Liberal bias comes to bear

JoeUser.com ^ | September 21, 2002 | Brad Wardell

[Mr. Mulliner]

Liberal bias comes to bear 

Brad Wardell

09/21/02

When liberals and conservatives debate the left-wing views of the press they actually are talking about two different things.

A liberal will point out to things like Rush Limbaugh and other talk radio hosts whereas there are few equivalents to blatant partisanship on the left.

Conservatives, on the other hand, feel that's exactly the point.  No one doubts that Rush Limbaugh is a conservative because he proclaims it.  But liberals will regularly hide their partisanship behind the veil of  "objective reporting".

Any objective listener to NPR willconclude before long that the programs regularly exude liberal views under the cloak of objective or at the very least "fair" reporting.  Diane Rehm, who in my view is as liberal as Limbaugh is conservative, is one of the more obvious examples. Her guests are overwhelmingly liberal and if a panel is even remotely even handed, she'll throw her weight behind the liberal cause. These are things that many people have noticed. But with the war with Iraq looming, it's become increasingly shrill. Put another way, the "liberal media bias" that has been endlessly debated is becoming so blatant as to be very difficult to argue that it doesn't exist.

This shows up not just on NPR but on the major news networks and newspapers as well and it's been heavily documented.  The typical tactic used is picking what stories to cover. Rather than putting a lot of coverage on the suicide attack in Israel we'll get a lengthy treat of the criticisms Tom Daschle is making about the economy. Rather than putting forth articles and comments as to why Iraq needs to be taken down we get endless reports of demonstrations and criticisms from the EU or fringe left.

Amazingly, the bloggers generally "get it". They seem to have figured out why Saddam needs to be taken out. Somehow the common sense messages have gotten out there. Yet in all my information mongering on TV and newspapers, I have yet to see anyone be willing to present an articulate case why the US should attack Iraq.  Somehow most Americans (according to the polls) know why. Somehow the bloggers know why. But the general (liberal) media hasn't seem fit to allow one of the 70% of Americans who do seem to get it to actually explain it in a newspaper or news report on TV.

Today's Diane Rehm was a great example. Friday's panel of discussion talked about the possible attack on Iraq and they had only ONE person who was in favor of attacking Iraq on the panel. And every time he began to explain it, he'd be interrupted.

With war seeming inevitable and the liberal media being strikingly against it, they're pulling out the stops, cashing their chips and starting to lower the veil of "objectivity" in order to persuade us unenlightened Neanderthals of the "proper" course.

You seeing the same thing? Email me with your thoughts.

[Mr. Mulliner]

Old news, I know. But I do think that the media is getting more desperate and more bold, not only because of their opposition to an attack on Iraq, but especially because of what that means politically to the Democrats in the upcoming elections. Agree?

[Nick Danger]

I don't know if "bold" is the right word. They are certainly more shrill.

To be bold, they would have to understand that their opinions are controversial. I don't think most of them do. I think the vast majority of them live, work, and breathe in an all-liberal environment. They tell liberal jokes, and everyone laughs. They make snide remarks about Bush being a 'cowboy' or a 'dunce,' and everyone around the water cooler nods knowingly. They believe that their positions are "mainstream," and that what noises of opposition they do hear are from a tiny minority of "conservatives" or some unwashed yahoos out in flyover country.

It wasn't until 9/11, when the press suddenly became noticeable for its anti-Americanism (because of the contrast with what happened in the rest of the country), that large numbers of people finally saw the bias. The media have continued to attack Bush in the manner of Democratic partisans, and this too has been noticed... much more than it would have been previously. Now when they say, "Oh, we're tough on all presidents," no one believes them. They've been far too obviously cheerleading for the Democratic opposition.

It is starting to dawn on the media, and more importantly on the Democrats, that the media has lost its legitimacy with the public because of this. In spite of their best efforts to spike Bush's foreign policy endeavors, the public isn't buying it this time. The "usual suspects" are no longer thought leaders, and people are taking the trouble to find out for themselves -- often on the Internet -- things that Dan Rather & Co. have spiked. The more of these things people find, the less they trust Dan Rather & Co.; it is a vicious cycle that the media cannot break out of.

Clinton bootlicker E. J. Dionne whines in another thread that he and his friends were unable to make Big News out of Senator Dasche's recent speech on the economy. Only a few years ago, they could have rammed that home as "the" debate going on in Washington right now... and steered the election Daschle's way. Now they try it, and everyone sees it for what it is: "Oh, it's the press trying to sell us the Democrats again. Yawn."

Perhaps there is one bold player on the stage, Howell Raines at the New York Times. He has been bold enough to spend the 100-year-old credibility of the Old Gray Lady on one blatantly partisan crusade against a highly popular President. It is so obvious that even other liberal journalists are openly worrying whether there will be a Times left when he is done. Never mind the opinions mixed in with the news on Page One, the errors of fact are becoming embarrassing. It is to the point now that when the Times is on one of its anti-Bush rants, one cannot believe the facts being cited. The New York Times now makes things up for effect, and puts those things in its news stories. Bold? Definitely. Stupid? Beyond belief.