To the liberal/progressive such a question is evidence of conservative hysteria based on the inferiority of their political convictions. To the conservative, it’s a rhetorical question: of course! Rarely is that question taken seriously by those liberals who dominate what has come to be called the mainstream media. I found a rare example on public radio this weekend.
In case you’re not a fan of public radio, a weekend show called On the Media (OTM) gives a weekly roundup of, strangely enough, media, and from I would argue a decidedly liberal perspective. Of course, for most who work in mainstream media, liberal bias is a charge without merit. The modern liberal has a very difficult time accepting the fact that there are actually other people who see the world differently than them, and major media outlets are filled with them.
Because of this denial, I was kind of amazed when I heard this weekend’s OTM. The title of the show was, “Does NPR Have a Liberal Bias?” And what I found even more amazing was that they actually tried to take the question seriously. Listen for yourself. The hosts of the show are normally somewhat snarky and dismissive of anything not liberal, although I am convinced they are convinced they are trying their best to be objective.
I think what annoys professionals in the media who dismiss the charge of bias is that they think they are being accused of not being professional, that their excellence is being questioned, that they are no better than partisan hacks just toeing the party line. This may be because I’m on the right side of the political/cultural spectrum, but I actually accept that their intentions are mostly pure: I don’t believe there is a grand conspiracy of lefties in media boardrooms trying to figure out on a daily basis how they can make conservatives look bad (I might add that liberals rarely give the benefit of the doubt to the intentions of their conservative opponents).
The idea of dispassionate objective journalism is a relatively new phenomenon in the history of America. All newspapers had a point of view and didn’t hide it, either in their editorial content or their reporting. The beginning of professionalization of journalism probably started with Joseph Pulitzer’s leaving $2 million in 1911 (over $46 million in today’s dollars) to establish a graduate school of journalism at Columbia University. The next year the first of America’s progressive presidents was elected, Woodrow Wilson, an academic who declared the Constitution archaic for modern times. What was needed, he believed, were experts who would use the burgeoning science and technology of the time to ameliorate the people’s suffering and lead them to a better life.
I don’t think it is a coincidence that journalism as a profession of dispassionate fact gatherers rose along with progressivism in American politics and culture. John F. Kennedy filled his administration with the “best and the brightest” who thought they could in effect engineer results with social policy from on high to make American a better place. This perspective still infects every corner of the good progressive’s mind, and post WWII journalists were steeped in this mindset. Edward R. Murrow was their hero, and when Walter Cronkite became the most trusted man in American he would sign off each week day night’s broadcast with “That’s the way it is.” If that’s the way it is, then there is no other way that it can be!
This is the pretension of our modern media; they are only telling us what is, and it’s up to us, the reader, the viewer, to determine what we think about it. Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts. The problem that always seems to get in the progressive’s way, bless their hearts, is human nature. No one can be completely objective no matter how hard they try. The worldview of the reporter will come through not only in how they frame a story, but which stories they choose to frame, the questions they ask, the facts they choose to expose. Everything they do in some way expresses who they are, and who they are is in some way expressed in everything they do. Because journalism is done by human beings, it can be no other way.
I read somewhere that 90% of NPR employees are liberals/progressives. That may be low, but there is no question that almost everyone that works in mainstream media leans left, and whether they like it or not, admit it or not, bias in one way or the other will find it’s way into what they do. And guess what? I’m still a fan.
Funny you should say “they think they are being accused of not being professional.” I did that explicitly this week several times due the way they covered (and continue on even today) the mayhem and murder in the Middle East.
I had good reason. There is hardly a murder or event that leads to murder, in which the media does not bend over backward to say the alleged suspect or the alleged cause. But as to the video “Innocence of Muslims,” there AP at least is sure there is no alleged about it.
In their story CALIF. FILMMAKER RELEASED, AVOIDS BESIEGED HOME, the included the following words without inserting the common copybook practice “allegedly ignited.”
In short, this week proved there is nothing the mainstream press won’t do to protect the Obama administration from charges of mishandling its Middle East policy, including endangering the life of an individual or threatening the right of free speech and expression.
By the way, since I first reported on this behavior of the AP, they have altered their copy, including the title at the above link. I have a screen capture of what it was before I blew the whistle. The new media is watching.
Thanks for helping keep them honest Mike.
As a radio news veteran, I find it unbelievable that NPR can excuse government funding for public radio stations by saying that only 2% of affiliates funding comes from government. Maybe it is “just” 2%, but any government funding is too much.
Of course there is bias on NPR programs. It’s not just in the news, but in the entertainment shows as well. And in the news, part of the bias shows in the stories they deem worthy of coverage. They are unwilling or unable to see the forest for the trees.
Thanks,
James
—-I think most conservatives, not the ones who read this website, want to believe that television news is Liberally Biased because they have all worked at jobs where a conservative boss has played petty tyrant over them. The idea of spending a day with Petty Tyrant making them miserable, and then going home to watch another, conservative boss passing judgement on them on the CBS Evening news would drive them to distraction.
—-I remember “Newsbusters” saying it was “Liberal Bias” to say that Rachel Madow is “Pretty.” Yes, she is pretty. And she isn’t a Petty Tyrant. She is what rank-and-file conservatives *want* the television news media to be. That they do not trust her judgement is less important than that she does not seem like someone who would pass judgement on their work performance.
