Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

If the media are so liberal, why did most mainstream news outlets swallow Bush's lies about Iraq?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

What Liberal Media?

By Sean Gonsalves, AlterNet. Posted June 17, 2008.


If the media are so liberal, why did most mainstream news outlets swallow Bush's lies about Iraq?
Advertisement

You hear it all the time, especially during election season. "The media is biased" -- a criticism leveled from both the Right and Left.

In fact, there's a cottage industry devoted to "exposing media bias," most of which has people in the news biz rolling their eyes. And for good reason: not that media criticism is unwarranted, it's just that most of it, to put it bluntly, is oversimplified nonsense that generates more heat than light.

Perhaps the weakest aspect of pop media criticism is its lack of clarity. People talk about the media as if it were a single entity.

"The media"? Are we talking about the broadcast or print media? Are we talking about the Colbert Report, PBS, NPR, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal or the Cape Cod Times? Are we talking about reporters, editors, publishers, radio talk-show hosts, columnists, bloggers or TV pundits?

As Washington Post reporter Paul Farhi wrote in a recent issue of American Journalism Review, "critics often blame 'the media,' as if the sins of some are the sins of all. It's not just a bland, inexact generalization; it's a slur. The media are, of course, made up of numerous parts, many of which bear little relation to each other. Critics need to define their terms. Holding 'the media' responsible for some perceived slight is like blaming an entire ethnic or racial group for the actions of a few of its members."

Still, surveys show ever-increasing public skepticism about the traditional news media. According to survey data cited by media scholar S. Robert Lichter, two-thirds of the public thought the press was "fair" in a 1937 survey but by 1984 rolls it dropped to 38 percent, while only 29 percent said the same about TV news.

Adding insult to injury, a national survey conducted by Sacred Heart University in January found that only 19.6 percent of respondents said they believed "all or most" reporting, while an a larger percentage (23.9 percent) said they believed "little" or none of it. Next stop: zero credibility.

These survey results should be taken with a grain of salt, in part because, news consumers tend to overstate how closely they pay attention to news, as the Sacred Heart study indicates.

For example, the survey found that Americans described the New York Times and NPR as "mostly or somewhat liberal" -- about four times more often than they described those two outlets as "mostly or somewhat conservative."

"Leave aside the blunt generality inherent in this. (Is all of NPR -- from "Morning Edition" to "Car Talk" -- "mostly or somewhat liberal?") The more important (and unasked) question about this finding is its shaky foundation. Given that only small fractions of the populace read the Times or listen to NPR on a regular basis, how is it that so many Americans seem to know so much about the political leanings of the Times and NPR?" Farhi asks.

Part of this disconnect stems from the lack of actual content analysis among the general public and an over-reliance on anecdotal examples.

Take this year's primary campaign season, for example. Depending on which candidate you supported in the primaries, the universal claim is that the media was biased for/against Clinton or Obama. Yet, a study of the A sections of three agenda-setting newspapers (the Washington Post, NY Times and L.A. Times) done by researchers at Bowling Green State University paints a more nuanced portrait.

The study found Clinton and Obama received about the same number of "positive" and "negative" headlines from those papers (from Labor Day through the Super Tuesday primaries in early February). About 35 percent of the headlines for Obama were positive and 27 percent were negative. Clinton received 31 percent positive and 31 percent negative. The rest of stories were considered to be either mixed (with positive and negative elements) or neutral.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bush, media, iraq, liberal, bias

Sean Gonsalves is a syndicated columnist and news editor with the Cape Cod Times.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Pardon my memory
Posted by: rickiey on Jun 17, 2008 8:02 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the media are so liberal, why did most mainstream news outlets swallow Bush's lies about Iraq?

But I seem to recall pretty much constant coverage of Bush for 2002 and 2003, and daily examples of him lying, and the media calling him for the liar he was. And CERTAINLY never swallowing any of his Iraq stories.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» you are being satiric, right? Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
What? Your memory...
Posted by: mcstewey on Jun 17, 2008 11:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is not serving you very well. Furthermore, who am I supposed to believe, the long-term memory of one person or critics and media scholars who do this for a living?

But that's beside the point. For a well-done structural and institutional view of the role of the media, check out the documentary, "The Myth of the Liberal Media" with Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unacceptable.
Posted by: Amphetameme on Jun 18, 2008 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is no longer acceptable to be calling the media Liberal or Conservative. It needs to be reclassified.

It's corporate media. Corporate. Say it with me. Corporate. It's either corporate, independent, or public. And until people realize the difference they will never understand the source of a story, or it's possible bias.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Media bias" is not the problem ---- 'media manipulation' is!
Posted by: amacd on Jun 18, 2008 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media of this corporatist Empire's Fourth Reich is no more bias than Goebbels' media bias of the Nazi Empire's Third Reich.

