On Markets and the Media
Via Powerline, I came across this cartoon. While I'm sure many conservatives think this is brilliant commentary, I actually think it does a beautiful job capturing the self-evident absurdity of the prevailing conservative view of the media. Notice how many bizarre and contradictory beliefs are embedded in this single image.
On one side of the scale we see virtually every major news organization except Fox News, the implication being that all of them are dominated by liberals in the same way that talk radio is dominated by conservatives. But that's so patently absurd. MSNBC has primetime shows hosted by Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, and Chris Matthews. The Washington Post's editorial page is run by Fred Hiatt and hasn't expressed a liberal view on anything in years.
But the whole "liberal bias" schtick is nothing new and hardly worthy of comment at this point. The real gem in this cartoon is the punchline, where the "Libs" conclude that we "better start regulating radio." The implication is that somehow liberals control everything but the radio, so it's time to close off that one last oasis of conservative thought. But does that make any sense at all? Television isn't any more "regulated" than radio. And newspapers aren't regulated at all. So how exactly is it that the "Libs" are managing to control everything?
If conservatives are going to insist that everything except Fox News and talk radio are "liberally biased," don't they at least owe us some sort of explanation as to how market forces could possibly allow for this sort of liberal domination? Is the public overwhelmingly liberal?
The cognitive dissonance on display in this cartoon is actually quite typical of conservative commentary. On the one hand, there is a high degree of paranoia; we're supposed to believe that all of the major news organizations are controlled by liberals who are constantly cramming their liberal views down our throats. On the other hand, there's a belief that markets--if left alone--will always produce the "correct" outcome. These two elements of conservative thought are constantly at war with one another.
The easy way out of this intellectual bind, at least in this context, is to simply concede that the "mainstream media" is not, in fact, liberally-biased. Journalists, like all professionals, probably are, on average, more socially liberal than the population as a whole (and more fiscally conservative). But market forces and journalistic norms make it virtually impossible for there to be any sort of pervasive liberal bias in news coverage itself.
Of course, conservatives will never concede this. Not in a million years. The "liberal bias" argument is just too convenient; it's a ready-made rejoinder to just about anything, an excuse to ignore and marginalize anything that contradicts their worldview. And so we're left with cartoons like the one above that are internally contradictory and self-discrediting.
posted by A.L. at 9:06 PM
26 Comments:
hey dude,
I've been reading your blog for about 3-4 months now, since the USA Attorney scandal broke, found it from FDL I think but while I don't always become immersed in each entry, you occasionally put the situation in terms that are deep but easy so even a normal joe can see that the Constitution has been stolen and is being kept hostage by some old white guys who are asking for everything as ransom.
cheers
I totally blew the cartoon. I thought the conservatives were naming All the important news sources and calling them liberal. I just figured that the cartoonist was also making another observation: Faux Noise is NOT a legitimate news source and doesn't really count for news, so it is not in the cartoon!
Didn't you know? Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
AL,
One major nuance which is completely missed here is the distinction between news reporting and opinion. When one considers msnbc, the new york times, fox news, are any other "news" media, to not take into account the distinction between opinion and news is to miss the point entirely.
On both the cable shows and the newspapers, you have segregated outlets for opinion pieces -- on the cable shows it the Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly shows. For the newspapers its the editorial page. When considering whether one of these entities is liberal biased, or conservative biased, one must separate these opinion sources from the news reporting done by the entity.
As an example, it is pretty much universally conceded that the Wall Street Journal runs a rather conservative editorial page, yet also produces high-quality, non-biased general news reporting.
Similarly, one can identify Fred Hiatt as a non-liberal running the WaPo editorial page, yet that would say next to nothing about the content of the WaPo's newsreporting, as nearly all of these institutions emphasize the independence between the editorial page and the rest of the publication.
The legitimate argument that critics of "liberal media" make is that the reporters themselves -- those who are tasked with supplying facts, rather than opinion, are liberally biased. These claims are often supported by circumstantial evidence -- like the recent invest. that showed that reporters donated to dems vs. republicans at a 9-1 ratio, and by more direct evidence, such as how news stories are put in context.
So to reject the argument that abc, npr, nyt, etc. are liberal biased by noting that self-identified conservatives such as Carlson, Scarborough, etc. host OPINION programs on those networks, really doesn't prove anything. The conservatives issue is more with Brian Williams and his reporters rather who bill themselves as neutral fact gatherers, rather than the self-identified partisans like Olberman.
Look, I'm well aware of the difference between opinion and straight news, and I've written about these issues in much more depth in other posts. I didn't focus on that distinction here because it wasn't really relevant to my point.
