What Liberal Media?
We continually hear about the "librul media." And we hear this expressed as a complaint against our mainstream media which is regularly made by conservatives appearing on mainstream media outlets in higher proportions than their more liberal counterparts.
It doesn't take a journalism professor rocket scientists to know something ain't quite right with that picture.
When it comes to the social issues, the journalists and talking heads are in fact good limousine liberals. Abortion? Gay Rights? Gun Control? You can expect the corporate journalists to stake out for themselves reasoned, liberal positions on these issues and to exhibit an apparent degree of bias whenever reporting on these. These people are nothing if not politically correct, after all.
The conservative spin-masters make good tactical use of this show of "librul bias" in the media. By painting these corporate journalists with the broad brush charge of "librulism," these GOP hacks and spinmeisters "work the refs" by pretending that the "libruls" limit access to the media in ways that prevent the conservatives from promoting any of their political views.
In truth, however, the "liberal" leanings of the mainstream media are mainly confined to these "wedge issues," so-called for reason that they have no real purpose to be included in the political arena other than as a tactical exercise in stirring emotions and splitting votes among groups of people.
But just mention increasing taxes on upper incomes or other such "real" political issues that actually bear impact upon corporate America and you'll find these "journalists" have staked out a pretty conservative position with little nuance allowed, all considered within their own self-interest.
As an example, David Gregory has become almost comical in this regard. In taking control of "Bleat, the Press!" it is assumed Mr. Gregory was provided a healthy increase in salary. And Gregory can perhaps be forgiven if he is now concerned that these "earnings" may be diminished if the liberals gain traction on tax fairness issues. All this in fact seems to be reflected in Gregory's overwrought concern that the temporary Bush tax cuts may be allowed to expire as expressed in nearly every interview he conducts. He might be interviewing, let's say, the Secretary of Transportation (or even the President of the Knesset, fer chrissakes) and you can still count on one question being asked as a fundamentally important issue that is all-encompassing: "Do you think President Obama will raise taxes as he has promised?"
Gregory is of course talking about the Bush tax cuts being allowed to expire as originally "planned." But he shows his bias even in phrasing the question in this way, choosing the Republican "spin" to be included in its phrasing rather than asking about it in a clear and straightforward fashion. He and the other millionaire journalists often tip their hand in this way, showing what issues are critically important political issues for him/them in the way in which they adopt the GOP/corporate spin as their own basic "understanding" of these issues.
It is no accident that these issues and perspectives are often those that get expressed in the corporate boardrooms around the country as the wealthy among us try to consolidate their power and their advantages over the rest of us. And this perspective is granted legitimacy by these "journalists" in any discussion of issues that deal with tax fairness or "class warfare" as these members of the "librul media" try to preserve their wealth at the expense of everyone else, just as any good Libertarian Republican would do.
But please, I ask of you: Don't ever confuse the mainsteam media celebrities such as Gregory and the other millionaire journalists with those of us who in fact promote progressive, liberal political answers to the real issues that confront us. It is class warfare in which we are engaged, and where it matters most these "liberals" will always be seen to be standing tall alongside the corporate conservatives who own them.
