I WISH THE MEDIA WERE LIBERAL
If you live in Santa Barbara, it would be hard to ignore Barack Obama's recent trip to our quaint little town. In fact -- thanks to Opra -- pretty much the whole world knew about the engagement. By some accounts, upwards of five thousand people showed up to his rally at Santa Barbara City College and cemented his place as a local political rock star. Why, many ask, is this man so popular? Is it his youth, his energy, his message of hope, his sense of humor, his commitment to change, or something entirely different? My answer would be all of the above. But it's one recent Obama statement in particular on which I would like to focus ... the audacity of not wearing an American flag lapel pin. Let's come back to that.
I've made no secret of the fact that I think the media leans right. To the majority of Americans, that's crazy talk: we all know the media is liberal, no? And why do we "know" that? Because it's what we've been told over and over and over again by the Republican Noise Machine until it's permanently burned into our brains. The end result of this extremely effective campaign is that the media is now hyper-paranoid of being perceived as leaning left and, thus, goes out of its way to treat conservatives with kid gloves. And the converse of this phenomena is that those same gloves are completely removed when it comes to progressives.
This brings us back to Barack Obama. In a recent interview, it was pointed out that he was no longer wearing an American flag lapel pin. His response was the following:
... I probably haven't worn a flag pin in a very long time. After a while I noticed people wearing a lapel pin and not acting very patriotic ... My attitude is that I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart. You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and ideals. That's what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals.
Hmmm, seems like a reasonable statement, right? Well, if the media was truly "fair and balanced," it would have been treated as such. But that's not what happened. Instead, the right jumped all over it and accused Obama of being unpatriotic. The media in turn did what they always do with Democratic presidential candidates ... the issue was exploded out of proportion and the media fed the myth. Let's give some other examples of this journalistic pattern:
1) A small group of conservatives with ties to Bush started a since debunked rumor that John Kerry was a coward and didn't really deserve his purple heart and other medals. You may remember this referred to as "swiftboating." Did the media come to his defense and tell the truth about what happened in Vietnam? No, they perpetuated the myth, and Kerry lost. But hey, they did manage to scare up some outrage at the "general betray us" ad.
2) Howard Dean, in a moment of excitement, had the nerve to scream at a rally. Did the media explain the real story about how loud it was, about his desire to pump up his supporters, and about the fact that you couldn't hear the crowd on TV? No, they played the clip over and over, perpetuating the myth that he was a crazy man. Diane Sawyer had the guts to explain how unfair that was. Funny how her comments weren't played endlessly.
3) The right loves to repeat the lie that Al Gore took credit for "inventing the Internet." First, he never said that. Second, he did actually have a big hand in the evolution of the Internet. Did the liberal media rally behind the truth for Al Gore. No, once again, they repeated the lie. And speaking of the recent Nobel Prize winner, I think Bob Herbert summed up the 2000 election pretty well in Saturday's column:
Mr. Gore was taken to task for his taste in clothing and for such grievous offenses as sighing or, allegedly, rolling his eyes. It was a given that at a barbecue everyone would rush to be with his opponent.
4) John Edwards received an expensive haircut. See any articles about Romney's grooming habits lately?
So, let me be clear. My point here isn't to say that the media is in cahoots with conservatives. No, what I'm trying to argue is that the media -- in its fervor to be seen as centered -- will let these rumors, myths, and lies about Democrats take hold but won't apply the same level of scrutiny to the actions of Republicans. And that, my friends, is leaning to the right.
As Bill Maher so eloquently states in the above clip, the media (and the public) continuously say how desperate they are for presidential candidates who are bold and speak from the heart. But the cruel joke is that they've set up an environment where you have to be a spineless, say nothing, wooden robot in order to get elected as a Democrat. If your last name is Bush, however, you can say and do whatever you want ... and the liberal media is happy to oblige. As Paul Krugman once joked regarding this topic:
If Bush said tomorrow that the Earth is flat, the headlines the next day would read "Shape of the World: Opinions Differ"
Labels: barack obama, liberal media, media bias
posted by Trekking Left @ 5:12 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
Good luck to Obama. I have noticed that the further this country strays from its ideals, the more flags I see. Nazi Germany experienced a similar phenomena. Good on Obama for not playing the sick conformist game, as do all the rest.
It could be you are just angry they are not in lockstep with you..I dont think the media is that conservative inept at times yes but not all that biased either way. You can find dozens of examples for either point and the extremists of each political side usually do to say they are not getting a fair shake.
Now if you had wanted to talk about how they concentrate more on the contest and creating contreversy over small issues because the american public is viewed as unwilling to listen to real arguments over issues and instead want everything shrunk down to more than 1 minute than a logical discussion I might have agreed with you.
Of course the true progressives and conservatives would hate it if people actually paid attention because most of their positions wont stand up to scrutiny, and the funding required would never be tolerated.
Hey, anon 10:25 pm, I guess it's a good thing that the funding for the Iraq boondoggle--at $200 million a day--isn't tolerated. Of course, the causes to go into Iraq stood up to scrutiny, thanks to the fine job of the media.
Edgar said "I have noticed that the further this country strays from its ideals, the more flags I see."
Yes, exactly.
Anonymous said "It could be you are just angry they are not in lockstep with you..I don't think the media is that conservative inept at times yes but not all that biased either way. You can find dozens of examples for either point and the extremists of each political side usually do to say they are not getting a fair shake."
