I think #4 comes the closest.

Just another case of the 'insider's game'.

We outsiders simply are not privvy to the circle that fosters these beliefs we just get to peer in on their thinking via our cable and network news broadcasts.

I actually seen #3 happen.

The editor of our local (very small town) weekly wrote an editiorial criticizing the local Republican Party for how they selected candidates for local office based on their positions on national rather than local issues.  After reading the editorial I noted that the big advertisers were also big GOPers.  I wondered how they would react.  Two weeks later there was a new editor.

J. McCutchen

Owners, FCC, media concentration....Good Lord Reed, you tell us!

The right has acted as an organized pressure group to move the media their way since the 1960s.  They constantly talk about the "liberal bias" of the media. 

The left has not had the good sense to counter this inch by inch. 

So the media is consciously aware of any disadvantage they give to the right.  They will pile up against the left just to provide "balance."

The struggle we are finally engaging will not be easy.  But it is essential. 

It doesn't take a regression analysis to know that the mainstream media ("MSM") presents, from diction to camera angle, a negative picture of the Democratic Congress.

I remember one of my inaugural blog posts at TPMCafe expressed my great glee in figuring out that "MSM" meant "mainstream media." I hadn't seen that expression before -- and it still seems to imply belief in a conspiracy to keep the Democrats down!

Anyway, I'd actually like to see such a regression analysis. Failure to think about or critically consider anecdotes that reinforce one's perspective or taking that perspective as a given -- that is one of the great faults of the George W administration. I would hope that the Democratic / progressive / liberal side of the spectrum would be more careful. After all, data trump impressions.

So why would the mainstream media continue to adopt points of view that are at odds with their audience?

That's the question! Why indeed!! I thought that the Libby trial would expose the MSM for the lapdogs that they are - and that it would change things in DC. But I was sadly mistaken. Nothing has changed. They continue to suck-up to BushCo and the Republican party. And they continue to portray Democrats in a negative way. It's so frustrating to watch.

Thanks for this post, Reed Hunt. I agree with Luigi Vampa - this is the most important subject currently being discussed here and at other lefty blogs. It's a huge problem for Democrats - one that needs our greatest attention right now. The '08 election is less than 2 years away.

Yesterday was a big day for dems - but you'd never know it watching or reading our pundits in the MSM. They're corrupt. There's no other answer for it!

I like Luigi Vampa's idea of using ridicule - maybe we need to twist the arms of the Media Whores Online to make a comeback. I'd like to see an alternative to the new "Politico" as well. Isn't it a free newspaper in DC? It's truly awful. Perhaps some enterprising liberal scribes could put together something better? Easy for me to say from my home in Massachusetts. just a suggestion. We need to fight fire with fire!!

My sense is it's a pretty much a composite of 1)-4).

The major pundits and journalists are white, usually male, and over 50. Even to extent these people are personally cosmopolitan and liberal, they've seen a Republican-dominated Washington for about 40 years and long term weakness of the Left/slowly reforming Democrats. Their personal political terms and views, usually set in the terms and range of the views in the public arena their mid-twenties, correspend more to Republican ones. They're relatively well off, if well known, and the money angle matters. Inside the Beltway it seems all media people come from within the New York City-Chicago-Atlanta triangle if not even more locally, from a belt stretching from Baltimore or conservative Philadelphia suburbia to maybe Raleigh or Charlotte. Look at the Washington Post editorial board for just how provincial it gets.

The long political majority of the Right and its survival of various promising convulsions against it, and its generational nature, has convinced some pundits (e.g. Charlie Rose) that the midpoint of American political discourse is stuck at center-Right for, well, the rest of their lives. In Rose's case there's also an ideological faith of 19th century provinance in private wealth being a creator of more social good than government sponsorship and other beliefs rooted in thought which was current a century ago.

Then there's the audience. The corporate evening news and newspaper subscriptions have a shrinking elderly white Middle American core demographic that is politically center-Right. Surveys tell the newspapers and news divisions that they're losing more right wing subscribers and listeners than centrist or liberal ones, so they slant further right to try to maximize circulation or market share. And with right wing audiences demanding simplistic narratives that fit provincial preconceptions and a sense of stasis rather than social evolution, the writing and content rapidly diminish in quality. The present dismal state of Washington journalism results- ahistorical or ignorant of historical context and precedent, a focus on who prevails rather than the stakes proper and trend, a standard of calling only blatant counterfactuality lying rather than bad faith misdirection and false witness.

These things, and the other financial interests of the owners (e.g. Jack Welsh's role in the 2000 election results), do make it rather easy for right wing interests to get a more favorable hearing than merited. There are also a few cases of obvious political infiltration and subversion, e.g. ABC's Chris Vlastos.

