Posted on 11/07/2006 9:38:34 AM PST by S. T. Karnick
Here is my answer to Howard Kurtz’s argument, in the Washington Post, that the press’s treatment of the run-up to today’s election does not really reflect liberal bias. Kurtz’s argument is unconvincing and merits a strong response from the right. Sam Karnick
S. T. Karnick Director of Publications, Heartland Institute Karnick on Culture
http://stkarnick.com/blog2/2006/11/election_media_coveragebiased.html
U.S. Media's Election Coverage—Biased, Sure, But Why?
It's Election Day, as you've probably heard, incessantly. The race for control of the U.S. House and Senate, between two political parties representing different sets of powerful, elite fatcats, is a close one, and hence the press coverage has been intense and hysterical.
Given that the story is the potential displacement of the Somewhat Left party (the Republicans) by the Rabidly Left party (the Democrats), Republican partisans have identified an excessive glee among the press, who are widely and accurately documented to be composed almost entirely of leftists, in documenting every misstep and failure of Republican politicians and candidates, and giving Derms a free ride even when they make entirely outrageous statements.
There have indeed been plenty of both—Republican idiocies and Democratic demogoguery—to go around, but it appears reasonable to observe that the preponderance of coverage has criticized the Republicans more strongly than it has done to the Democrats.
That, however, does not necessarily indicate a manifestation of widespread liberal bias among the press, argues Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post. Kurtz says what the press really want not is not a leftist government but an interesting one:
After six years of almost uninterrupted GOP control of Washington, divided government would produce what reporters like best: conflict. A spate of investigations and subpoenas of the Bush White House, led by such new committee chairmen as John Dingell, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank and Charlie Rangel, would liven things up for the capital's chroniclers. Even the mundane prospect of the Democrats being able to bring their preferred legislation to the floor -- though most bills might never make it past the president's veto pen -- would give journalists a new script. Divided government may or may not be good for the country, but it's great for the Fourth Estate.
In retrospect, the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994 was a godsend for journalism. The rise of Newt Gingrich, the government shutdowns, the Whitewater investigations, the Monica investigations, the overwhelmingly party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton, all fueled thousands of stories about scandal and showdowns that boosted ratings and book sales.
One-party rule is, let's face it, rather predictable, especially with a Republican Congress that has basically gotten out of the oversight business during the Bush presidency. . . .
There surely may be some instances of liberal bias. Maybe the press made too much of Sen. George Allen's "macaca" moment, or wallowed too long in the finger-pointing fallout from the Mark Foley page scandal. At the same time, the press can't very well ignore the rising death toll in Iraq, which is also being cast as bad news for President Bush and his party.
I think that Kurtz is correct to observe that the press are indeed gleeful about the possibility of having new stories to write if the Democrats should take one or both Houses of Congress.
Nonetheless, it appears to me that this cannot be the press's ultimate motivation for skewing coverage to favor the Democrats. If the past six years have been anything, they have certainly been interesting. There has been plenty to write about. Yes, with the Democrats out of power there has been no great flood of horrendously asinine congressional investigations into allegations of perfidy in the executive branch, but the press have taken care of that themselves, after all.
Whereas the big congressional scandal hearing was a ridiculous investigation of the Major League Baseball steroid situation, nothing came of the allegations about the Bush administration illegally identifying a CIA agent to the public. That is a good thing, actually, because the allegations were entirely false. The revelation was in fact done by an opponent of the Bush administration. Congressional hearings headed by the President's enemies would not have changed that fact, but they would surely have destroyed the people falsely accused, as they almost did anyway thanks to the press's outrageously biased and out-of-control coverage of that entirely trivial matter.
The press have thoroughly taken on the adversary party role during the past four years, and they have done their level best to try and to convict the Republican Party of incompetence and malfeasance. (The Republicans, for their part, have done all they could to provide plenty of indications of each.)
The press haven't simply been searching for a more interesting story. They have indeed been trying to influence events and move the country further to the left. That is their right and prerogative in a society with a free press, but it is important that we not pretend that things are other than as they are.
The media's treatment of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress has been justified by the mistakes and misjudgments of each, but the press's treatment of the party currently in power and the runup to today's elections has indeed been motivated by a desire that the Democrats would win in order to institute a leftist government of the sort that the press overwhelmingly favor personally.
This year is the worst I have ever seen. It's been unmerciful. I can't even watch it anymore. It's a 24-hour-a-day prep rally for the libs. There's nothing objective about it. The thing that has amazed me is that they don't even try to hide their bias any more. It's all out there to see.
Did anyone see Cafferty call Rumsfeld a "war criminal" on CNN yesterday? Levin was talking about it...
agree totally....what they can't spin ...they make up just to make the conservatives/republicans look bad....
If this were true, the press would have been all over Juanita Broderick, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Mena. Ergo, it is not true that the press wants interesting (juicy) stories about politicians.
The press see itself as an elite. A people of wisdom and compassion. Therefore, they need to identify "who needs help" and they need to identify "what must be done". The Republicans don't play into this game nearly as well as the Democrats. So the press likes Democrats.
Maybe...just maybe...... after the votes are counted, we will be able to get back to some good old-fashioned Bird Flu panic!
This may be their right, but they shouldn't try to portray themselves as being objective, when they're not. Furthermore, MSM news outlets and "Gannett" newspapers are an institution. Sure, we're fighting that on the Internet, but let's face it--many airports, hotels, and other public thoroughfares are playing CNN soundbites; it's difficult for the less mainstream to get equal time.
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.