There's no reason to think "straight news" reporting would somehow be immune to the market forces that affect everything else (and in the case of MSNBC, there really isn't any straight news. It's all opinion shows, most of them conservative).
Moreover, the argument that reporters are "liberals" and therefore their coverage is slanted has always been incredibly weak. First, there are plently of downright conservative reporters in the MSM. Think Judy Miller or Brit Hume (pre FoxNews). And while the average reporter is probably more socially liberal than the average American, they're probably also more conservative on fiscal issues and more hawkish. There's no reason to think these people are all or even mostly democrats.
Moreover, journalistic normals, pressure from editors and publishers, and constant accusations of liberal bias all affect what gets reported and how.
There is simply no way, for instance, that anyone who paid any attention to what happened in the 2000 presidential race can possibly think that the media was biased in favor of Al Gore. There has never been more lop-sided coverage in a presidential race, and the clear beneficiary was George Bush.
Reporters are lazy, narrative-driven, and prone to sensationalism, but there's no credible empirical evidence at all that they slant their coverage in favor of Democrats. If if this were the case, it's pretty hard to see how the market wouldn't correct it. And they must be doing a pretty grappy job given the Democrats political fortunes over the last few decades.
In other words, I reject the idea that all these networks are liberally biased because it doesn't make sense and I've never seen any evidence of it.
And, by the way, do you really think Brian Williams of all people is liberally-biased? Did you happen to watch his truly embarrassing performance at the first Democratic presidential debate?
Miller and Hume -- two examples of conservative reporters -- falls far short of showing "plenty" of liberal reporters in the MSM.
And being biased against Gore does not refute this theory. Indeed, Gore was not even the consensus "liberal" candidate in the 2000 election. I imagine many lefty reporters were fascinated by Mr. Nader.
As for B. Williams, I have not watched enough of him to form an opinion.
My point -- and the conservative critique -- apply more toward the framing, structure, and context of reporting of issues. How you choose to cover the Iraq War, universal health insurance, tax policy, abortion, etc. is how the bias comes through. The stories reported and with what emphasis is where the bias comes through.
You can report negatively on Al Gore, but if you accept Gore's structuring of the issues in your reporting, than that is far more important in terms of media bias.
Miller and Hume -- two examples of conservative reporters -- falls far short of showing "plenty" of liberal reporters in the MSM.
Oh please. Look, obviously I'm not going to tick through every reporter in the MSM to try to make this point. Moreover, the burden isn't on me to demonstrate the self-evident point that many reporters are in fact conservatives.
And being biased against Gore does not refute this theory. Indeed, Gore was not even the consensus "liberal" candidate in the 2000 election. I imagine many lefty reporters were fascinated by Mr. Nader.
Huh? Nader? Are you serious? Mainstream journalists were Naderites? What planet do you live on?
And you haven't addressed my main points. How is that market forces would allow such pervasive liberal bias? And if such bias exists, why have the Republicans been so successful politically over the last few decades (at least until they got the nation stuck in a disastrous war)? Does that make any sense?
Oh, and speaking of Iraq, you might want to review the press coverage during the lead up to that war. During that time period, the mainstream press treated all critics of the invasion as fringe lunatics. War critics were not even allowed on the TV. Liberal media my foot.
As for this:
My point -- and the conservative critique -- apply more toward the framing, structure, and context of reporting of issues. How you choose to cover the Iraq War, universal health insurance, tax policy, abortion, etc. is how the bias comes through. The stories reported and with what emphasis is where the bias comes through.
I'd love to see any evidence or even logical argument as to how this "framing" systematically favors Democrats.
As for market forces, they are clear. People don't much care for any of the MSM news offerings. Nbc, cbs, and abc all have declining network news ratings -- more profitable are their non-partisan, non-political, puffball morning shows. The biggest money makers are the local news programs, which cost little produce but take up so much programing time.
The market preference isn't so much liberal vs. conservative, its sensationalism vs. everything else.
Re Gore and Nader, remember that Gore in 2000 was not held in the same esteem that he is now held by liberals. In 2000, Nader ran on the premise that Gore was Bush-lite, and that there was far too little distinction between the parties and candidates. This is a position that many liberals believed at the time, following 8 years of Clintonism. Many who voted for Gore did so even though in their heart of hearts, they preferred Nader. And before Nader won their hearts, many were tempted by Bill Bradley who ran as the more liberal challenger in the 2000 primaries.
And Nader won his shared of union and environmental group endorsements in 2000.
This just goes to show that Gore was by no means a liberal darling in 2000.