There are exceptions, of course. But to look at e.g. Ted Koppel's biography, there's a lot of assimilation to these things even by the wisest people. Maybe the true virtue of Peter Jennings is that he quietly resisted this assimilation.

To change the tone, I think we need a few Christiane Amanpours rather than Katie Courics in our media. A few younger people, and older ones. We should let a few of the 60 Minutes anchors do an actual news story of their choice on network news maybe once or twice a week. The serious national TV news shows should be intelligent, 30 minutes long, and air earlier and not head-to-head at 8 PM, 9 PM or 11 PM, as in Europe. The dissenters can go watch Fox "News" Channel or whatever else suits their need for non-news.

About the print journalists and pundits...I think the Democratic Party has to institute a kind of denazification program with terms that those who want access have to abide by. Just kidding, but only very slightly. Basically, all significant journalists and pundits known to carry water for Republicans and obsolete ideologies are kept on probation, and when they misstep badly they are given a public criticism.

So why would the mainstream media continue to adopt points of view that are at odds with their audience?

Easy question. Who owns the MSM? Large corporations, that's who. They have tremendous overhead, what with all their management, accountants, marketers, special effects department, research, office space, parking lots, utilities and the list goes on. The MSM management wants low taxes, good access to government sources, and no meddling in their affairs, and there is no shortage of lobbyists who will represent them in our current government. Managment is more interested in maintaining their power than purveying truth through journalism. And furthermore, their true audience is peope who don't actually read much, or check multiple sources as found on the internet, periodicals, or books.

Who's the MSM's largest threat? The internet bloggers, that's who. The bloggers have by comparison no overhead, and can focus all their efforts to digging out the truth for an audience that doesn't lap up drivel from the MSM.

So, the MSM is writing off the demographics of the educated, thoughtful news consumers, and battling for the large,low-end of the market.

Which party provides the most trite slogans for the MSM to deseminate to people who don't supplment or question their news diet in any way? The publican party, quite obviously.

And why does the publican party do this? Because they desperately need that huge low-end news consumer segment to increase their base beyond the obscenely rich and powerful in the ruling class and corporate executive class, which includes the MSM management.

That, my dear, is why the MSM writers and hosts cannot be expected to support honest debate nor push any truth that significantly damages their management (which writes their paychecks) nor the publican ruling class (which writes their tax breaks and media laws). Pure and simple, it doesn't make business sense to go against the publican party, and it makes no sense at all to support the internet bloggers, their low-cost, high-quality arch-enemy. And it's why I've given up entirely on MSM.

I work for a $30Billion Fortune 500 Corporation...I know that you always get precisely the behavior that is rewarded by managment.

T.Rollie Fisher

This is kind of correct but not completely. Colbert and Stewart offer the public a much different kind of ridicule and derision than the rightists do. They point out the obvious hypocrisy of politicians (particularly on the right but not exclusively). They highlight the craven toadying of politicians to the powerful. They point out when politicians blatantly misrepresent themselves as one thing when, in fact, they are another, e.g. Joe Lieberman. The right simply uses namecalling whether warranted or not. Literally, the right uses tactics most of us have not seen since about 7th grade. That is the difference. What do I mean by this? Well, Limbaugh's endless harping about Robert Reich's height. "He's short! He's almost a midget! What can a midget know?" This sort of embarassingly juvenile stuff is the grist for the right wing mill. The audience is very different indeed. In fact, the right wing audience wouldn't understand half of the jokes Colbert and Stewart delight their audiences with. The mainstream and well educated audience of Colbert and Stewart would understand every single spitball launched by Rush or any of the other fascist talk radio hosts, but the difference is this group would discern that there's just no humor in base namecalling for the sake of it. There's no difference between Rush Limbaugh at 12 years old, the ugly, stupid, fat kid from Cape Girardeau, MO bullying and making fun of someone smaller or someone who wasn't around to respond or perhaps someone who is black or gay than there is today on the radio. Rush and his ilk attract those like them who are not terribly bright or well informed, are unhappy in their lives and who simply do not understand people who are not just like them. In fact, this crowd fears and despises anyone who is not like them. So it isn't simple ridicule that makes Colbert and Stewart influential because that isn't what they do. They are using satire and comedy to carry on the time honored American tradition of cutting the powerful down to size and not trusting anyone or anybody that has too much power. Thank God that Stewart and Colbert are there because our own Democratic politicians in DC are so timid and weak they have been unable to stand up and point out the hypocrisy, corruption and incompetence of the Republicans in DC. If our liberal/progressive leaders had half the balls of Stewart and Colbert they would be voting to defund the war this weekend instead of playing with themselves by passing a nonbinding resolution in one house and failing to get a vote on it in the other. If they did, they may not get better coverage in the MSM of what they do, but they would certainly demonstrate to the MSM and the world that they are unafraid to do what is right no matter whether that action will be received well by the corporate media or not. I think a big part of the reason Dems get such disrespectful coverage is because they are always posturing and preening themselves as though they were nothing but calculating and cowardly pols trying to hold on to their positions and power as opposed to fighting for those who put them in office.

