Posted on 06/27/2003 12:26:12 PM PDT by fightinJAG
Proof Through Repetition and the "Liberal Bias" of the U.S. Media: A Review of Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media?
By NEIL H. BUCHANAN ---- Friday, June 20, 2003
Eric Alterman, What Liberal Media? (Basic Books 2003)
Can it ever be pointless to publish a well-written book?
Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media? is a nice piece of work. It combines uncompromising passion with sardonic humor, careful research, and incisive prose. Alterman makes a solid case that the legendary left-wing bias of the big-time American media is a myth.
That so many people believe that myth is a testament to nothing more than the power of repetition--a constant drumbeat from the right that has, perversely, "proved" an utter falsehood. Conservatives produce an endless supply of books, position papers, speeches, and so on, repeating the same discredited stories and distortions as if they were true. Truth becomes whatever they say it is--at least until someone like Alterman comes along and shows otherwise.
Nevertheless, it might be argued that Alterman's point is, by now, too obvious to be interesting--that is, we've finally seen through this relentlessly repeated lie, and we've put it to rest. Granted, right-wing pundits are still gleefully saturating the media, claiming that left-wingers saturate the media. But the big news stories recently have focused, instead, on conservative media influence, from Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News Channel, to Ann Coulter, to Matt Drudge, to military-influenced embedded reporting, to the Washington Times.
It might also be argued that to the extent that the myth of liberal media bias persists, it's too late to debunk it. Those who might have been converted to the truth already have been. And those who persist in believing the lie will keep on doing so. Conservatives will always be able to claim that there's a liberal bias and get away with it.
Though both of these arguments have their strengths, ultimately they fail. Alterman's book is still, amazingly and disappointingly, all too necessary.
Embedded Reporting and Other Pro-Conservative Media Bias During the Iraq War
Alterman could have been the victim of exquisitely bad timing. Finishing his book in late 2002, he saw only the beginning of the propaganda campaign leading up to the war in Iraq. Even as jaded as he is, it's hard to believe that he could ever have imagined the media's complicity in spreading the Administration's storylines. The media's coverage of the war, in many ways, proved Alterman's point better than he ever could have.
Embedded reporters from every major news organizations submitted to military oversight, sending sympathetic reports that glossed over the horrors of war. The comic strip Doonesbury put it best - showing a reporter asking: "Captain, would you describe our outfit as 'magnificent' or 'mythic'?" The reply: "Report it as you see it, sir."
Pro-Administration deceptions were repeatedly allowed by the media. For instance, when the President landed on an aircraft carrier, it traveled in circles so that camera angles would mislead viewers into thinking it was far out at sea. In fact, the shoreline was a short distance away.
Similarly, when Iraqis pulled down the statute of Saddam Hussein, cameras seemed to reveal a crowded square with throngs of ecstatic onlookers cheering wildly. In fact, as later reports revealed, the square was mostly empty. Worse, half of the onlookers were Iraqi emigres who had been flown in from Europe specifically to participate in that scene.
By now, of course, these facts are hardly revelations. I know these off-script facts, after all, because "the media" brought them to me. Ergo, the media is liberal, right? Hardly.
Even when presenting these unpleasant facts, the supposedly liberal media presents the Administration's manipulations as curiosities - or, worse, as brilliant public relations achievements. The New York Times, certainly at the top of anyone's list of the liberal media, recently offered its readers an awestruck report on the Administration's masterful manipulation of public opinion.
The Times described how presidential handlers do not allow even one moment to be spontaneous--and it described how even the Democrats' media experts "marveled" at the White House's skills in this area. The President is said to have executed a "Top Gun" landing. Descriptions of crass political calculations present the Administration's decisions as "bold political strokes," not as rank partisanship.
In sum, "liberal" criticism is not critical. It's admiring. And as Alterman shows, this was true even before the war.
Even Conservatives Admit Liberal Media Bias Is A Myth, Yet They Perpetuate It
Alterman includes in his book quotes from both James Baker and William Kristol happily admitting that there is no meaningful liberal bias in the media. Instead, they and other archconservatives concede, they are simply "working the refs," in order to force the media to bend over backward to compensate for a bias that even they admit is, at the very least, grossly exaggerated.
One might think this kind of concession by the mythmakers would kill the myth. But it turns out that the myth is far too useful, and it continues to be purveyed to television viewers unlikely ever to open Alterman's work and read these concessions of its falsity.
For instance, consider Kristol's comments in late May of this year, when he appeared on Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Stewart started by commenting on how well things are going for conservatives in the U.S., and he asked: "Is there anything else conservatives want?" Kristol, without missing a beat, replied: "Well, the liberals still dominate the media." To his credit, Stewart was incredulous; but Kristol was unfazed.
Even Liberals Themselves Play a Part In Perpetuating the Liberal Bias Myth
Meanwhile, the liberal "refs" have certainly been "worked" into submission. Take Stewart himself. His show traffics in sharp political satire, much of it highly critical of the Administration. Yet Stewart takes every opportunity to deny being liberal, consistently asserting that he is simply cynical. He regularly treats conservative guests with kid gloves, while turning into a tough interrogator of liberal guests. In the latter category, Arianna Huffington's appearance was a sorry spectacle, with Stewart constantly interrupting and saying things like, "What's the point? We can't do anything about this stuff, anyway!"