Biased partisans can turn on a dime if they think that you have betrayed the cause. For example, look at how conservative talk radio is ripping apart Bush these days for the immigration bill.
Please stop. The notion that mainstream journalists are a bunch of jilted liberals who took out their frustrations on Gore for not being liberal enough is just totally absurd.
Remember, this is the same campaign where virtually every member of the press corps fell head of heels in love with John McCain, who despite his "maverick" qualities, doesn't have a liberal bone in his body.
As for market forces, they are clear. People don't much care for any of the MSM news offerings. Nbc, cbs, and abc all have declining network news ratings
Their ratings are declining because there are so many channels now. People who don't care about the news are no longer obligated to watch it. But for people who do care about the news, the ratings of the Big Three still dwarf Fox News, particularly when combined with CNN, MSNBC, PBS and all the other supposedly liberal-leaning news outlets. Are 99% of the people who watch the news raging liberals?
Just b/c you watch the news doesn't mean you agree with it. For example I listed to NPR on the drive into work. I enjoy it, but plenty of time -- and on plenty of topics -- I think they are a bit liberally biased and I disagree with their reporting. Its still a high quality broadcast and I listen to it nonetheless. Similarly, I disagree with MOST of what I hear on conservative talk radio, but sometimes I tune in just for the entertainment value. As an example, Michael Savage is a raving lunactic -- but he is an entertaining raving lunatic -- and sometimes that's what I am in the mood to hear.
As for the big three vs. FoxNews, the big three have the advantage of being braodcast networks. FoxNews is not accessible everywhere.
Again re Gore, I am not suggesting that the press was en masse acting as a "jilted lover" with regard to Gore. I have argued from the beginning that there are problems with using the Gore 2000 example as some sort of conclusive proof that MSM journalists are not liberally biased. McCain doesn't help either. THe press liked him because he gave them more access than anyone else. They also like him because he is a "maverick" -- disagreeing with mainstream GOPers all the time. Its not as if the press went crazy for the Sam Brownback campaign or anything like that.
Just b/c you watch the news doesn't mean you agree with it.
Please, while I too have listened to Rush Limbaugh in small doses, purely for the shock value, he would not survive if he didn't have legions of like-minded listeners. Most people that listen to him agree with him. The same is true on TV. If every news network (except FOX) really was liberally-biased, that would only be possible and sustainable if the vast majority of news watchers in the country were liberal.
As for the big three vs. FoxNews, the big three have the advantage of being braodcast networks. FoxNews is not accessible everywhere.
Yes, the the big three still have to compete with each other. Why would all three of them be liberally biased in any rational world?
The press did love McCain because because of the access, but they also loved him because they saw in him their ideal politician, an "authentic" socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative hawk. If we're going to generalize about press corps preferences, I think the average reporter longs for someone along the lines of Alan Alda's West Wing character, a moderate Republican who gives good soundbites.
anonymous -
do you have evidence of the liberal bias? you said you listen to npr and they have a liberal bias. Can you give examples? repeating a tired mantra like that, with no supporting evidence, is not convincing. a.l. points out the fact that the coverage of the iraq war, election 2000, and so many other events contradicts this conventional wisdom. i would advise you go to "the nation" website, see what views are being expressed there, and then check where in the mainstream media those views are published as fact. good luck. if you want my advise, don't bother - you won't find it anywhere.
contrary, look at the conservative talking points, like the weekly standard or rush limbaugh, and see if you can find them in them in the media. the most recent wuold be glenn greenwald's recognition that the media is reporting that everybody we fight in iraq is a member of al-qeada, without bothering to put down contradictory evidence regarding the identities of the fighters (shia forces, sunni insurgents). who's playbook do you think that comes from? why do 40% of people still think saddam had something to do with sept. 11? the run up to the war - where was the msm on pointing out views contrary to it? it takes years for an expose on how cheney is claiming power no student of american history could possibly think accurate, but we know right away about hillary's fake southern drawl, edwards' haircut price, and countless other examples. if it is just sensationalism, where is the mainstream media's coverage of gulliani in a dress?
the media currently conveys facts that are biased in favor of conservatives. this isn't because of a conservative bias, it is because of a lazy and fearful approach to reporting, in which the media simply relays the statements of the white house with no critical eye to their validity. on top of it, they fail to report negatively regarding right wingers (like gulliani in a dress), because they fear being called unamerican and unpatriotic for insulting our "strong" leaders. unfortunately, the right has a monopoly on that card, they play it often and at will, and no one seems able to stand on principle and challenge it for the vapid, anti-american play that it is.
What Nerp said.
