« REMEMBER WHEN? Accountability in Financial Markets | SleepinJeezus's Blog | "A Republic, If You Can Keep it" »
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.
Advertisement
Do you think that there really was a time when big name American journalists were lesser sellouts? If so, who were they? Does the money these journalists make today always tie them to corporate interests?
March 21, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Murrow, Cronkite.
The money they make takes them out of the sphere of the majority, into blatantly protecting the interests of their own class. By design.
As a group, these paid-for-hire money hounds do not represent the fourth estate. They represent the petty (not petite) bourgeois whose teats they suckle in order to convince themselves that they are somehow better than those whose interests they are charged to protect.
Our Constitution specifically mentions journalists as being worthy of special protection. Those that they are supposed to guard the public against, realized long ago that the cheapest way to protect their own selfish and greedy interests was to buy a few of them.
People like Gregory are sellouts and cheaply bought at that. They should be counted as mere practitioners of the worlds 'oldest' profession, which is what they resemble far more than any member of our esteemed fourth estate. Rightly so.
Gregory will wonder why it is that he has lost the respect and admiration of his former peers, and will likely be replaced in a few short years. He is a traitor to journalism, and deserves as much admiration as any type of bunkshooter that puts on a good con. IOW: not much.
March 21, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prostitution vs Patriotism.
That's it in a nutshell!
March 21, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to think most complex things are exceedingly simple. Thanks Thera.
=D
March 21, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great reply, bwak, although one might argue you have recklessly denigrated prostitution by including it in comparison with such company as Gregory and the other hacks.
March 21, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am with Sleepin on this one. Fine comment Bwak.
March 21, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your choices. I would add some of the excellent reporters from 60 Minutes. Wallace and others. I suggest that Frontline is the most courageous news forum on television, although its producer and correspondents aren't famous. But they should be.
March 21, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The elder Wallace, for sure. Wallace the younger.... can't fathom that jerk with the smirk.
He reminds me of W in some ways. Wanting to outdo their fathers and stooping to anything to get there. What they are too dim to realize is that the fact that they'd stoop necessarily means they will never get there.
March 21, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm losing too many brain cells. Who's the younger Wallace?
March 21, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Wallace (Mike's son) - He was with FOX, not sure of where he's at now.
March 21, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hadn't a clue. I'm not even sure what he looks like. I wonder what his father thinks about him. I seem to remember that he lost another son in a murder in Greece or some such disaster.
March 21, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the category of faux journalists can be declared as those who prefer style over substance. Think about it. Murrow (arguably the best) found his satisfaction in the story itself. Gregory (and others like him) would be more inclined to rate their success instead on how many prominent cocktail parties they would get invited to in a year's time.
Dancing with Rove is a grand coup of the kind reserved for only the "best and the brightest" of Washington's media elite. But such "accomplishments" are granted only to those who will not be so gauche as to actually report on the kingmakers such as Rove but will instead accept them as their meal ticket.
March 21, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
As well as Robert MacNeil, Jim Lehrer, Chet Huntley, Frank McGee, The current staff of the PBS News Hour, Peter Jennings and David Brinkley in their earlier years, Woodward and Bernstein, and countless behind-the-scenes worker bees that never got the credit they deserved.
I propose that all the politically oriented blogs get together once a year and hold nominations for the "Baxters", in honor of the late Ted Knight's portrayal of that epitome of incompetent newscasters, Ted Baxter.
Categories could include:
Most biased, male and female
Most inaccurate reporting, male and female
Any others?
March 21, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love this idea!
Baxters, offered along with their counter-point "Murrows" - or "Moyers"
March 21, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies to Bill Moyers for inadvertently leaving him off my list.
March 21, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It ties them to that economic class before it ties them to the corporations. They defend corporatism because, even when indirect, their income is from that economic class.
March 21, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSM 'journalists' (ha) do not live 'among' or interreact with the average middle class or lower Americans.
It's such a farce that they rely on pundits and sources of the same ilk to speak about issues that impact our daily lives and livelihoods. They can only report and speak in abstract with too few exceptions.
And the misrepresentations.....
Example: CNN 'reports' that the majority of Americans believe Obama is doing too much. Fact is that this was based on a CNN poll of a small number without the pertinent info as to political ties; age and income; geographical etc. There was no qualifiers as to 'according to our poll without demographical identification'.
Just one small example of distortion and absence of important 'details'.
March 21, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well done, Sleepin'!
I think Obama needs to push this idea of "service" further. To the idea that paying taxes is "serving the public good."
We've got to go back to the idea of patriotism as a "willingness to sacrifice for one's country" - in all sorts of ways. Including paying one's share of taxes. Voting. Volunteering. Etc.