Similarly, the Times's Nicholas Kristof identifies himself as a liberal, but it often seems that he chooses to do so simply to be able to chide other liberals for being too liberal. For instance, is it truly a concern that the New York-based Times employs no evangelical Christians, as Kristof recently noted? Have any actually applied and been rejected on religious grounds?
In short, conservatives, and some liberals, continue to perpetuate the liberal bias myth, despite all evidence to the contrary. As a result, Alterman's book remains a very necessary counterweight.
Is this an Argument that Liberals Can't Win?
But can Alterman's book actually do any good in achieving its goal of dispelling the "liberal bias" myth? Or is the belief in a liberal media bias so ingrained at this point that nothing can dislodge it?
Even the recent, blatantly conservative war coverage couldn't turn the tide. Nor can the advent of more and more conservative news outlets, writers, and speakers. Ironically, their presence is taken as evidence in favor of liberal bias, not against it: They are an antidote that would never have been introduced, the argument goes, had the disease of liberal bias not been so serious in the first place.
On this theory, Fox News acts as a necessary antidote to CNN--the Communist News Network. Ubiquitous conservative commentators such as John Stossel and George Will routinely are given a podium at the major networks. Yet they are portrayed by conservatives as merely window-dressing for the liberals who are really in charge, like Dan Rather (whose place in the conservative hall of shame was guaranteed thirty years ago when he dared to confront Richard Nixon).
The True Media Bias: In Favor of Owners' Profits and the Public's Fascinations
Ultimately, as Alterman points out - and gives copious evidence to show - media conglomerates are motivated by money. They cater to the financial interests of their owners, as any other corporation does. And those owners are wealthy and often conservative. Thus, if the media has any inherent bias, it's a conservative one.
But even that is not so simple. Though Alterman makes a good argument that "you're only as liberal as the man who owns you," there is clearly much more to the story than that. After all, the media also has a strong bias that is independent of politics: a bias that leads it to follow wherever the public's interest goes, since that's where the money lies.
Consider one recent incident in which media coverage closely followed money and controversy - not conservative or liberal politics. Conservative outrage about antiwar comments by the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks resulted in their songs being banned from large swaths of the airwaves. But that led to a backlash in which they appeared on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, gaining fans who never would have been interested in their music otherwise--with even the occasional rock music-loving law professor being willing to give their music a try. Now, mostly because of the media's financial calculations, they are back on the air. And why not? They are a meal ticket once again.
Alterman should be complimented for realizing that there had to be a direct response to the conservative onslaught. It's one thing to disprove the lie that the media is biased against conservatives, and another thing for that word to be spread, and believed. The sheer volume of the right-wingers' disinformation campaign requires a large response. Alterman's book is now being joined, for example, by Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. Proof through repetition requires disproof by honest reporting, repeated liberally.
What Do You Think? Message Boards
The embedded reporting is criticized by Alterman and friends as being "right-wing" precisely because the reporters were sympathetic toward US troops.
If sympathy towards the US armed forces is "right-wing" and shows "conservative bias" then by the logic of their argument the liberal position is antipathy toward the US armed forces.
This position is quite simply treasonous: which means that Ann Coulter's thesis is proven correct - leftists are unpatriotic and hate their country.
...the fact that I've spent over 30 years of my life watching it.
Since I write a topical humor service for radio stations, I spend hours every day doing nothing but reading and watching news from all around the world before sitting down to write jokes about it. I see the stories in their raw feed form, their right-spun form, and their left-spun form. I guarantee you I've watched far more hours of news over the years than Alterman did for this book. And as an expert on the subject, I can tell you you'd have to be a deaf, blind idiot not to see the liberal bias on, say, ABC World News Tonight. I've watched it so many times, I can spot which formula they're going to use before they even use it. There's the "selective information" tactic, where they only report that part of the story that makes the Democrat look best or the Republican look worst; there's giving the conservative opinion in one sentence after spending two minutes giving the liberal side; there's following a presidential speech by a Republican with some dour economic news they try to pin on him, usually via a backhanded intro along the lines of "Today, President Bush attempted to jumpstart his struggling campaign by putting a positive spin on the latest economic numbers..."
(That was Peter Jennings' everyday intro to Bush speeches during the 1992 campaign, including such negative terms as "attempted to" and "struggling." This was always followed by colorful video of Clinton and Gore on their bus tour, smiling and basking in the adoration of cheering throngs. The whole thing could've been a paid commercial by the Clinton for President committee.)
I write a comedy service, but I guarantee the capsule news setups for our jokes are more objective than ABC or CNN News. I watch their "news" broadcasts and wish I could go through their scripts with a blue pencil, crossing out and circling all the bias, both subtle and overt. It would take me about 15 minutes to teach them how to write news that was far more objective, and frankly, far more accurate, a skill that I guess is no longer taught at Columbia Journalism School. I'd also like to suggest that anyone who'd seriously argue that there is no liberal bias in the mainstream media should pull his head out of his rectum and try watching it for awhile.
Tia
So who are you going to believe: him or your lyin' eyes? :=)
So how is my brother? Is he well? Say hi for me will ya?
Cheers,
knews hound
Often phased "As we all know" or "Experts say", so none of them even think to question it. Why should they, that is "The Collective" and "The Elite", who they look to for answers. The average leftist just doesn't want to think for themselves.
"Well, now I work with two people who truly do get ALL their news from . . . NPR."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I've run across many, many....way too many people that get ALL their news from ABC, or NBC, or CBS, or CNN. May as well get it directly from the DNC...as far as I'm concerned.
FRegards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.