Liberal media?

You have been hearing about the "liberal media" for about two decades now. It has been said and repeated by so many pundits in so many places that the idea has become entrenched, and many arguments and world views built upon that conception. Even liberals were tempted to believe it by the end of Clinton's presidency. But is it correct?

There are two arguments against this. But first consider, "the media" (often called the "elite media") is vaguely defined by the accusers. "The media" apparently is whatever news outlet is not spouting right-wing rhetoric on a regular basis. This is key. A news outlet does not have to actually propagandize for the Democrats or liberals to get the "liberal media" label. They only need to refuse to promote the GOPs spin. It was not enough that CNN ran every second possible of the Monica Lewinski scandal. They were "liberal" because they did not demonize Clinton enough.

On the other hand, liberals have been exasperated by the lack of criticism by the major media (TV news, the major newspapers, etc) on the Bush administration. The blind eye turned toward the Florida election scandal, the cronyism in policy writing and agency hirings, the Bush approach to terrorism his first nine months, their lack of critical analysis about Bush's reasons for war, the bungling of the war, the reckless deficit spending, and on and on. Liberals have been completely dumbfounded over the lapdog complacency by the media these past four years. Only this year, in 2004, has there been any attempt to answer these questions, however halfheartedly.

If the major ("elite") media were liberal, would they not have pounced on this President on day one (election day 2000) and scrutinized his every word and every policy? How could Bush possibly be polling ahead during the campaign if all the major media were so feverishly biased against him? This should be your first clue to the real answer.

The first argument against a "liberal media" is based on simple logic. 1.) Ask yourself, how often you have heard over the past fifteen years or so that the media is liberal? At least every week, and probably every day. 2.) Ask yourself how often you hear the complaint that the media is conservative? Rarely or never. 3.) Ask yourself if liberals in a liberally controlled media would come on the air, every day, and criticize the media for being biased--in THEIR favor? (That is like a football coach screaming at the referee for making all the calls in HIS team's favor.) So again, no. They would keep quiet about it and enjoy their advantage. 4.) Ask yourself, if the liberals would not tell on themselves then who is doing all the complaining? Who are all these talking heads on your television and editorial pages? If they are not liberals, who are they? The answer to that is fairly obvious. Whatever they are, they are not liberals.

The media is, if anything, largely conservative. Not something you are used to hearing, is it? But that is not to say that the media is all just a mouthpiece for the GOP. It is not that simple. So here is the second argument.

"The media" is corporate. It is corporate because all the major media are a bunch of corporations, whose job is making money and answering to stock holders. This is not a secret. Viacom, who owns that beacon of liberalism that is CBS, has said it wishes for Bush to be reelected because his policies are good for the Viacom corporation. Disney, who owns ABC, favors Bush (both the president and the governor of Florida) because it believes it will get more beneficial legislation from him. Sinclair, who owns many media outlets, blocked the airing of a Nightline episode listing U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq because it might make Bush look bad, and is actively trying to get Bush elected by airing the anti-Kerry film Stolen Honor. Clear Channel, who owns thousands of radio stations, has pushed away Bush critic Howard Stern and airs plenty of Rush Limbaugh. Rupert Murdoch, who owns FoxNews and much more, is obvious in his biased support for the GOP. Does all this sound like the media is controlled by liberals? Hardly.

If you watch a lot of news, you will notice that stories which question the status quo (labor issues, corporate scandals) get short shrift while emotional gossipy stories, especially murders of young white women, get round the clock coverage. Sensational stories draw more viewers, and therefore more advertisers. And advertising is where the media makes its money. This is not to say that folks in the board rooms do not have their own political ax to grind. They do. But at the end of the day, the news is just another commodity, another means to the typical corporate end of getting your money into their pockets. If the Stacy Peterson story draws viewers, it will get the lion's share of coverage, even if the current budget bill in Congress is likely more important. The same with war. If the war is popular, report the good parts. If it is unpopular, report the bad parts. But whatever you do, do not turn off your audience. They take their money with them.

So the next time a talking head tries to convince you "the media" is controlled by liberals, think about these two arguments. You will find that the liberals are not the only group driven by a self-serving agenda and want to manipulate you to believe what they want you to believe.

A healthy skepticism is a good thing, especially when you apply it evenly and, well...liberally.