Right/left media bias is a canard.

The real issue of centrally controlled media in any empire is the level of sophistication in its 'manipulation' of information to the population in order to engender the overall sense that the social, economic, and political system that is in place, while under pressure, is operating 'normally', 'as best as possible' under the trying circumstances, and to distract attention from the seminal fact that the disguised Empire is in any way the cause of all foreign and domestic problems.

In this most important aspect and role of 'manipulative media' our modern, pervasive, and nominally friendly, but unseen corporatist Empire, that rules the US behind the facade of a seemingly 'normal', two-party, "Vichy" government, has achieved a level of subtle 'media manipulation' and anesthetization of the population that Goebbels never could have dreamed of.

The penultimate role of 'media manipulation', through reporting of news, but more importantly through its unrelenting imagery of social conditions in advertising, entertainment, and the 'distractive services', is to continually reinforce the corporatist Empire's hierarchy of 'risk / reward' --- in which 'class allegiance' to the system rewards pleasant and agreeable behaving members of society with comforts, status, pleasures, and 'stuff'; while reinforcing the risk that less desirable and particularly 'troublesome' classes of society can slip down the pyramid into very unpleasant circumstances.

This much more modern and subtle, but pervasive, 'imagery conditioning' of the manipulative corporatist media totally circumvents the need that less 'friendly' fascist empires, like the Nazis, needed to condition the population with occasional overt actions, like deploying tow trucks with wire-rope nooses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My main complaint...
Posted by: reelectnoone on Jun 18, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My main complaint is not about specific media but "news" media. Those programs, TV, Radio or print, who promote themselves as the "4th" estate and who publish "news". This does not include talk radio and humor because those are entertainment, though a few do offer a few truths hidden by real news programs.

To me news has to have the following attributes to qualify.

1. Be true
2. Be confirmed
3. Be uncolored by opinion
4. Lack editorial comments
( "terrorist fist bump" ? Shame on Fox )
5. Be complete ( by complete I mean that media must not omit important news based on any opinion, political pressure or bias. )

Where so much of our "news" fails us is in lack of bias and serious omissions of important news.

Most recent evidence was the almost total lack of reporting when Dennis Kucinich read the articles of impeachment in congress. Almost none of the media outlets even took notice.

Last night on Jon Stewart his guest ( sorry forgot her name ) has been in Iraq & Afghanistan almost since the start as chief correspondent for CBS. She made the statement that if she had to watch the news we see in America she would "shoot herself" It seems our media is refusing to show the true face of the war to America.

This is a failure on the part of our media to properly and honestly inform the American public, most probably for political reasons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My main complaint... Posted by: Quannah
Did Clinton lie?
Posted by: Romans1 on Jun 18, 2008 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or the other Democrats who confirmed what Bush was saying. Did they lie?

And don't tell me Bush fooled them. You don't believe Bush is that smart.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» which clinton? Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
media is plural
Posted by: dannrusso on Jun 18, 2008 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and we constantly make the plural noun "media" (singular, "medium") into a sum of things greater than its parts.

each part should be considered one by one when making broad statements.

peace,
Dann

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Eric Alterman's Book (of the same title)
Posted by: mpszydlo on Jun 18, 2008 1:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is a very fascinating read into the corporate media world. Personally, I didn't read this article because I read the book, but I'd imagine it brings up some of the points that are in the book. I highly recommend reading the book, though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LIBERALISM ONLY EXTENDS SO FAR IN SEMITIC MEDIA
Posted by: Malcus Garvey on Jun 18, 2008 1:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My media liberalism comment would be, if it's so liberal, why aren't any Blackmen, who can die for Israeli (Jewish) causes in wars, not be seen [on Jewish controlled media outlets] as TV/cable hosts of shows, own show news anchors, series stars and heroes?

As MLKJ might say, the media's ploy is to keep a sense of nobodiness in our Blackboys, mlaes, period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Defining Media in our Current Global Culture
Posted by: RegisteredVoter on Jun 18, 2008 4:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps the weakest aspect of pop media criticism is its lack of clarity. People talk about the media as if it were a single entity.

While this is a great article by Sean, I think the above paragraph speaks volumes and requires further commentary.

Unfortunately, in our current global culture consumers are bombarded with all types of "media news". As the article suggests, we have print media, television media (CNN, MSNBC,et al), and the internet media. While I refuse to put all media into the same basket, most consumers think print, television, internet, and the "pseudo-news" television shows are all MEDIA in their minds.

And lets face it - the explosion of the various networks into television and internet realms has created such a pool of media confusion it is easy for consumers to suggest ALL MEDIA are biased.