Check out the Sunday Washington Post opinion pages. Not a single liberal columnist.

Check out this week's Time magazine. 3 columnists. Not a single liberal columnist.

Check out the sunday pundit shows. They pair foaming at the mouth right wing pundits with David Broder and call it "balance".

Democrats can't rely on the MSM to get their message out. They should start building their own media machine.

I'm no expert when it comes to Federal Communications Act law and FCC jurisdiction, but it does seem to me that we shouldn't be mixing up newspapers, news magazines, cable, satelite, and over-the-air TV and radio (some of which comprises the MSM).

Other than the three networks whose news shows are on the decline -- walking dead hoping that the fans of Cronkite and Huntley/Brinkely don't die off too rapidly -- over what part of the MSM does the FCC have (or could have) any sort of regulatory authority?

Good post, and lots of interesting comments.  

A lot is that their careers depend on quick, catchy, yet nominally exclusive stories that sell. The idea is to have an inside source and use it to produce the equivalent of the lifestyle pages. So horserace coverage of elections is way cool, especially if you've got inside tips to the betting line. Clinton or Obama is a readymade storyline, while Edwards isn't. Iranian bombs are juicy, especially if they cultivate that administration leaker; debunking them is ever so petty and dry, like fonding the chinks in the message of hope from a guest on Oprah.

The former Times public editor was no doubt correct that the media, at least where he worked, actually leaned liberal on certain social issues. That's not surprising, as the vast majority of Americans are shopping at the mall and not blocking abortion clinics, and it's not the same as liberal bias, especially given that the cliches about unmarried or working women often reemerge. It's interesting that a popular American government textbook, the one by two of the more conservative authors in that market (Wilson/Delulio), makes the public editor's point the center of a sidebar on media bias. (The book does note on the other side the amount of conservative talk radio.)

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

While I think bias in the MSM is less than either side thinks, regarding reporting, the point has been made that one side complained longer and much louder than the other, and that is the conservatives. So when there is flexibility in presentation, (mainly opinion settings), conservatives will be accomodated.

While the NYT, for example, has said it finds its pre-Iraq reporting was flawed, the same flaw was exhibited by Congress. And presumably Representatives and Senators have access to information not available generally. The real culprit there is our own desire to be assertive in the face of threat. It was way uncool to be cautious and considered, basically, notwithstanding that it was the wiser course. Finally, I find myself feeling it is a bit of a dodge to blame the media instead of people in general for being suckers, in the case of Iraq.

If anything needs to be done about political balance, Dems should simply continue complaining and the balance point will drift a little left.

Outstanding analysis!!

Mediocrity always attacks excellence.

You are dead on target about the juvenile humor vs highly intellectual satire...big differnce in the mindsets and character of the individuals who appreciate those humor types.

Interestingly it also is consistent with the latest research on politics is far more of an visceral emotion than reasoned intellect when looking at brain studies and what part of the brain lights up in the 'average' mind.

Fairly strong jurisdiction over all non-cable broadcast radio and television, and less clear jurisdiction over cable/satellite only channels and cable providers.

There has been a great deal of consolidation in radio. From Wikipedia on this network, Clear Channel "...owns over 1,100 full-power AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations, nine satellite radio channels on XM Satellite Radio, and more than 30 television stations in the United States, among other media outlets in other countries."

While Clear Channel has taken political positions, I find that an even more disturbing trend is the way they have bought out independent radio stations. Not only do they do away with local reporting, they run smaller-market stations remotely, with no local content. In at least one situation, this led to difficulty in local officials having an emergency broadcast made, although those officials may not have known how to use standardized emergency announcement channels. Nevertheless, they only got the announcement made when they contacted the station manager at home.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Right wing think tanks have also contributed to the media's unfortunate right turn. As they proliferated through the 90's and after, they would send "press announcements" and kits to major media outlets on events they wanted publicized. They were banking on reporters just printing the kits as written, instead of doing some research. Brilliant strategy on their parts.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

Russert's first question to Tony Snow on Meet the Press today was (paraphrase); What message does the Democrat's resolution send the world?" Tony couldn't have been happier with that question. I said to my wife; "I think Snow paid Russert to ask that question."

