Your liberal media
One of my pet peeves is how conservatives love to bitch about the 'liberal media' whenever it suits them. Most of them seem to be convinced - and have even managed to convince the media, as well as the average Joe - that it is liberal. The few that know for a fact that this isn't true tend to play it up anyway (Pat Buchanan, et al). This topic is something I could probably write a book on. In fact I do think it's been done already. Still....
Suffice to say that 'the liberal media' is a myth, and a common excuse used by conservatives when convenient. In an earlier post I mentioned Falafel O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Rush Oxycontin. And I'll stand by my statement that there simply aren't any liberal media personalities that are anywhere close to being as pervasive as these propagandists. Sure, Al Franken comes to mind. But need I remind you that he has no TV show, let alone one as popular as The Factor; he's never called up as a pundit/talking head by CNN or Fox like Ms. Coulter is; and his radio show on Air America would be lucky if it even once got a tenth of the listenership that Limbaugh gets on a regular basis. And political talk radio is otherwise completely dominated by conservative personalities.
But take a look at cable news. You have Fox, CNN and MSNBC. Fox being the most popular thanks to its sensationlized programming, CNN being a little behind and MSNBC far behind the both of them. Now I realize I'm talking about American media but keep in mind that you can watch Fox and CNN just about anywhere in the world. Watching Fox is funny, simply because everything is tailored to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Ever notice those 'Fox News Alert' things that pop up at the bottom of the screen every now and then? Think back to the Roberts confirmation process - there was actually an 'Alert' that said "Bush: Roberts is a nice person" (paraphrased because I can't remember it word for word, but it wasn't much different). No kidding. Exactly how is that newsworthy?
And don't even get me started on the talking heads, the so called 'pundits'. Fox news watchers vigorously defend against allegations of bias, saying that shows like the Factor and Hannity and Colmes are supposed to be opinion, and seperate from the news. (Side note: Exactly how is Hannity and Colmes a 'fair and balanced' show? It's rigged to have Hannity win every single 'debate'. And besides, is Colmes anywhere near as popular with the left as Hannity is with the right?) But the point is this: Fox doesn't do a very good job of seperating news from opinion. In fact, they try their very best to blend it as much as possible. "And now we turn to our Constitutional Law Expert, Ann Coulter, for what this new ruling means for the American people."
It's not like CNN, that so called bastion of liberalism, is much better. They try so hard not to appear biased, they end up trying to make everything seem 'balanced'. "Hey, the vice president cussed out a Democratic Senator on the Senate floor (and this actually did happen)! But oh no, if we report this, we could be labelled as being liberal, so we'll bring on a conservative talking head who'll provide a 'balancing view'." They try so hard sensationalize everything like Fox - only they don't do such a good job. But I must say that all the TV screens on the Situation Room are somewhat cool. CNN isn't even news anymore, forget about it being liberal.
And this brings up another point. The 'liberal media' meme gets so much play in conservative circles that it's spilled over into the mainstream, and the media tries extra hard not to be portrayed as being liberal. But no one's afraid of being labelled the 'conservative media', simply because in the mainstream that isn't seen as a negative connotation. So in the process of 'balancing out' whatever perceived liberal bias a news outlet thinks it has, it tends to become more and more conservative. Case in point: CNN.
Anything newsworthy that could potentially be seen as 'out of the mainstream' isn't given any play by the likes of CNN. This whole Abramoff thing? It's been going on for well over a year now, only it wasn't so big back then so nobody bothered reporting it. And when there is something, for example the whole NSA-spying thing going around now, the media tries so hard to get a 'counter-argument'. So nevermind the fact that it was illegal (which it was; constitutional issues aside there is a fucking law prohibiting spying on Americans without an FISA warrant, and no exceptions to this exist; go google it), the media still has talking heads 'debating' the legality of it all.
It's ironic when you have to turn to the BBC or The Guardian to get objective, un-stripped-down American news.
The New York Times is a common target of conservative critics, and I'll be the first to say that their op-ed writers are largely liberals. But even then, they have David Brooks, who can easily match up to Paul Krugman and that feminazi Maureen Dowd. I'm sorry, I really have no respect for her, she's exactly the kind of knee-jerk reactionary liberal I can't stand. But more importantly, the NYTimes does a very good job of keeping opinion seperate from the news - and when it comes to the news they have a pretty damn good record so far this year, aside from the whole Judy Miller facade. Look at the Washington Post, their op-eds are penned mainly by conservatives (Peggy Noonan, ugh), but the paper is still one of the few good remaining mainstream media outlets.
There is so much more to say, and that's pretty obvious reading through all this. But this isn't a position paper or even an argument. The conclusion - that the so called liberal media just isn't as liberal as the right would want you to believe - really doesn't even need to be argued. And when you have the likes of PNAC neoconservative hawk Bill Kristol admitting it, you know it's true.
Something is definitely wrong when regular viewers of The Daily Show are more informed than those who watch CNN or Fox. (Yes, this is true, there was actually a study conducted)
Edit: No blog post I would make right now would be complete without these two words: Vince Young. And I'm not even a football fan.
Now Playing: Foo Fighters - Halo
Suffice to say that 'the liberal media' is a myth, and a common excuse used by conservatives when convenient. In an earlier post I mentioned Falafel O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Rush Oxycontin. And I'll stand by my statement that there simply aren't any liberal media personalities that are anywhere close to being as pervasive as these propagandists. Sure, Al Franken comes to mind. But need I remind you that he has no TV show, let alone one as popular as The Factor; he's never called up as a pundit/talking head by CNN or Fox like Ms. Coulter is; and his radio show on Air America would be lucky if it even once got a tenth of the listenership that Limbaugh gets on a regular basis. And political talk radio is otherwise completely dominated by conservative personalities.