Along the same lines, try to remember the last time you saw a genuine liberal on a news show. It's a rare occurence. Movement conservatives routinely appear on Meet the Press and similar shows to spout conservative talking points. They are almost always "balanced" by some mainstream reporter who would never dream of repeating a liberal talking point. If you are a writer for the National Review or Weekly Standard, you get endless invitations to come on television. If you work for the Nation or the American Prospect (or even the not-so-liberal New Republic) forget about it.
a.l. right on. occasionally, Katrina vanden Heuvel is on George S.'s show, but George Will is on every week. (and i like George, he is vastly more honest than most conservatives). but the point remains - always a conservative voice, not always a liberal one. really, the only consistent one is Juan Williams on Fox, but:
1) he's not a raving partisan like Brit and Kristol
2) he's consistently outnumbered by the "mediator" Chris Wallace, Brit and Kristol, and moderate Mara Liason seldom takes any kind of position, just a wishy-washy middle ground. "well, this may be the case if this, and it may be the other way if that..."
Katrina is the only partisan liberal i have really ever seen on any of the Sunday shows (and only on George S.'s). i don't think anyone from the American Prospect has ever been on...
Sure, A.L., it was McCain's fiscal-conservativism that made the press like him so much. Can't see how I overlooked that, wasn't it obvious?
Reporters love fiscal conservativism.
I've seen plenty of guys from TNR and Prospect on the news shows. Beinart is a regular, Vanden Hueval from the Nation are two frequent show guests. Also Hitchens (way liberal in many respects) and Andrew Sullivan (big time admin critic). And this doesn't count all of operatives, like James Carville who has something like 900,000 meet the press appearances at last count.
I've seen these guys, way more often that their NRO counterparts. Can't recall ever seeing Jonah or Ramesh, or any of those guys. In fact those shows seem to always select the off-their-rocker conservative to present a caricatured view, like Ann Coulter.
Sure, A.L., it was McCain's fiscal-conservativism that made the press like him so much. Can't see how I overlooked that, wasn't it obvious?
There have actually been studies showing this. They're the same ones that conservatives point to as evidence that journalists are more socially liberal than the population as a whole. Same studies show mainstream journalists are more fiscally conservative than the population as a whole, more supportive of Republican tax policies, etc. Which is isn't suprising given that most mainstream political reporters are pretty well off.
I've seen these guys, way more often that their NRO counterparts.
I'm starting to think we've live on different planets. I've seen Beinart on TV, but that's pretty much the exception that proves the rule. The height of his influence was in 2002-2003 when he was invited on television to trash anyone who dared to question the wisdom of invading Iraq. Ditto for Sullivan (who is a self-describe conservative). I've never seen any of the non-contrarian liberals from TNR on TV. And I've never seen anyone from the American Prospect. If we're lucky, we occasionally get milquetoast moderates like E.J. Dionne, but that's about it.
People like Kate O'Beirne, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Byron York, Rich Lowry, Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, George Will, Robert Novak (I could go on and on); these people are always on my damn teevee. And most of time they are "balanced" out by someone like Judy Woodruff or David Gregory who are just reporters, not talking-point spouting ideologues.
hitchens? the neocon? and andrew sullivan, who was as conservative as you get until reality (finally) smashed him in the face in 2005ish? that's the defense?
oh, and broder, safire, and novak have been on meet the press more times than i can count. also, buckley and stephen hayes from the standard have been on with tim. and steven moore also. and byron, lowry, kristol, and barnes
beinart is on because he supported the war, as did hitchens and sullivan. Note the pattern. these are liberals in the same way as many conservatives (nowadays) would say chaffee or bloomberg are conservatives. contrary to your opinion, meet the press consitenly has two of the most conservative, old school guys come on tim's show.
"Can't recall ever seeing Jonah or Ramesh." yeah, and i can't remember ever seeing noam chomsky on the shows either. nro apparently has a list of people they send, and these two are not on it. Luckily, there are plenty of others from nro to go. see the above list.
carville only shows up with his wife, so there is always "balance"
Who from the Prospect? names?
besides vanden hueval, who i have only seen on george s's show, name a liberal pundit who actually opposed the war. and note like i said above, vanden hueval is on george every now and then, george will is on every week.
and i totally forgot how many times Gigot showed up in the past.
I'm not all too familiar with the Prospect's current set of writers, but I've seen Kuttner and Reich.
Other libs: Shields, Oliphant -- on the NewsHour all of the time.
These guys opposed the war.
Oh, don't forget the grating Elanor Clift. And Lawrence O'Donnell.
And Tom Friedman. A pro war lib at the time yes, but so were Hillary and John Edwards at the time too.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home