But to be honest, any "true journalist" upholds and lives by the ethics of journalism:

To report information to consumers in a fair, unbiased and honest manner.

(Refer to any journalism 101 ethics course for the full ethics of journalism)

If we review the journalism ethics and compare these to all media (consumer perceived and real), I don't think we can truly categorize as liberal, conservative, or as "journalists".

So when the dispersions are cast by consumers as untrusting to the "media", I believe these are in part due to the vast exposure levels at all media outlets - print, television, radio and internet. And lets keep in mind that "internet" does not equate to only "blogs".

What I will say is that I find it frustrating and disheartening that I had to read a BBC publication to learn of the 70+ US companies currently being investigated for war profiteering. It makes me question who is "filtering" what is reported, regardless of the medium.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Bias Is In What They DON'T Report
Posted by: gradioc on Jun 18, 2008 5:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The national media, for the most part, are so scared of being labeled as in the pocket of one side or the other that they self-censor, to the detriment of their mission, which is THE TRUTH. Just as an example, since Hillary's whining was brought up in the article, we really haven't seen much in the national media about how much money her brothers made obtaining the Mark Rich pardon. That whole affair was dirty as Hell, and came straight from Hillary's side the Clinton Operation. The same goes for Cheney on Russert's show talking about the New York Times reporting on Saddam Hussein's attempts to get yellowcake out of Africa. Russert sat there and listened and nodded and never called bullshit even though the NYT story clearly listed "high-ranking White House officials" as its source. What Cheney did was plant the story with Judith Miller, then quote his own leak as proof that it was real. Tim Russert did some good work, but I will never forget that. If they need a Devil's Advocate for Russert's canonization as a Saint Of Journalism (well under way last weekend on all networks), I'm available.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What "Liberal Media"
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jun 19, 2008 12:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though I gather that the author of this article is a bit annoyed by the label of the liberal media, his thought that it is only "some" of the journalists that collaborated in deluding the American people is dishonest. Yes, media (print, t.v, radio) have been consolidating more and more in the last 30 years as more and more deregulation has occurred. While the "Media" can be blamed for this the biggest culprit besides the corporations are the politicians that enable consolidation of media. These two entities are really what block the American public from being informed about issues that we really need to know. Of course we might just be informed and try to block some of these policies that benefit the rich & powerful.
What I'd like to know is what happened to "the media" that Katherine Graham (previous owner of the Washington Post) whose paper broke the story that led to the resignation of Richard M. Nixon? Weren't they labeled as the un-official 4th estate of government? And more importantly can we bring that media back??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please Log On To Colorofchange.org
Posted by: desidid on Jun 20, 2008 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and sign their petition against Fox for misrepresenting Mrs. Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Media Scale
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jun 23, 2008 12:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The commercial media universe is so skewed to the right that it has altered people's perceptions. Combine that with the modern short attention span, the 24-hour newz cycle and 'more heat than light' style of what passes for news and you get the altered perceptions that drive the deliberately informed voters crazy.

From crazy 'wingnut' right to left
Hard Right Wing
1-CNBC (makes Faux Newz look like Mother Jones)
2-Faux Newz
3-ABC Newz (trying very hard for the Faux mantle). Britt Hume started here before Faux. The Mouse House is a Neo-Con biased haven and has been ever since Roone Arledge ruined ABC News and started the destruction of Network Journalism.
Right WIng
4-CNN (hasn't been the Clinton Newz Network for a long time now). Full of ABC Newz castoffs plus a few other network has-beens.
5-NBC Newz (Corporate shill- tempered fluff)
6-CBS News (More moderately Corporate shill-tempered fluff)
Middle of the Road
7-NewsHour (Lehrer is either right leaning or still smarting from the GOP led assault on PBS under the NeoCons a couple of years back) Way too corporate friendly and too willing to let the Beltway crowd's nonsense go unchallenged.
Left Wing
NONE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Legitimacy of our news media
Posted by: Dianka on Jul 8, 2008 4:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can't judge the quality of our mainstream news media until you compare it with alternative and international news media. The quality of our (mainstream) news media is, frankly, woefully inferior. What makes it so inferior (even to what it was in the past) isn't so much what is reported as what is NOT reported. It is very narrowly focused to appeal to a specific demographic, a shrinking section of this country. Over the past quarter-century, it has steadily lost relevance.

Our alternative media has its shortcomings as well; for example, they draw the line on who qualifies for social justice --or for that matter, who deserves to even have fundamental, internationally-recognized human rights protections -- at the "working poor" level, which excludes a few million people who have so effectively been pushed out of the job market. However, you can find some pretty comprehensive information about US economic disparities, etc., via the international news media (and most online sources include a version in English).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]