But take a look at cable news. You have Fox, CNN and MSNBC. Fox being the most popular thanks to its sensationlized programming, CNN being a little behind and MSNBC far behind the both of them. Now I realize I'm talking about American media but keep in mind that you can watch Fox and CNN just about anywhere in the world. Watching Fox is funny, simply because everything is tailored to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Ever notice those 'Fox News Alert' things that pop up at the bottom of the screen every now and then? Think back to the Roberts confirmation process - there was actually an 'Alert' that said "Bush: Roberts is a nice person" (paraphrased because I can't remember it word for word, but it wasn't much different). No kidding. Exactly how is that newsworthy?
And don't even get me started on the talking heads, the so called 'pundits'. Fox news watchers vigorously defend against allegations of bias, saying that shows like the Factor and Hannity and Colmes are supposed to be opinion, and seperate from the news. (Side note: Exactly how is Hannity and Colmes a 'fair and balanced' show? It's rigged to have Hannity win every single 'debate'. And besides, is Colmes anywhere near as popular with the left as Hannity is with the right?) But the point is this: Fox doesn't do a very good job of seperating news from opinion. In fact, they try their very best to blend it as much as possible. "And now we turn to our Constitutional Law Expert, Ann Coulter, for what this new ruling means for the American people."
It's not like CNN, that so called bastion of liberalism, is much better. They try so hard not to appear biased, they end up trying to make everything seem 'balanced'. "Hey, the vice president cussed out a Democratic Senator on the Senate floor (and this actually did happen)! But oh no, if we report this, we could be labelled as being liberal, so we'll bring on a conservative talking head who'll provide a 'balancing view'." They try so hard sensationalize everything like Fox - only they don't do such a good job. But I must say that all the TV screens on the Situation Room are somewhat cool. CNN isn't even news anymore, forget about it being liberal.
And this brings up another point. The 'liberal media' meme gets so much play in conservative circles that it's spilled over into the mainstream, and the media tries extra hard not to be portrayed as being liberal. But no one's afraid of being labelled the 'conservative media', simply because in the mainstream that isn't seen as a negative connotation. So in the process of 'balancing out' whatever perceived liberal bias a news outlet thinks it has, it tends to become more and more conservative. Case in point: CNN.
Anything newsworthy that could potentially be seen as 'out of the mainstream' isn't given any play by the likes of CNN. This whole Abramoff thing? It's been going on for well over a year now, only it wasn't so big back then so nobody bothered reporting it. And when there is something, for example the whole NSA-spying thing going around now, the media tries so hard to get a 'counter-argument'. So nevermind the fact that it was illegal (which it was; constitutional issues aside there is a fucking law prohibiting spying on Americans without an FISA warrant, and no exceptions to this exist; go google it), the media still has talking heads 'debating' the legality of it all.
It's ironic when you have to turn to the BBC or The Guardian to get objective, un-stripped-down American news.
The New York Times is a common target of conservative critics, and I'll be the first to say that their op-ed writers are largely liberals. But even then, they have David Brooks, who can easily match up to Paul Krugman and that feminazi Maureen Dowd. I'm sorry, I really have no respect for her, she's exactly the kind of knee-jerk reactionary liberal I can't stand. But more importantly, the NYTimes does a very good job of keeping opinion seperate from the news - and when it comes to the news they have a pretty damn good record so far this year, aside from the whole Judy Miller facade. Look at the Washington Post, their op-eds are penned mainly by conservatives (Peggy Noonan, ugh), but the paper is still one of the few good remaining mainstream media outlets.
There is so much more to say, and that's pretty obvious reading through all this. But this isn't a position paper or even an argument. The conclusion - that the so called liberal media just isn't as liberal as the right would want you to believe - really doesn't even need to be argued. And when you have the likes of PNAC neoconservative hawk Bill Kristol admitting it, you know it's true.
Something is definitely wrong when regular viewers of The Daily Show are more informed than those who watch CNN or Fox. (Yes, this is true, there was actually a study conducted)
Edit: No blog post I would make right now would be complete without these two words: Vince Young. And I'm not even a football fan.
Now Playing: Foo Fighters - Halo
posted by Sam at
12:54 PM
3 Comments:
Nice post. I pretty much agree with you, except I won't say that there is no liberal media. Granted CNN has gone from a slight liberal bias to pretty much being nothing, I spent an entire semester reading the NYT and some of the articles I read definitely came from a liberal perspective. I think there still is a liberal media but it's toned down so much that it's existence is usually irrelevant. I"ve seen news reported on major networks like CBS and ABC that definitely were one sided but with no way near the outlandish character of FOX news or Limbaugh. The liberal reporting tha t does occur is far more temperate and less noticeable than the flamboyant reporting from the right.
By
Anonymous, at 3:58 PM
oh yeah, UT football is freaking awesome. love it. love it now. :)
By
Anonymous, at 3:59 PM
A little clarification....
You're the second person (after my good friend Pace) to bring up exactly the same thing.
Perhaps I should have been a little clearer, but whenever I say 'media' I refer to the mainstream media as a whole. When I say that the liberal media does not exist, I mean that the media as a whole does not have a liberal bias.
Sure, there are various liberal media outlets as are conservative ones. That's to be expected, and I'm not denying it. In that context, a 'liberal media' does exist as a subset of the mainstream media. But again, my point was that on the whole, when seen as an aggregate, it's no 'liberal media'.
By
Sam, at 3:39 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home