The media is conservative. All my life I have heard people say that the media is liberal. But the media is not liberal. The media is conservative.
The first way in which the media is conservative is demonstrated in their tendency to attack any ideas that are out of the ‘mainstream’. The ‘mainstream’ is pretty much another word for the ‘way things are and have been’. The media falsely considers the way things are to be a fair reflection of how most voters wants things to be. But if a poll comes along that says the majority of Americans want the President to be thrown out of office and into jail, the media does not consider that a mainstream view. If a poll comes along that says that six in ten Americans think the President is doing an awful job, that doesn’t mean that the President isn’t a mensch. It just means that there are real left-wing whack jobs out there that don’t like the President.
The media is also conservative in the sense that they support the imperial policies of the Cold War and post-Cold War era. If someone like Hugo Chavez decides to show some independence, they have no problem calling him a ‘dictator’. It doesn’t matter to the New York Times or the Washington Post whether or not Hugo Chavez is a duly elected President of an independent nation. If Hugo Chavez wants to give a stiff-arm to American corporate interests he is a dictator. If he offers to give subsidized heating oil to people in New England and Illinois, he is a ‘crazy’ dictator. If George W. Bush decides he would like a different ruler of Venezuela, then he will be an ‘evil’ crazy dictator. The New York Times and Washington Post wouldn’t dream of disabusing the American public about the true electoral status of Hugo Chavez.
And, if the New York Times and Washington Post are conservative, (an idea that will shock conservatives), the cable news channels are very conservative. On some level this is obvious. There are no shows on cable news that are hosted by Democrats or former Democrats. Well, except for Chris Matthews, who is now an extreme right wing apologist. It’s okay to have partisan shows. But there should be partisan Democratic shows too…to make things…fair and balanced.
But it is not only the partisanly conservative nature of certain cable news that betrays their bias, but the also their limited attempts at straight reporting.
For example, when John Kerry gave a speech before the Senate yesterday calling for a filibuster of Alito, the cable news channels gave very little attention to the substance of his arguments. But they gave a huge amount of attention to the fact that John Kerry had recently been in Davos, Switzerland. John Kerry’s opinions don’t matter to the Cable News channels because John Kerry was at an international conference that happens to be held at a Ski Resort.
If Kerry’s association with the esteemed Davos Conference was not enough to make you dismiss his arguments, the Cable News channels were ready to point out that John Kerry was only making his argument to appeal to Democrats because he wants to make another run for the presidency. They did not point out, however, that Democratic senators are kind of expected to do things that appeal to Democrats. And they barely mentioned that John Kerry was actually fulfilling a promise he made to the American people during his 2004 campaign.
They also did not report on what effect John Kerry’s stand was having on the inboxes of the U.S. Senate. That was left to today’s Washington Post, which was equally dismissive…
Cable News paints a portrait of the political landscape where progressives simply do not exist. Actually, that is not quite correct. Progressives exist as an object of ridicule, but it is very seldom when one is actually seen on television.
Fox News has the most interesting policy in this regard. They are happy to invite progressives onto their programs every once in a while. But they will only invite them if they will agree to espouse some crazy philosophy. For example, if they are willing to defend the North American Man/Boy Love Association, a progressive is quite likely to get some facetime on the Bill O’Reilly show, or maybe Hannity & Colmes. However, if a progressive has a more sane and less morally reprehensible agenda (like, say, clean elections) they will never appear on FOX News.
Some people might argue that the media treats the extreme right wing the same way that they treat the extreme left wing. But they would be wrong on two counts. First, the media treats the entire left wing like they are crazy. Only the most moderate and accommodating of left-wing politicians are afforded any facetime on television (the lovable Barney Frank excepted). But the right-wing, the far right-wing, they are not only given facetime, but respectability…AND THEIR OWN SHOWS.
Let’s be clear about this. Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Bill O’Reilly, Pat Buchanan, etc., are not moderate Republicans. Tony Blankley is the editor of the Moonie-owned Washington Times. These people represent views that are far out of the mainstream of American public opinion. Their views are certainly more radical to “the way things are and the way they have been” than the views of Howard Dean, or John Kerry, or, perhaps, even Al Sharpton. And yet right-wing shills have their wisdom offered up to the American people every night.
