Our Liberal Media: Still Not Liberal
What I'm about to say has been said many, many times before, but we need to keep repeating it until the news directors at the major networks internalize it and actually do something to address the problem.
I happened to catch today's edition of Meet the Press, and, sadly, it was a textbook example of everything that is wrong with this particular genre of political news. The entire episode was devoted to a panel discussion of this week's hot topics. The panelists were Kate O'Beirne, right-wing author and columnist for the National Review, and three mainstream journalists: Judy Woodruff of CNN, David Gregory of NBC, and Chuck Todd of NBC (formerly of the National Journal). The discussion proceeded according to this predictable formula:
1) Tim Russert asked a question about Issue X.
2) Kate O'Beirne laid out the Republican position on Issue X, complete with partisan spin and noticeable hostility and scorn directed at any Democrat relevant to the discussion.
3) Judy Woodruff, David Gregory, and Chuck Todd then provided typical play-by-play analysis of the debate surrounding Issue X and offered predictions as to which side would eventually come out on top politically.
Reliably missing from the discussion was any attempt to lay out the Democratic position.
Conservatives always claim that the presence of someone like Kato O'Beirne is necessary to "balance out" the three members of the "liberal" mainstream media. But even assuming Woodruff, Gregory, and Todd are "liberals" in some sense of the word (which is a highly dubious assumption), it's obvious that they feel professionally restrained in a way that O'Beirne does not. They are observers, not advocates.
As a result, the conversation is predictably one-sided. The GOP's talking points get aired in full, while the best the Democrats can hope for is that the mainstream journalists on the panel give their side a fair shake as they sum up the controversy and offer their predictable bits of beltway conventional wisdom.
On today's show, Tim Russert began by asking the panel to comment on the standoff between Congress and the President over the emergency Iraq supplemental. O'Beirne began the conversation by accusing the Democrats of endangering the troops ("they are jeopardizing funds for troops in the field"). Woodruff, Gregory, and Todd then discussed who they thought would "blink" first: the President or the Democrats in Congress. To be fair, I actually thought all three of them had moderately insightful things to say. But, of course, no one laid out the Democratic position, which happens also to be the position supported by a solid majority of Americans. No one pointed out the sheer absurdity of the President's claim that Congress is denying funds to the troops when both houses have passed bills providing the President with every penny he asked for.
Later in the show, Russert raised the issue of Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria. Again, the discussion began with Kate O'Beirne giving a long, clearly partisan rant. Woodruff, Gregory, and Todd then offered their insights into how the controversy would play out and whether it was handled well by Pelosi. Again, nothing they said was particularly unfair or outrageous, but clearly none of them saw it as their role to substantively defend Pelosi from this rather silly criticism.
The problem here is not so much with people like Gregory, Woodruff, or Todd; it's with the producers of shows like Meet the Press. Simply put, it's absurd that anyone would think this sort of a panel is conducive to informed, fair political debate. Yet this is, by far, the most common kind of panel we see on the Sunday shows. I have no problem with someone like Kate O'Beirne being given a spot at the table. But if you're going to have a movement conservative on the panel, you have to balance that person out by inviting someone who is willing and able to articulate the liberal/Democratic positions on the topics of the day. That's just common sense. And it's not hard to find such people. Just about anyone from The American Prospect, for instance, would do an excellent job.
The phenomenon of unbalanced panels on shows like Meet the Press has been pointed out so many times now--and is so easily remedied--that the continued use of such panels calls into question the credibility of news organizations like NBC. At some point, there just isn't any innocent explanation for this sort of repeated error. It's not acceptable to have the most important issues of the day--issues such as war and peace--presented to the public in a way that is guaranteed to distort the nature of the debate. But that's what we get nearly every week from our supposedly liberal media.
I happened to catch today's edition of Meet the Press, and, sadly, it was a textbook example of everything that is wrong with this particular genre of political news. The entire episode was devoted to a panel discussion of this week's hot topics. The panelists were Kate O'Beirne, right-wing author and columnist for the National Review, and three mainstream journalists: Judy Woodruff of CNN, David Gregory of NBC, and Chuck Todd of NBC (formerly of the National Journal). The discussion proceeded according to this predictable formula:
1) Tim Russert asked a question about Issue X.
2) Kate O'Beirne laid out the Republican position on Issue X, complete with partisan spin and noticeable hostility and scorn directed at any Democrat relevant to the discussion.
3) Judy Woodruff, David Gregory, and Chuck Todd then provided typical play-by-play analysis of the debate surrounding Issue X and offered predictions as to which side would eventually come out on top politically.
Reliably missing from the discussion was any attempt to lay out the Democratic position.
Conservatives always claim that the presence of someone like Kato O'Beirne is necessary to "balance out" the three members of the "liberal" mainstream media. But even assuming Woodruff, Gregory, and Todd are "liberals" in some sense of the word (which is a highly dubious assumption), it's obvious that they feel professionally restrained in a way that O'Beirne does not. They are observers, not advocates.
As a result, the conversation is predictably one-sided. The GOP's talking points get aired in full, while the best the Democrats can hope for is that the mainstream journalists on the panel give their side a fair shake as they sum up the controversy and offer their predictable bits of beltway conventional wisdom.
On today's show, Tim Russert began by asking the panel to comment on the standoff between Congress and the President over the emergency Iraq supplemental. O'Beirne began the conversation by accusing the Democrats of endangering the troops ("they are jeopardizing funds for troops in the field"). Woodruff, Gregory, and Todd then discussed who they thought would "blink" first: the President or the Democrats in Congress. To be fair, I actually thought all three of them had moderately insightful things to say. But, of course, no one laid out the Democratic position, which happens also to be the position supported by a solid majority of Americans. No one pointed out the sheer absurdity of the President's claim that Congress is denying funds to the troops when both houses have passed bills providing the President with every penny he asked for.