March 21, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
IS THIS A PRIVATE FIGHT OR CAN ANYONE JOIN?Hahahahah
Good to see you once again Sleepin. You got this one right. When I saw that gd gregory dancin with rove, that was enough for me.
That is why in one of my silly comments I had the rodents arise and eat old david. hahhahaahahah
We have a conservative press. But they wish to preserve the system.
The irony? The main stream media is dying. In a few years you will not even watch tv on tv. One giant screen with your keyboard. No papers.
A thousand sources.
Your a workin man and still contributing to society. You have a life. If you find you have nothing to do and need to get your heart pumpin watch that pimp on mornin joke with jughead.
Its a dead horse I have been beating for a month.
hahahaha
March 21, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dickday the man with a brain. I often think about the fact that the MSM is dying - just like you said. I think we are seeing the beginning of the final frenzy. One of the few things that have stuck with me from my geology studies decades ago was how fanciful some of the shells got before the species was wiped out. I know that the excess ornamentation had nothing to do with the species dying but I often wonder if somehow they knew and went through a 'frenzy' of decoration as a kind of desperation move. We see humans do it so much. Please don't confuse my thoughts with any type of science theory, practice or evidence.
Like the car CEOs, the Mortgage Giants, the best and brightest on wall street, the MSM people are blind to the end. Is it the money/greed the blinds them or do they see and not care - just getting their own?
March 21, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Splashy:
LET US PRAY. HAHAHAHAHAHA
March 21, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, dd! I really enjoy - and agree with - your oft expressed contempt for "morning joe with jughead." Vacuous entertainment parading as genuine thought and analysis.
And I always kinda figured that even rodents would be a bit too finicky to be drawn to the likes of Gregory. But I did enjoy your tale nonetheless.
March 21, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not only money, it's class. I don't know about Gregory specifically but so many of today's "journalists" went to the same Ivies with the people they are supposed to be reporting on and interviewing now. They're totally clueless about most Americans and most of the United States. Almost none of them came up the old-fashioned way like reporting local news in a small city in the midwest.
March 21, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Sleepin, thank you.
March 21, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about this from the CNN interview of Cheney:
"Do you think that President Obama's policies make the US LESS SAFE?"
Requiring only a Yes or No answer, as opposed to:
How do you feel the new administration is coping with the many problems that they have to deal with?
March 21, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How do you feel the new administration is coping with the many problems [you left for them to clean up]?"
March 21, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or how about "Mr. Cheney, do you believe you have any credibility left when it comes to explaining governance in a democracy? And do you expect to be travelling to the Hague anytime soon?"
March 21, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point was that the question was value-laden. So was yours, although it happens to be a legitimate question. What I was getting at, was that the question should not be asked with a pre-conceived assumption underlying it.
Interviewers should not pre-suppose the answer, and make the response just, "Yes/No." That is a tip-off to a bad interviewer.
March 21, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect example. CvilleDem! I find it amazing when the questions get asked in such a way. My IMMEDIATE response is to sense the bias in the phrasing. The fact that the interviewer is unaware of the bias says more about them than anything else on topic.
March 21, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure like readin' yer writin' SJ...When are we going to hold the awards ceremony?
March 21, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. And, yes, love your writing. I hate Megan McArdle, but liked this one nugget which seems relevant to your post on Gregory and his obsession with not taxing the affluent:
"I also note, just as an aside, that the definition of "very rich" seems increasingly to be set at "just above the level a top-notch journalist in a two-earner couple could be expected to pull down".
March 21, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent Post and I believe right on !!
March 21, 2009 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn it, they are NOT "conservatives"! Call them what they are:
EXTREMISTS.
If one KNOWS political history, one knows that TRADITIONALLY they have been called (also by FDR) "lunatic fringe". And that is exactly what they are: far-right lunatic fringe.
That is why they constantly LIE: because they know the vast majority -- the MAINSTRAM -- DOES NOT and WILL NOT buy their lunatic political and social theories -- and intents.
When you call them "conservatives" you make yourself complicit in their deceitful effort to appear moderate, by hiding behind such labels as "conservative" and "Republican," when they are nothing of the kind.
Though it is imprecise to apply the term "facists" to them, because not all of them ARE that, it is NOT imprecise to call them "Authoritarian". "Authroitarian" is the exact equivalent of the far-left "Totalitarian".
March 21, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
spin-masters
______
Call them what they ARE: LIARS.
March 21, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get the biggest kick out of your avatar. Like Boyd's. And then your writing is so good, and I think I am always in agreement with your conclusions. Totalitarian liars. I mean, how could I possibly disagree with that.
But remember Keith O and Rachel.
March 22, 2009 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
My avatar is a photograph of the "before" of my first haircut at 2.
March 24, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink