Reverent & Free has some thoughts on Fred Thompson’s “liberal media” complaints. Ruth Holladay flags a study that indicates journalist contribute more frequently to Democratic candidates.
These complaints about journalists don’t really tell us much about the bias of the media landscape without knowing at least two more factors: a) the political orientation of the owners of media outlets; and b) the relative distribution of the Democratic contributing journalists to the Republican contributing journalists.
If you study three journalists and find that Brit Hume is a Republican and the two others work for weekly free papers and are Democrats, you can’t exactly look at that data and say that the media has a liberal bias because liberal journalists outnumber conservative journalists two to one.
Who really cares if a individual journalist working for a MSM operation in private votes Democratic or not. Any Democrat who works in Corporate America learns real quickly that the odds are that their bosses are most likely to be far more conservative than they are. Therefore you keep you politics to yourself. The only times so-called “Liberal politics” are openly tolerated is when they are inline with the corporate profit motive agenda.
Therefore abortion, Gay Rights and affirmative action are largely officially supported because most Corporations today are smart enough today to realize it is vital to their economic interests, at least on a public relations level, not to alienate any potential consumers, market segments or needless turn away prized employees.
Immigration is another prime example where it is a misnomer to confuse “Liberal” values with Corporate profit motive values. US corporations and especially media enterprises are almost all editorially strongly in favor of “Open Borders” policies. They hugely benefit from population fueled economic growth and strong real estate markets. Sometimes this backfires however. The LA Times may be a prime example where its long time editorial policy may have cost it large numbers of readers through it well know intolerance of opposing view points on immigration related matters.
I honestly think you can go on and on identifying cases where journalists intentionally or not color their reporting in order to appeal to the corporate interests of their employer. It was shocking in the run up to the Iraq war to see the memos to
editors at all sorts of MSM outlets where senior managers were concerned that their news reporting not be seen as unpatriotic. Clearly lots of so called Liberal Journalist either got the memo or simply picked up the vibe via osmosis.
Fred Thompson really needs to stay home some night with some popcorn and a beer and watch Network.
As far as the “Fairness Doctrine” is concerned which you brought up earlier.
I really do not think it is as critical issue as it use to be. Individuals are now using the internet to “research” their own opinions. They are no longer attracted to Talk Radio so as to receive the wisdom cast down from on high via Rush or Hannity as they use to. Instead they are demanding to have their own views listened to. I really think that was the phenomena that occurred over immigration. The days of Karl Rove orchestrating the Mighty Wurlitzer like the great and all powerful Wizard of OZ maybe coming to an end. Sure you can screen callers and cut the mics in order to push your viewpoint, but those ham handed approaches are increasingly alienating to the listening audience. Given a choice the audience will go elsewhere.
Instead I think the populist progressive talker Ed Schultz is right. The real issue is the concentration of ownership with in a given market. Alternative, liberal, progressive and populist view points are simply locked out via the ownership issue. Schultz has more than once lost syndication outlets in markets in spite of strong ratings and earnings. Schultz has pointed out repeatedly that the FCC regulations tolerate very highly levels Religious organization ownership in individual markets for example. Religious broadcasters get all sorts of tax breaks and can fund raise in addition to sell advertising. Not a bad business model! There is very little concern that some of these Religious stations have really minimal ratings.
Schultz mentions examples where he was kicked off the air in significant successful markets. Even in election years when the talk radio numbers usually only go up. Schultz has literally proven time after time to be a goldmine for small otherwise low power stations. In these cases the station was sold to a Dobson or Falwell with out any consideration as to whether there is a glut of religious programing in that market. Dobson will then program the same syndicated material out of Colorado Springs that can already be heard in that market at different times.
Some sort of question needs to be asked whether or not it is in the more in the public interest to have a different political voice heard or to have duplicate canned religious or music stations in the same market.
I need no more proof about bias than watching “Dan Rather Reports” on HDNet.
I CONSTANTLY felt Mr. Rather had a liberal slant on his news while at CBS. It is clear now that CBS was telling Rather how to do things.
Now, he has become my favorite reporter. Not because he is conservative, but because I honestly can’t tell what his politics are. The debates he hosts are GREAT. You get to hear both sides of a CALM, RATIONAL debate without the constant name-calling that you would see on shows like “Crossfire” or “H&C” on Fox. He gives research, facts, and leaves it at that.
He really does the “I report, you decide” style of reporting instead of claiming that he does. I dig it.
Some have said that you can’t do a report in 3 minutes and 20 seconds and have it NOT be biased, and I think there is some truth in that. Sometimes, Rather’s show spends the full hour on one subject, at the least every story gets around 20 mintues. Maybe that’s all it is…
Doug, the bias of the ownership has had very little to do with the reporting. Most stations give their reporters the room to be themselves. That’s why they hire them.
Moreover, if there is a liberal bias in the MSM, I would contend that as the media exists in the marketplace, there must surely be a greater demand for liberally-slanted news. No matter what the owners believe, their business is to chase ratings. If these liberally biased reporters pull the numbers, that’s just good business.
I must be one of the few people left who looks at being called a ‘liberal’ as a compliment. I don’t think I measure up ,but I do try! But what’s in a name? and what does ‘liberal’ apply to now,when perjorative is intended,except ‘social issues’, and more specifically government funneling of public money to anyone who isn’t out to make profit . If we judge conservatism by what those who claim to be conservatives have wrought,certainly war,waste, corruption, lying,lack of ethics and huge spending are conservative values now,so it might be confusing,if we think about it in a ‘fair and balanced’ way.And most Americans have bought into the unacknowledged ‘conservative slant’for almost 8 years.How else would the Bush regime have accomplished a re-election?
Language describing political positions gets corrupted pretty quickly, I think. It probably goes with the territory. When I think “conservative,” I tend to think country club Republicans and small business owners – usually having a bias in favor of the upper reaches of the socioeconomic scale, simply by virtue of favoring the status quo. Mainly libertarian on issues of economic policy. Mainly isolationist on issues of foreign policy. Finds it somewhat distasteful to discuss religion in public. A little prudish in terms of social policy.
These days, you find the conservative label being used in the company of crony capitalists who like having the government deeply involved in preventing undue competition; adventurist foreign policies; and “hot,” evangelical religious groups who very much favor mixing religion with government.