Later in the show, Russert raised the issue of Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria. Again, the discussion began with Kate O'Beirne giving a long, clearly partisan rant. Woodruff, Gregory, and Todd then offered their insights into how the controversy would play out and whether it was handled well by Pelosi. Again, nothing they said was particularly unfair or outrageous, but clearly none of them saw it as their role to substantively defend Pelosi from this rather silly criticism.
The problem here is not so much with people like Gregory, Woodruff, or Todd; it's with the producers of shows like Meet the Press. Simply put, it's absurd that anyone would think this sort of a panel is conducive to informed, fair political debate. Yet this is, by far, the most common kind of panel we see on the Sunday shows. I have no problem with someone like Kate O'Beirne being given a spot at the table. But if you're going to have a movement conservative on the panel, you have to balance that person out by inviting someone who is willing and able to articulate the liberal/Democratic positions on the topics of the day. That's just common sense. And it's not hard to find such people. Just about anyone from The American Prospect, for instance, would do an excellent job.
The phenomenon of unbalanced panels on shows like Meet the Press has been pointed out so many times now--and is so easily remedied--that the continued use of such panels calls into question the credibility of news organizations like NBC. At some point, there just isn't any innocent explanation for this sort of repeated error. It's not acceptable to have the most important issues of the day--issues such as war and peace--presented to the public in a way that is guaranteed to distort the nature of the debate. But that's what we get nearly every week from our supposedly liberal media.
posted by A.L. at 9:37 PM
5 Comments:
"Liberal Media"? Just another lie from the lying lairs - one that more people increasingly do believe, but it plays well to their ignorent base.
When you think about it - its amazing taht they even need to "catapult that propaganda" because the likes of faux and the MSM have so dillegently supported this administration and its crimes and treasons by failing to do any meaningful reporting.
The "liberal media" lie is like the lie of "objective journalism" There is no such thing and their is nothing "objective" about balancing the truth with lies and wing-nut talking points either. Both of these memes provide the MSM cover for the political agenda it advocates.
This brings us to the next issue - DOES THE MSM SIMPLY FOLLOW THE "LEADERS" IN THIS ADMINISTRATION OR ARE DOES THE CHIMPEROR AND HIS GANG OF THIEVES MERELY TAKE MARCHING ORDERS FROM THE SAME POLITICAL/ECONOMIC FORCES THAT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE MSM?
Here is where much of the so-called "liberal" blogosphere also betrays liberal ideas. As long as we ignore the economic and social factors that drive our politics and policies, we are not actually "liberal" either.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, much of the so-called-liberal-blog will not or can not step back and do more meaningful analysis that beyond the lying liars that stand in front of the microphones and cameras.
Our real problem is with the powerbrokers that elevate these incompetent morons into these figurehead positions and direct the agenda away from public scrutiny.
all true. I'd be interested to know more specifically who you think would do a good job on the liberal side. Interestingly, this template goes back to the Old David Brinkley Show, 80s vintage, when the supposedly liberal balance to George Will was provided by Sam Donaldson. Hannity/Colmes is an excellent satire of the same, but who then? Michael Kinsley is the only one who comes to mind who ever properly assumed the role you're talking about. Al Franken would have been good, alas, but now appears to be out of the running. Is Glenn Greenwald telegenic? Josh Marshall would need about two weeks of cleaning up, to judge by his appearances on Air America. At the moment Arianna Huffington would seem to be the most effective, unapologetic proponent.
One pitfall one would want to avoid is the MSM throwing in a clown for balance, someone who exhibited the same excesses on the liberal side as their conservative commentators exhibit on the right. For every Kate O'Beirne, a Janine Garafolo, for instance, which would be to no one's benefit. A Ward Churchill if you will - I kid, but the impulse would be there.
All I'm saying is, careful what you wish for, unless you've got some really specific nominees in mind, in which case, perhaps they should get some better (i.e. Arianna's) handlers, because in the abstract, you're absolutely correct, and the ironic part is, the first such program that finds a telegenic liberal counterbalance will see its ratings rise. No question.
Obviously no pundit is perfect, but simply having a left-leaning person on these shows would help enormously. The obvious choices are people like Paul Krugman and E.J. Dionne. But even people like Peter Beinart and Joe Klein are better than nothing.
What we really need, though, is to groom a new generation of left-leaning tv pundits. People like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, and Josh Marshall would be excellent, I think, if given more opportunities.
1. Matt Stoller from MyDD comported himself well twice on C-SPAN's Washington Journal call-in show. A lot of bloggers would be good, like Atrios, but aren't based in DC, like Stoller.
2. If the journalists on that show were real journalists, how could they resist the opportunity to ask O'Beirne, on the record, about her husband's work in staffing the Iraq recovery team?
3. It's my understanding that Alberto Gonzales was supposed to be the guest star that week but didn't have his act together enough to appear, hence the endless roundtable.
A.L., your post could serve as the Encyclopedia entry (Wiki would be an insult) for Sunday Talk Show Panels. I stopped watching these shows after the 2004 election and have never been curious to tune in again. The Net is where the news is now. And this is coming from someone who scoffed when I watched the bloggers at the Dem National convention, sitting in a row, typing away on their laptops. I realize now that image was contrived to portray them as inconsequential navel-gazers, who were not part of the real action. More people every day are making the switch as I did. Perhaps when these shows really begin to tank in the ratings they will wake up and provide more palatable (and worthwhile viewing) formats.
P.S. - Ezra, yes. Joe, no.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home