Bradley, how do you know the petty tyrant boss is a conservative? And is it only conservative bosses who “pass judgment”? And is that what conservatives by nature do is “pass judgment”? Actually, the modern liberal is much more likely to play the petty tyrant and pass judgment. I can only think of a zillion examples, but how about the very liberal Mayor of New York City who thinks its his business to tell people what they can drink, and what size it can be. Or the very progressive president of these United States who thinks it’s his right to tell people that they must pay for someone else’s contraception. No my friend, I think you have it completely backward.
Bradley, how do you know the petty tyrant boss is a conservative?
—-How many of the ordinary people who *do not* read this website, who voted for McCain/Palin in 2008, have had at least one Petty Tyrant Boss?
—How often did the Petty Tyrant Boss agree, or disagree with their conservative politics?
—-How often does Rachel Maddow come off as a petty tyrant who would criticse them at their jobs?
—-How often does Maddow critcize “outside of the beltway” people, at all?
And is it only conservative bosses who “pass judgment”?
—No, but how often does a Petty Tyrant Boss say “it’s not your fault”? Does Maddow come accross as someone who will tell a conservative McCain/Palin that “You blew it! Shape up!”
Correction:”Tell a conservative McCain/Palin voter that “you blew it! Shape up!”
And is that what conservatives by nature do is “pass judgment”?
—No, that is not what conservatives by nature do. But if your boss is a conservative, and is passing judgement on you as a Petty Tyrant, would you want to watch a News Anchor who looked like they would unfairly criticise your job preformance?
—How many millions of hard working, McCain/Palin voters, have had Petty Tyrant Bosses? And how often does Maddow, or Brian Williams, come off as a petty tyrant?
Actually, the modern liberal is much more likely to play the petty tyrant and pass judgment. I can only think of a zillion examples, but how about the very liberal Mayor of New York City who thinks its his business to tell people what they can drink, and what size it can be.
—That sounds accurate as a criticism of elected Mayors. But does it sound accurate as a description of Maddow, or Brian Williams. Does she seem like the kind of person who would criticise an ordinary McCain/Palin voter for buying the big sized drink?
No my friend, I think you have it completely backward.
—-I think most conservatives, assuming the 58 million Mcain/Pallin voters were mostly conservatives, have spent 8 hours a day, working under the eye of a boss of some sort. And when they’ve had a disaster of a boss, they have been torn between quitting to avoid the boss, or trying to keep their job.
—-The question is: does Maddow come off as a tyranical, petty boss, who makes the whole day harder to handel than it would be otherwise?
What liberal bias? One could equally well argue that the media is largely owned by the right wing and serves their purpose including foisting the notion that there is liberal bias upon the unsuspecting masses. Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and a huge number of other media properties are owned by Rupert Murdoch and they do his bidding. It would take all the elephant sin Africa and Asia standing on the other end of a see-saw to even slightly tilt Fox to the left. Similarly, Clear Channel owns most of the radio stations in the USA and it’s mainstay programs include Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck, none of whom are exactly liberal darlings. It was taken private in 2006 by none other than Bain Capital, formerly run by Mitt Romney.
US media is tending to an extreme conservative bias. The notion of a liberal bias is a figment of the conservative imagination.
Ah yes…imagine a scenario in 2004 where a dozen American embassies around the world were under attack, John Kerry used the occasion to mildly criticize George Bush’s Mid-East policy, and ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/NYTimes and every other pillar of the media establishment strongly rebuked Kerry for daring to question the President. After you stop laughing, Ian, you may want to recalibrate your theory of the
“US media…tending to an extreme conservative bias.”
Ian, thank you for bringing some extreme levity to my morning. For a moment, I almost thought you were serious!!!
George Bush’s Middle East Policy? What a king-size disaster. Two wars in which we have lost more coalition troops than the World Trade Center death toll. Bush dropped the ball on Afghanistan while pursuing the non-existent WMDs in Iraq and then started a second unfunded war there. Off-budget war funding that will leave this country in deficit for years to come, particularly as we pay for veterans injuries and ongoing benefits. Didn’t even manage to catch Osama, despite trying to blow Tora Bora to bits. Policies sent the country into the worst recession since the great depression. The great bank bailout started under Bush.
Bush was possibly the most incompetent and laughable president this country has ever had and he only got to be president by a 5:4 majority of the Supreme Court. What a disaster!
Congratulations, Ian, for completely missing the point. I’ll take it you that you concede there is no conservative bias in the media.
I don’t think I miss the point at all. With Citizens United we now have corporations having the same free speech rights as individuals but a lot more money for loudspeakers. Mitt Romney even thinks corporations are people. Conservative interests own a massive part of our media. How could someone actually believe in a liberal media bias except someone trying to push the erroneous notion that there is one? It’s just not even rational thought. Sometimes I think the conservative/liberal debate in the US demonstrates that there are parallel universes where there is not only no intersection, but neither side even understands that the other might have a valid point.
I hope someone sees this. I think that most media sources are quick to defend incumbents, especially when it comes to the presidency. Larry may be a dick about it, but he has a point with Kerry and Bush in 2004. In the same way most media sources are very quick to defend Obama over anything. I would also like to say that I think there is really no “moderate” news source. We have Fox News to the right, MSNBC to the left, and neither will ever move towards the middle on anything. The only self-proclaimed objective media seems to lean towards liberalism, possibly because conservatives refuse to do anything in moderation, and therefore there is no such thing as a “moderate conservative.” That may just be my opinionated right-wing views, though.