices low.

Wait a second. "Opponents say"? "Proponents say"? You mean, there are actually two sides to this story? The South Florida papers had led me to believe that it was a matter of fact that the state government had instituted a telephone rate hike. This story says that opponents merely claim that the states deregulation of the industry will lead to higher rates. There's more. The story quotes Stan Mayfield, who sponsored the legislation in the house:

"The best regulator for this industry is going to be competition," said Rep. Stan Mayfield, R-Vero Beach, who sponsored the House version (HB 1903).

Mayfield, in answer to opponents' claims, said the bill "does not contain any mandatory language that contains rate increases," "does not lower service quality standards," "does not provide for a 20-percent increase in rates."

Neither South Florida paper even mentioned Mayfield, let alone quoted him.

Now I'm no more interested than you are in the intricacies of telecommunications law. But I am interested in getting the straight story from my local media outlets. Both local newspapers here hysterically informed me this morning, without equivocation, that the state government was raising my phone rates. The fact of the matter is, however, that the state government has done no such thing. They've simply voted to allow the phone companies more freedom to set their own rates. In other words, they voted to let market forces to increase and government to decrease in the issue of telephone rates. But the average journalist's worldview is so strongly calibrated to see government regulations as good and free market forces as bad that it never even occurs to him that such a measure could eventually have the effect of lowering phone rates and improving service. To them, it's simply axiomatic that the government is good and business is bad.

If you even for a moment doubt media bias and the influence one's worldview can have on the perception of "facts," I would strongly urge you to read the first two stories and then contrast them with the third. Just try to find the words "deregulate," "regulate," or anything that gives even a hint of the fact that the legislators voted to do less of something rather than more of something.