The media is conservative. They don’t cover the fact that 13% of Americans lack medical insurance. They don’t report that most Americans want the President to be removed from office. They consider gay rights only so far as gay rights (allegedly) help explain why Democrats do so poorly in elections. They are willing to gloss over outrages like the Downing Street Memos, Jeff Gannon in the White House press room, day traders in Bill Frist and Tom DeLay’s offices, widespread torture, etc. But they are all too happy to obsess over a blowjob, or an ill-timed scream, or to give airtime to the Swift-Boat Liars, or convicted felons like G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, and Charles ‘Tex’ Colson.
The Abramoff scandal provides another example. Abramoff’s clients reduced the amount of money they directed to Democrats, but the media insists that scandal is bipartisan. The scandal is that the Democrats have been so shut out of the gravy train that they can’t find any that are implicated in the l’affair Abramofff. This is the most unipartisan scandal since Watergate. You won’t find any Democrat that was supportive of the K Street Project. Somehow, the media manages to fudge the facts and blur the clarity. And that only serves to protect Republicans and to keep them in office.
Remember Whitewater? The New York Times spent Clinton’s entire presidency hyping that bit of nothing. Remember Wen Ho Lee? Jesus! Bill Clinton and Bill Richardson were letting the Chinese steal our nuclear secrets. Or so the New York Times said. Until they had to retract it all and apologize.
The next time someone says the media is liberal, ask them to name one liberal person on television. The media is conservative. And they are in league with Satan…er…Cheney. Ask Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Andrea Mitchell, Judy Miller, etc., why they continue to cover the Plame investigation as though they are not a part of the cover-up. You want a liberal media? Read this blog.
Begging to differ in one sense:
The media is corporate.
Corporate power within the media never used to be this insidious or this blatant. You had someone like Walter Cronkite finally say what needed to be said–that we were losing in Vietnam. Then again, Cronkite is supposed to have done little to assist Edward R. Murrow when he had his troubles at CBS with “Harvest of Shame.” That’s the corporate model interfering.
I suggest for further viewing, “Why America Hates the Press,” which mapped out, in the mid-90s, exactly why we have the situation we have now, with the media, especially the Beltway Media, pandering to the powerful and the corporate model.
The media is blatantly corporate, and its reporters and editors are as much corporate employees as is a bookkeeper at Chase. I think one reason there used to be real investigative journalists is that they were part of the working class — lousy pay, no respect, not much stake in keeping things the way they are. Now “mainstream” journalists are part of the privileged class with the money, security, and “insider” power that goes along with that status. It isn’t some kind of conspiracy — it’s just the natural consequence of having the “news” dissemination in the hands of our most contented cows.
Agreed. The traditional media is corporate.
With the internet we get to bypass them however and with that in mind I ask that folks read and recommend the diary I just posted here and at DailyKos as I believe the court room challenges to the Bush Administrations domestic spying program need to get as much airtime as they can:
Motion to Dismiss: Courts already ruled against Warrentless Electronic Surveillance – pt 1
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/28/145228/004
Thank you.
Peace,
Andrew
This fits right in with the book I am currently reading, “Manufacturing Content” by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. I’m having a little trouble getting through it because its a bit dated (first published in 1988). But the underlying themes are still fascinating.
I am also trying to finish this book. I’m having a hard time finishing it because the basic pretense of the book is all too relevant and depressing.
And the media is corporate.
And the media is incompetent.
And the media is dishonest.
Once, a very long time ago (before the Civil War), we had a media that understood that a stance of neutrality is never more than a pretense–and that anyone with any guts admitted where they stood and defended their position–not just with slander and innuendo, but with real care and thought.
Thomas Paine is the name we remember, but there were many, many others. And they were effective–the number of newspapers exploded in the colonies during the Revolution. Why? Because the editors were speaking out and people wanted to hear, and to discuss.