I think your comment here (as well as your others) are fair and thoughtful. However, I believe the facts are there to prove my point. Here are some more examples I didn't use in my post:
1) In the 2000 election, there were more anti-Gore stories than anti-Bush stories in the MSM (read Al Franken's book for the research criteria).
2) The public still believes there's a 50/50 debate on global warming even though there is no debate in the scientific community. This is because the media can always find one "scientist" to take the other side. Then they say, "Some people believe it and some don't. You decide." If they said 99% of scientists believe it's real, they would be labelled as left leaning, so they don't.
3) 70% of Americans thought that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. This is because the right kept repeating the lie over and over. And the MSM didn't set the record straight for fear of being unpatriotic.
4) There were plenty of qualified people to say there were no WMD's in Iraq. But the media, afraid of Bush, didn't do its job of informing the public.
I think you're correct that the media is interested in "the contest and creating controversy" ... But that doesn't conflict with my argument that the media is afraid of being perceived as left leaning.
You think that ignoring what you wrote and falsely accusing you of being "just angry they are not in lockstep with you" is fair and thoughtful? You think that "Of course the true progressives and conservatives would hate it if people actually paid attention because most of their positions wont stand up to scrutiny" is fair and thoughtful? Really?
P.S. Rudy Giuliani is the only candidate who wears a flag pin, other than Sen. Clinton who says she dons a pin "from time to time".
jqb - Okay, I admit that the "lockstep with you" comment wasn't appreciated.
But I think you would have to admit that some fair statements were made. For example, it is quite true of the media that "they concentrate more on the contest and creating contreversy over small issues because the american public is viewed as unwilling to listen to real arguments over issues and instead want everything shrunk down to more than 1 minute..." And this person did take shots at the left and right equally.
I do see your point, though ... I think my positions would stand up to scrutiny, and I'm certainly not afraid of people paying attention to them.
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: “Is this attack [on public broadcasting’s budget] going to make NPR a little less liberal?”
NPR legal correspondent Nina Totenberg: “I don’t think we’re liberal to begin with and I think if you would listen, Evan, you would know that.”
Thomas: “I do listen to you and you’re not that liberal, but you’re a little bit liberal.”
Totenberg: “No, I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s a fair criticism, I really don’t — any more than, any more than you would say that Newsweek is liberal.”
Thomas: “I think Newsweek is a little liberal.”
— Exchange on the June 26, 2005 Inside Washington.
“Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
— New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”
“I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I’m consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful.”
— CBS’s 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg’s book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN’s Larry King Live, June 5, 2002.
McConfrontation - Yes, Andy Rooney has a liberal bias, but his segments are OPINION pieces. And I would also agree that the New York Times has a liberal bias in their EDITORIAL sections ... just as the Wall Street Journal has a conservative bias in their editorial section.
The debate is about a liberal/conservative bias in the news reporting. I believe it was the "liberal" New York Times that actually apologized for giving the Bush administration a pass during the run-up to the Iraq war and not asking the tough questions about WMD's and links to al Qaeda. This is the problem I'm talking about.
From Wikipedia ==> "Judith Miller (born January 2, 1948), is an American journalist. Miller, based in Washington D.C., was a prominent New York Times reporter with access to top U.S. government officials. Her coverage of these officials, especially regarding the Bush administration’s conclusions about Iraq’s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Program and her involvement in the Plame Affair, made her a conspicuous media personality..."
To take TL's ideas one step further, it's not what people say about this issue that matters. It's what they do in their writing and as parts of institutions. Indeed, most reporters are social liberals, but just because they are that in their non-work lives it doesn't automatically mean they can't write a non-biased story.
After all, if the best you can do is say that Andy Rooney's toothless ramblings are evidence of liberal bias I think our side can rest without calling a witness.
Yes, that was the best I could do with two minutes to spend on a comment. One google search, millions of hits, and three quotes on the first link I tried.
Whether or not reporters have personal biases on social, environmental and political issues -- and would let it show in their reporting -- is really irrelevant if they're reporting for a large corporation. Corporations have exactly one agenda: profit. And if you think the people in charge at any major news outlet will let anything be reported that could potentially upset their continued power and profits, you're crazy.
Every other issue -- ridiculous, maufactured contreversy over flag pins, as well as black & white arguments over abortion, gays, guns, shark attacks, even "red vs. blue states" -- is used to distract, scare and divide us, to keep the many from coming together and threatening the power and control of the few. Ever wondered why Fox is so sanctimoniously conservative on their news channels while airing the most salacious and exploitative shows possible on primetime? They don't have a social or moral agenda, they've just figured out what sells ads.
Politically, maintaining power & profit usually means supporting republicans, but have you noticed the MSM has started seriously warming up to Hillary lately? They must have realized there's no viable presidential candidate on the republican side, so they're gonna get behind the most corporate-friendly of the dems.
Yes I read something yesterday from the NYT that said how even Drudge has run some non-negative pieces on the P-suit. It is weird! I believe it may have something to do with the fact that her handlers have toned down her shrill rhetoric a bit, and it absolutely makes her more accessible.
I believe she COULD win the nomination, especially if the msm continues to warm to her over the next year, but i really don't think she has a shot in hell at POTUS. Too many people can't stand her.
Post a Comment
<< Home