Maybe Russert could have asked; "Tony, what message is the President sending the troops with his re deploying them 2 and 3 times. What message is the President sending the troops when he extends their tours from 12 months to 14, 16 months....and all of this happening while these soldiers are seeing their friends blown apart by roadside bombs? What message is he sending them Tony?

Truly strange images of wrestling restrained Ann Coulter, Ramsey Clark, Rush Limbaugh, Cindy Sheehan, Michelle Malkin, and Noam Chomsky into PET or functional MRI scanners...

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Lapdogs for their well-placed sources.

"Russert lied to the court to protect his sources?"

No, but Russert claimed for a long time that he could not testify to the grand jury based on a confidentiality pledge, even though he had already shared exactly that information with the FBI. The problem evidently is not that he wants to protect the legal rights of his confidential source, but rather he wanted to keep the back story out of the mainstream media.

Indeed, Russert covered the Wilson story for well over a year without revealing to anyone the fact that he had inside information, and might indeed end up being called as a witness in the case he was reporting on. That's really very bad journalism.

watch tweety for an hour
Mommy party/Daddy party
Rudy's machismo (see McCain)
Bush's resolve
Hillary reminds people of their first wife
Elizabeth Edwards is a 'ball buster'

I always kinda wondered if this is an Irish-Catholic thing. Traditional patriarchal. virgin mary, woman's place is in the home perspective?

Eric Klinenberg's "Fighting For Air: The Battle To Control America's Media" tells the story of a train derailment in Minot, North Dakota on Jan 18,2002, The derailment sent a cloud of poisonous gas over the town. Minot Fire/Rescue attempted to contact DJs at the local Clear Channel owned radio station, to aid in warning of the danger. Because it was a canned nmusic/news outlet, there was no one at the station to answer the calls. The end result, one death and thousands of inhalation injuries.
Clear Channel grew from 40 stations to 1200 in a decade. Sinclair Broadcasting is growing TV outlets as we speak. Media power is settling in fewer hands. These media giants now want influence in the internet. The overall result will be limiting voices at all levels of communication.
The newly Democratic Congress must add this media threat to their list of issues needing urgent action.

Thanks for the response Howard
I need to add that Minot is the 4th largest City in ND.
All SIX(6) of it's commercial stations were Clear Channel owned and could not be reached!
The city officials attempted to use EAS(Emergency
Alert System), the newer system put in place in 1997. Apparently it can be over-ride control by the station even if personnel aren't present. It failed because the program dumped with each power surge. The older EBS (Emergecy Broadcast System) had been kept in place, but it too failed.

Given that there is a major strategic airbase about 8 miles away, with bombers operating out of it plus ICBM control, it definitely might seem that accidents might make notifying the city rather urgent.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Clear Channel stations in Minot(pop. ~37K)
KCJB is the major station
Z94
Mix 99.9
Fox Classic Rock
91 Country
Cars Oldies Radio

Other radio stations in Minot mentioned in "Fighting For Air"
KHRT Christian radio

TV statons mentioned in "Fighting For Air"
KMOT-TV (NBC: off air at the time of the spill)
KXMC-TV (CBS: on air. Broadcasted, but most residents had lost power by the time thae station was alerted)

I'm a city-dweller as well, but I would suspect that TV and radio provide the lifeline for information to residents in the area. Minot may be the hub of info for surrounding areas. It's probably more critical in a small area. If a major event happens in a large city, most citizens may remain uneffected. In a smaller region, everybody knows somebody who could be impacted.

"The left has not had the good sense..."

Right again.

The struggle....[sigh]

"But it is essential...". Hurumph!

For anyone who missed Somerby's recent take on NBC's altar boys, it's here:

"But then, it’s the oldest tale in the world; it’s the tale of the race, of the club, of the clan. Why is Biden treated this way while Clinton isn’t? Duh! He’s treated that way because he’s a man—and because he’s Irish Catholic! Anyone who doesn’t grasp that fact still doesn’t understand our recent politics, in which NBC’s peculiar Irish-Catholic boys’ club has behaved so egregiously toward major Dem pols—except for the ones who are Irish Catholic men, just as this club’s members are.

"No, there’s nothing wrong with being Irish Catholic; we grew up Irish Catholic ourselves. But it’s odd when one of our handful of major news networks operates like an Irish-Catholic boys’ club. And the trashing this group has dished to Clinton/Gore/Clinton helps show why it’s a gruesome idea to stock a major news org so narrowly. By the way, we’ve left out Kerry, who this boys’ club supported. Why were they so kind to John? Because Kerry is (semi) Irish Catholic too—just as these wild boys are!"