Most of our media today is too timid to take a stand or admit to a position–even as they (not too) subtly promote certain positions.
Oh, and then there are the blowhards. Problem is, they don’t even make arguments. Oh, they argue, but they never really say anything or put forward positions established through logical thought or research. They aren’t arguing with anything remotely connected with honesty. They aren’t interested in sparking discussion but in shutting up those who disagree with them.
It’s disgusting.
Thank goodness for the blogs. What we are doing (in the larger picture) is taking back the national dialogue that once was such an important part of America.
Another book on the topic is “Tragedy & Farce” by Nichols and McChesney.
I also think that the media is primarily corporate. Reporters tend to be socially liberal, but as the importance of news diminishes on TV and in the daily press the types who went in to journalism because of a feeling of moral outrage also diminishes. So we get poorly trained people who don’t know who to find real information and take the easy way out, which these days means press releases from government and industry.
There is a change underfoot as this blog illustrates. At the turn of the 20th Century there were over 100 daily newspapers in NYC. So this is the first time in a century where so many divergent opinions are getting put forward.
Just keep at it, it’s having an effect.
I need to know what a liberal perspective is as opposed to a conservative one to make sense of your post. For example, I come from a more or less democratic anarchist perspective on most things political. In my view all institutions are to one degree or another conservative, but this is not always a bad thing. To me the ACLU is an honorable conservative organization trying to conserve the Bill of Rights, not a bad thing IMHO. The reason I support SOME Liberal/Democrats is because I generally like their ideas better then most of the Right’s stances.
Also, the Media is Pacifica and Democracy Now! and many other organizations that do not get heard as often.
without getting into the larger issue you raise…
Take, for example, the average citizen that is not very politically engaged. They may read their local paper, and that will be filled with mainly Associated Press clippings. They might watch the nightly news broadcasts on one of the major networks. And if there is a breaking or major story they may tune into one of the cable news channels.
Getting back to the local newspaper, if they seek opinion they are likely to have a sampling of George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Maureen Dowd, Robert Novak, Cal Thomas, etc.
In other words, the average citizen is simply not exposed to any progressive opinion. But they are exposed to a lot of conservative opinion.
And that is all they have to base their opinions on.
When someone turns to Democracy Now, or to the blogs that is already indicative of a level of interest. It takes more effort to surf the net looking for good political commentary than it does it to open your paper or flick on the TV.
The problem with a pervasively conservative press is that it effects the very people whose minds are not made up. It swings the swing voters.
And that is why we don’t have health care in this country and why George W. Bush is still considered a decent President by 40% of the population.
All true enough Booman. It is also why democracy is conflated with capitalism. It is true for many, many things, yet things do change and mostly (although it seems not so much now) for the better. Not to get all Polliannaish here, but could you imagine for example, 20 years ago or even 10 years ago a discussion of same-sex marriage in anything but the most esoteric forums. I couldn’t. We do move forward because of the hard and mostly thankless work of “those crazies” who make demands and keep making demands even when it seems like no one is listening.
If that were not the case, this would be on every front page:
Or, did you think that everything was under control?
Along w/ all of the info re: people unable to get their rx’s and this too:
It’s really a shame that language is such an easily manipulated vehicle.
I remember when the term “conservative” was generally used to refer to a political perspective ostensibly based on principles of moderation and restraint. A big part of the idea was that mutual respect was still possible, was still a valuable component necessary for responsible governance, and that cooperation in the pursuit of the best interests of the nation was still more important and more useful than was the asserting of partisan superiority.
All of that is gone now. As it’s used today, the label “conservative” now refers to behavior and ideology the mechanics of which are exactly opposite of what they were previously. where “conservative used to imply “moderation and equanimity”, now it connotes the most extremist views imaginable, and the most aggresive sorts of actions by which to implement those views. In short, in the same way as” an overabundance of humility” can be seen as being representative of “an expression of pridefulness”, so toothe term conservative has come to represent the worst forms of extremist behavior, exactly opposite it’s former meaning of moderation and cooperation.
