When I worked in DC in the summer of 1984, a politically conservative friend introduced me to the idea that the media had a liberal bias. Being fairly conservative at the time, I could see what he meant. While Ronald Reagan seemed to rise above too much harsh criticism, the newspapers and nightly news regularly took shots at the administration’s policies. Maybe that is the press’s role, but it seemed unfair at the time. Now that I’ve moved to the left, I often see media coverage slanting to the right. Like a fun house mirror, the news seems to skew from your own point-of-view.
Most of us are defensive of our strong held beliefs, making it easy to sell a “liberal bias” to conservatives. Actual bias is more difficult to quantify; however, there was a survey in the 1990s that said 60% of newspaper reporters identified more with the Democrat Party. Even if those numbers are accurate, I don’t necessarily see a communist plot. Journalists are typically intelligent, inquisitive people who have to research their stories. It’s just possible they may know more about specific topics than the average guy. And, as Stephen Colbert said, “Reality has a well known liberal bias.”
Even if “liberal” reporters have a little leeway in their stories, ultimately, they are working for corporations who are owned by conglomerates that have interests in a variety of industries. Naturally, it is in a corporation’s interest to protect, or at least not attack, the hands that feed them. A well known example occurred in 1995 when CBS’s owner, Laurence Tisch, stepped in to alter a 60 Minute’s expose on the tobacco industry. (Tisch also happened to own a large percent of Lorillard Tobacco.) While news departments claim independence, they know which stories to push and which to pull.
“Corporate media” has a vested interest in being noncontroversial since advertising rates are based on their rating or the number of viewers they can attract. Unless they’re programming to a political demographic, the major networks don’t want to pick sides simply because they don’t want to alienate any potential viewers. Now, because the mainstream media is fearful of being accused of a liberal taint, they will go to great lengths to give both sides of any argument equal time. So, if 97% of scientists believe in global warming, they will find the one scientist to present the counterpoint.
The network’s sometimes awkward attempt at neutrality has almost become irrelevant in the age of channel proliferation and niche programming. No matter how extreme your political views, you can find a channel, blog, or a podcast to tell you exactly what you want to hear. People can now wallow in the media of their choice, blocking any conflicting views and reinforcing their own preexisting beliefs. Certainly, the radio airwaves have become inundated with talk show hosts who preach their ultra-conservative doctrine 24 hours a day.
When it comes to TV, Fox is the king of partisan journalism. Since its inception, Republican media strategist, Roger Ailes, has run the “Fair and Balanced” cable network. It is unprecedented for a “news” network to be run by a political operative and, while Ailes’s has delivered impressive ratings, the Fox News audience consistently ranks as the most misinformed of all TV viewers. Issues such as the Iraq War, immigration, healthcare reform, and climate change pose particular challenges to the Fox crowd.
Starting with Fox News, conservative media reinforces the belief that the mainstream media has a “liberal bias” because it builds dependence on them. While I’m not saying they brainwash their audiences, making followers reliant on only them for information is a classic indoctrination technique. Anyone who deviates from the party line is automatically suspect. Besides journalists; college professors and scientists and other “over-educated” types have been colored with the brush of “liberal bias.” Now Nobel prize-winning scientists and economists can be disregarded if they disagree, which they often do.
Another basic propaganda tactic is “proof by assertion,” which basically means to keep saying the same thing over and over until the lie becomes the “truth.” To boil it down to a simple set of brainwashing instructions: shampoo with the message, massage it into the scalp, and repeat, repeat, repeat. Ronald Reagan and both Bushes were experts at firing repeating bullet points at their unsuspecting audiences. Easy to remember messages work best, like “no new taxes, flip-flopper, and WMDs.”
The most insidious result of promoting the idea of a “liberal bias” is that it sows seeds of distrust, making true believers closed systems, unwilling to believe anything that doesn’t come from sanctioned sources. Of course anyone, on the right or left, can be brainwashed or, at least influenced, by a heavy dose of inflammatory information. The good news is that anyone can be deprogrammed too. The instructions could be the following: Turn off the faucet of “news,” rinse with cold water, take a good look in the mirror, and think for yourself again.
This article was also published in the OpEd News. Feel free to re-post or share it with others.