Why in the world would [Minot] need 6 commercial stations?

Coverage!  They use hand cranked electric generators to power the stations.

Ellen

Other than the three networks whose news shows are on the decline -- walking dead hoping that the fans of Cronkite and Huntley/Brinkely don't die off too rapidly -- over what part of the MSM does the FCC have (or could have) any sort of regulatory authority?

Thomas Fisher

So why would the mainstream media continue to adopt points of view that are at odds with their audience?
Easy question. Who owns the MSM? Large corporations, that's who

It is not only low or no taxes that they want for the coporation, it is all the goodies the government has to give if their subsidiary media company does the administration’s biding. Remember the way they treated reporters that did not play ball with them is the early years. Think what they did to the parent companies. Nixon through the FCC tried to strip the Washington Posts' TV Licenses. Bush did the reward thing. He is still doing the reward thing. Remember the heads of the corporations want one thing: make the year’s numbers, legally if possible. That drives their personal bonus.

Remember where all the tax breaks have gone and the firing of half of the attorneys that handled the high-income cases.
IRS Will Cut Tax Lawyers Who Audit The Richest
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30A15FD3F5B0C708EDDAE0894DE404482

When Bush does a new conference compare Fox and CNN. CNN stars out with the worst god-awful camera frame of Bush. He is falling out of the TV set. As if this is not enough the audio is significantly lower on CNN. Its like they want viewers to turn to fox, which is what I think. CNN is insignificant to the parent company’s profits.

Think big, the print media is afraid they are dying. Do you think those conglomerates worry about trading truth for money? They take it a bonus year at a time.

When 2009 is here they will work that side of the street, that is "The Powers in Power” really never changes with the party.

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

his wife--DC local news anchor--almost certainly made more money than he did. Probably drove him nuts.

Awwwwwww, that explains a lot.

Especially, given how he took Hill's laugh (evil men experience question) to be about Bill, rather than how females tend to think about men in an overall general sense.  Because I experienced it actually more like it was kinda l one of the 'man law' commercical moments.  lol 

You are right, but he played both sides of the constitutional protections for the press. It is clear that Andrea Mitchell at State, received the leak from Armitage the same time as Woodward and Novak. She threw a hissy fit in public when Armitage, her source insulted her promise of secrecy by giving an interview to Greta van Sustren, who doesn't even see Armitage on a daily basis like Mitchell.

She told Russert and David Gregory and most of the NBC team. Russert did tell Libby using the same phraseology that Mitchell would later us that "Everyone knows". Before the legal fight started this was not a problem for Russert because he had no obligation to divulge to Libby or anyone else Mitchell's secret source or his for that matter. Later he would have to deny that he told Libby to keep himself out of Jail.

When the Grand Jury was empaneled Russert hid behind his confidentialty pledge to avoid being put under oath. He wanted to protect Mitchell/Armitage but had no problem with blowing the story of Libby to the FBI. He at one time said he didn't recall if Plame came up with Libby and then at other times said it was impossible. His story changed from time to time as he attempted to dodge subpeonas and avoid jail the way Judith Miller had failed to do. His motion to Quash subpeona was a clear attempt to mislead the court.

His insistance and the mysterious acceptance by Fitz to allow him to limit the questions and maintain counsel before the Grand Jury was an attempt by he and his attorneys to feed Fitz what he wanted about Libby, but continue to conceal Armitage and Mitchell from the Grand Jury which Fitz was already fully aware of. Fitz accepted Russerts conditions in return for Russert's testimony against Libby. Russert, who is an attorney, last week denied under oath even being aware that being accompanied by counsel before a Grand Jury is unusual. Most laymen know this, how can attorney not know?

The intense battle in the last days of defense testimony over Mitchell's ability to appear was an attempt by Fitz to maintain the Russert story and protect Mitchell and Russert from further perjury. If Mitchell had told the truth, her career would be ended by the bombshell. If she lied and Armitage or anyone else later told the truth after she had perjured herself, she could be on trial too. Or a third option could be to do as Miller and others did and just claim to not remember. Either way, Fitz fought like Hell to keep Mitchell out because she could have torpedoed the entire farce.

Russert has not only practiced bad Journalism, he as a member of the bar has perpetrated a fraud on the court and should be disbarred at the very least.

Ellen, without cutting and pasting the vebatim testimony here, can we stipulate that Russert conveyed that he was completely ignorant of any differences in the participation of counsel in court or in front of a Grand Jury?

He was given the opportunity to elaborate and he did not. Wells asked him if he was an attorney and Russert responded that he was a non-practicing attorney.

This does not surprise you?