In a way I think we’re doingourselves a disservice by regarding the media in terms of the “liberal/conservative” rubric. As blksista points out above, the media is corporate in nature, and for me, the defining aspect of this ever more consolidated “corporateness” of the various media empires is that these organizations serve themselves and their own interests far more than they serve the interests of the public and the interests of the coutry as a whole. For me, the bottom-line thinking that dominates all their calculus, all their decisionmaking, this is, ultimately, the p[rimary cause of their failure in their duty to serve the public interest and in doing so deserve the protections they were accorded in the constitutionto do just that.
I’m certainly not so naive as to ignore the obvious. there are a great many deliberatly extreme right-wing mouthpiece organizations within the media constellation that are bought and paid for by the wingnut propagandist foundations. And these groups and individuals have done incalculable damage to our country, to our democracy, just as similar like minded operatives did in previous eras in previous empires; Stalin’s soviet, Mao’s (so-called)Republic, Hitler’s National Socialist Germany, Pinochet’s sadistic tyranny in Chile. Wherever tyrannies are on the rise and in the midst of overthrowing democracies, such creatures as Hannity, Limbaugh, Kristol, Krauthammer are working overtime to spread their deceptions and terrorize the public with their outlandish alarms.
*But these craven hacks are not conservatives, nor are their editors and paymasters
. They themselves are zealots, extremists in every sense of the word.
Their two favorite sounds are the sounds of their own voices, and the sounds of money going into their till. They’re their own biggest fans, and this narcissistic devotion trumps all other concerns, especially any concerns that might value truth over profit or fame. Their only alleigance is to themselves and their own appetites. This is why they’re failing us.
Does Jim VandenHei make the absurd claim that “… it’s a core Democratic value to oppose conservative judges…”, because he himself is a conservative? No! He makes this idiotic statement because his ignorance has been weaponized by his own addiction to the clever sophistry of his own rhetoric;his ability to apprehend reality has been destroyed in direct proportion to the strength of his own self-adoration. and this isthe ruling dynamic in the “news/entertainment” industry.
Not all of the “bold” text above was intentional, and, of course, I did the “post instead of preview” thingy again.
As an addendum, this hereis a terrific column by my favorite editorial writer, Leonard Pitts Jr. of the Miami Herald.
Not a conservative, that’s for sure. He should be read regularly by all.
.
By Matt Frei (BBC News) Washington D.C. – 18 January, 2006
On Washington’s map of power no address is currently attracting more mirth and malice than K Street, the seat of the capital’s most lucrative and crowded profession. Forget politicians, journalists, policemen, spies or lawyers! The city’s most popular guild owes its name to the drafty entrance hall of the Willard Hotel.
‘Scandal of the decade’
As Vin Weber, a former Republican Congressman from Minnesota and now a leading lobbyist told me: “It is not unusual in our profession to make a seven-figure salary. The problem with Jack Abramoff was that he wanted to make eight figures. He was too greedy!”
“Such is the cloying nature of Washington politics that they tend to follow US leaders around the globe like a lingering odour.”
Weber also told me that this scandal – the biggest in 10 years he predicted – was one of those very rare truly bipartisan affairs. Both sides of the aisle were bought.
[Where is Howard Dean’s attack group to counter these lies, repeated on BBC World Radio in their reports during the past three days? – Oui]
≈ Cross-posted from my diary::
Democrats: AG Should Appoint Special Counsel Abramoff Case ≈
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."▼▼▼ READ MY DIARY ▼
Well said Booman, well said. A slight caveat. Media is like saying all government is bad. There are many good, hardworking reporters who make efforts. The problem lies more with the editors and in particular the publishers. They edit and set the tone, direction and content. I know of stories that were submitted and changed, sometimes subtly but it’s there. Let’s not tarnish the entire ‘media’ but rather the publishers who either through complicity or timidity have damned America to hell, lies, and injustice.
our media is a fuckin disgrace.
I live in Thailand where elements of the media are willing to fight to expose massive government corruption in spite of massive censorship even though it could mean financial ruin, jail or death. I dont see none of that back home. Fuckin disgrace.