SUBSCRIBE TO THE HOMETOWN PROPHET NEWSLETTER
Tags: brainwashing, corporate media, deprogramming, Fair and Balanced, Fox News, global warming, liberal bias, liberal media, liberal news, liberal professors, liberals, mainstream media, network news, over-educated, proof by assertion, Roger Ailes
Very thoughtful…let’s hear it for fact-based bias!
Remember when reporters used to just report the facts without any opinionated commentaries to persuade anyone in any particular way? That was soooo long ago, I don’t think the average person can remember. This is one reason I don’t watch the news or read the newspapers anymore. Rarely do they just present the facts of a situation.
If you think about it, the media really rules the world. Someone releases the news that we’re going into a recession and all of a sudden, everyone starts hanging onto their money, and guess what? We go into a recession. The media releases a story that instills fear about a certain religious group, and guess what? People all of a sudden fear that group. The media releases a story about a political figure that is not true, and guess what? Everyone believes it because the media can’t be wrong.
We give the media waaaay too much power, and personally, I refuse to give them my power. I choose to keep my common sense, thank you very much, because if you think about it, common sense is no longer in the media.
Great article!
Thanks for the comments. Totally agree that info-tainment has been the norm now, and that often means creating controversy with opinions and spin. And yes, there is also a self-fulfilling element to the news. Perception is (or often becomes) reality.
I’m trying to “unplug” more from the news too Karen. I want to stay up on what’s going on, but I think there’s such a thing as too much information. I also don’t want to be told what to think and how to feel about the news. I can figure that out for myself.
Could not agree more, Jeff. I have not watched news in thirty years; no, I do not feel deprived or ignorant. As the news is presented today (especially Fox), I can go through the check out at the grocery store, scan the headlines in the National Enquirer and get the same content. Thank you for another interesting article.
Thanks for the post. As someone who has worked in the “liberal media” for over 30 years, I can tell you from first hand experience, there is no “liberal bias” in the media. If anything, the media leans toward conservatism, as evidenced by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al.
While it may be true that reporters may lean more liberal, my personal experience tells me that liberals bend over backwards to keep from slanting a story and fairly present the truth of the matter. Conservatives have no such compunction. And when liberals like Rachel Maddow do make a mistake, they will go on the air with a retraction of the mistake and an apology. You will never hear a retraction or apology from Fox News and Rush Liimbaugh, even when they’re caught in a lie dead to rights. Remember the story on Fox about how the military was spending $200 million a day on Michele Obama’s trip to India? Even when that story was refuted by the Pentagon, we never heard a peep out of Fox. They just drop it and move on to the next big lie.
The rise of blatant conservatism in the media only became possible because the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. Under the Fairness Doctrine, if you attacked an individual, that individual was to be given equal time to rebut your attack. Rush Limbaugh spends 3 hours a day attacking President Obama. Under the Fairness Doctrine, President Obama would be entitled to an equal 3 hours a day to reply to Limbaugh’s attacks. It’s easy to see how a Rush Limbaugh Show would not have been possible under the Fairness Doctrine.
When I first got into media almost 40 years ago, it was a noble business. Those who owned radio and TV stations were businesspeople who wanted to make money. But they also understood that they were licensed in the public interest. Since deregulation in the ’90′s, the media has been gobbled up by Wall Street money types. They have no concept of “community service.” For them, it’s all about the bottom line. They have totally abandoned the idea of serving the community.
It’s no big surprise that two of the three biggest radio companies are owned by venture capitalists. The largest, Clear Channel, is owned by Bain Capital. Having worked for Clear Channel myself, I guarantee you that they have no interest in serving the public interest. For them, it’s all about the bottom line. The public interest be damned.
I agree. So it becomes more and more essential that we attempt to listen discerningly. If we just stop listening we isolate ourselves and separate ourselves from the very places we are to be salt and light. Now is he time to engage without falling in, respond without knee-jerk reactions and to call ourselves and our leaders to accountability for the way we live in a society with information overload in this time of real economic and social fear. We do not have the luxury of disengagement. But we do have the hope of engaging in the power of God’s agenda. Not easy but possible.
Thanks for inside information Fred. It’s a disadvantage to have a conscious and want to be somewhat fair… but I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Agree Donna… So easy to become cynical and disengaged. Much tougher to stay involved without being sucked into the hype and fear.