The One-Sided War
The news that Sunday chat shows have a severe tilt toward conservatives should come as no surprise to anyone who's seen them and, actually, the quantitative analysis indicates somewhat less slant than I would have guessed. More interesting, in some ways, is what Kevin Drum highlights here -- a truly enormous absence of opponents of the Iraq War from the airwaves.
As Paul Waldman writes:
In the pre-war period, beginning in September 2002, only 18 percent of the members of Congress who appeared as guests ended up voting against the congressional resolution authorizing the war. During the war itself (the period of "major combat operations" ending with Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" carrier landing), the figure was a paltry 13 percent. And in the period since then, the anti-war position has been held by 17 percent of congressional guests. By comparison, 30 percent of representatives and senators voted against the resolution for war.Kevin chalks this up to laziness on the part of bookers which, like Atrios, I don't really buy. It's instructive to recall the atmosphere prevailing before the war. Phil Donahue had a show on MSNBC that allowed liberal and anti-war voices to have an outlet on cable. MSNBC canceled the show, citing low ratings. At the time, however, he was hosting the highest rated show on MSNBC. A leaked internal study offered the real reason for sacking him:
Consequently, debates on the war on Sunday mornings have been mostly between people who supported the war all along, and people who supported the war but have some criticisms of how it has been carried out. Over time, the shows have begun to take on a Groundhog Day quality, with each Sunday bringing yet another tribute by an administration official or friendly Republican to the terrific "progress" being made in Iraq, and yet another sort-of-refutation from Joe Biden reciting the umpteenth version of "As I told the president, we have to do what we're doing, just better."
The study went on to claim that Donahue presented a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war......He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." The report went on to outline a possible nightmare scenario where the show becomes "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."Given that, it would hardly shock me to learn that other television networks were likewise deliberately excluding anti-war people out of a desire to appear patriotic.
The other factor in play is simple partisanship. Support for the war was the quasi-official position of the Democratic Party, backed by Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, most of the congressional leadership, most of the contenders for the 2004 presidential nomination, and most of the relevant former Clinton administration officials. It would be just like a television news executive to decide that the relevant issue here was the debate between Republicans ("the war is awesome!") and Democrats ("the war is pretty good!") rather than the debate over the war. This is really just all of a piece with the general, and generally lamentable, press aversion to covering substantive issues as opposed to political positioning.
Advertisement
I did not know that about the Donahue show, which I assumed was as terrible as every other talker on cable news. This, to me, is the smoking gun which should prove the death of the "liberal bias" claim once and for all.
This is horrifying, it truly is. What has happened to our democracy? Even now, with Bush in the sub-40's, there is no media or political opposition to speak of. The Gonzalez hearing was almost as big a farce as the one over Alito. For example, did any Democratic Senator mention the fact the FISA has a 15-day "wartime exception" IN THE FUCKING STATUTE? How much more clear could it be that the President has broken the law? Why are we still arguing over the President's "inherent authority" when there is not a shred of precedent supporting this argument?
February 14, 2006 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is another angle to consider when trying to explain the tilt. Money. Meet the Press appears on NBC, a network owned by General Electric a defense contractor which went on to land billions in Iraq war contracts. At least some of that money trickled down to Tim Russert et al. In other words Bush indirectly pays part of Tim Russert's million dollar salary.
You could argue that when a major corporation which receives billions in govt contracts owns a TV network there is a conflict of interest built it. Imagine Haliburton with its own TV network. Which way do you think its political talk shows would tilt?
February 14, 2006 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that I am arguing with you, but since bias in favor of corporations = bias in favor of Republicans, the effect is the same. The "liberal media" cliche has to be shot down at every opportunity; it's been a very effective tool in marginalizing liberal voices.
February 14, 2006 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found it striking, when I looked at the graphs in the report, that they limited their scope to truly, er, mainstream media. It wasn't about slugfests on Fox, and it certainly wasn't about the long-standing assault from John McGlaughlin's program. That makes the report's findings, alas, even more damning.
I also found it difficult to take too seriously an explanation that Kevin Drum countenanced, lack of star quality from the opposition. In this celebrity culture, it's the media who anoints the celebrity and generates the buzz, just as actors with relativitly little track record of hits or even many movies at all, much less critical successes, get to dominate the celebrity gossip. Saying that the GOP is more of a draw says no more about its earning that credence with the public than Paris Hilton's popularity. And that's assuming that the programs are indeed based on what sells, rather than on the other serious biases that this post and its comments describe.
http://www.haberarts.com/
February 14, 2006 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I didn't find the statistics in the article particularly damning, although they certainly burst the "liberal media" myth. But to me, the interesting question raised by the article is, what would "fair" coverage BE? Should it reflect who's currently in power (i.e. tilted to the GOP)? Should it be 50-50 all the time (as though it is "fair and balanced" to present both sides equally when one is true and the other is false)? Or should it reflect what the network execs actually think is the truth?
February 14, 2006 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the love of God, people, why would you even watch these shows? They're terrible. If you find yourself watching them, admit that you have a problem and find a twelve-step program for political junkies. (Warning: They're going to make you give up the C-SPAN.)
February 14, 2006 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a good question. Not sure that there is any magic formula. But we do have only 100 Senators so it seems reasonable that getting more of them on TV isn't that hard. Though getting between McCain or Biden and a TV camera is likely dangerous:-)
More seriosuly, it shouldn't be some sort of quota of representation for each Senator, but a reasonable apporach might be more like what the News Hour seems to try. Whatever your topic is get the highest ranking Rep and Dem from the relevant comittee that you can. Sure seems a better approach than having McCain's view on every issue.
February 15, 2006 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I turned my TV off in 1975. I seem to be as well informed as most of the people who watch most or all the time. Save yourselves.
If its good for me it must be Good 4 A Merica
February 15, 2006 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good suggestion. Although, I would ask, is it the job of Tim Russert to simply sit there and let people speak? Definitely not, IMHO. Its not that Tim or a network exec has to inject his views. Its just that there often times is a clear truth of a matter or at least clear crap being put forth as truth that isn't called out for what it is, namely, bullshit. I don't want to make it seem like I'm picking on Russert, he does ask the tough questions at times. But when the liar sticks to the story, the prudent thing to me would be to lay your balls out on the table and call him a liar.
February 16, 2006 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink