News Bias, No Not Katie

Here's a link to what might turn into an interesting story. No such memo would be sent out on a hatchet job book for a right-wing figure. I mean, a lot of the stuff in the book is widely known anyway.

Uhh, not even close to an interesting story. Notice how Drudge claims to have the Memo yet still only reveals one short quote from the memo stating that the contents of the book may be suspect. There is nothing revealed from the memo that says "don't write stories about this book".


As for the insinuation that lefties are protected from hatchet jobs, one need look no further than the Bill Clinton/independant counsel investigation or the coverage of the Paula Jones "scandal" to see that left wingers are vulnerable. I'll be first in line to vote Clinton as scumbag of century but it's certainly not because of the totally ridiculous allegations raised by Kenneth Starr or Paula Jones.

I heard the author on Larry Elder's radio show on the way home last night. (Bet you didn't think I listened to Elder /images/smile.gif.) When a person is known as a conservative and does an investigative book on a liberal, or when a person is a liberal and does an investigative book on a conservative, it would certainly cause one to "consider the source." But the ultimate test should be only: are the facts he reports correct or are they wrong?


I'm the biggest Richard Nixon hater alive (I think), but I felt Anthony Summers' book The Arrogance of Power was terrible, despite all the ugly "revelations." It was filled with suppositions, innuendo, and unsubstantiated charges, such as a piece of paper with the letters "N & R" cited as evidence of this meaning Nixon and Rebozo. (I also don't like the fact that he stole his title from J. William Fulbright.)


As for your assertion that no such memo would have been issued had the subject of the possible hatchet job been a right-wing figure, I don't know. Maybe yes, maybe not. Maybe we can find out if there was ever such a memo about the Nixon book above. But I just don't find the left-wing media bias those to the right of me find. I find a right-wing bias. Perhaps beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I am assuming that the memo says not to report on the book. This could be an incorrect assumption and would change my opinion. But no way does a network send a memo saying not to report on a bestselling book criticizing say, Ken Starr, even if the author is suspect. Perhaps they will question the author, but no way do they say not to report on it.

Andy,


I’m dropping off after some speed posting in the last hour but news bias is quantifiable. Polls have verified that most reporters vote far to the left of the general public. And I’m sure you are aware of studies (using Lexus/Nexus) of how often “Conservative Senator” is attached to Hatch, Lugar, Helms, etc. while “Liberal Senator” is rarely attached to Kennedy, Boxer, etc. in a routine newspaper article.


OTOH, the only readable pundits are conservative IMHO /images/smile.gif.


Regards,


Rick

I don't see anything in the memo suggesting anything other than a concern that the author might have an ideological axe to grind and might be short of credentials. I'm not sure where you got the notion that CNN wouldn't do the same on for a conservative. I don't remember CNN ever taking much of a stand on anything sharply controversial, least of all a "hatchet job," as you put it, on anyone with prestige or power.


I think this whole idea of "liberal bias" is a canard, if for no other reason than you keep hearing about from the allegedly "liberal" media. The polls I've seen indicate that reporters are more likely than the general public to favor monetary and fiscal conservatism and pro-business legislation (e.g., NAFTA, telecom deregulation, tax cuts wieghted toward corporations and the rich, cutting the deficit), and more disposed toward interventionist foreign policies. You don't see people making $30K at two jobs complaining much about the budget deficit or the need to lend more money to Russia. OTOH, reporters are more sympathetic to race and gender issues (and gay rights notably) and more supportive of separating church and state, occasionally showing hostility toward the religious right. In other words, reporters tend to mirror the positions of others with similar incomes and educational backgrounds. They don't want their kids taught "creationist science" but prefer to keep their money.


Just once I'd like to see an explanation for the claims that the media messages are dominated by liberalism that described the institutional factors that account for this, something better than an implied conspiracy.


All of this begs the question of what sort of messages people receive from the media, because publishers and owners and not reporters have the final say over what goes out. I don't see how one can begin to discuss the biases in the media without looking at the interests and biases of those that have ultimate say in the content of the messages.


If there's any kind of trend, it's for the major media organs to become fewer and more concentrated, more interlinked with the government and other giant corporations and financial institutions. (Just last week a federal appeals court knocked down FCC restrictions on the number of media outlets the big companies could control). It is possible that the news media 50 or 100 years hence will be as concentrated as many other industries are now, with two or three corporations controlling the lion's share of the market and scripting the semi-official lines of the day. Even now, nine corporations provide


"most television programs, films, videos and DVDs, radio shows, CDs, books and other leisure-time products and activities. They are Disney (ABC), AOL-Time Warner (CNN), Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (Fox TV), Viacom (CBS), General Electric (NBC), Sony (the former CBS records and Columbia Pictures), Seagram (Universal film and television studios), AT&T (cable television systems, including former MediaOne), and Bertelsmann (a German firm that controls the publication of one out of ten adult trade books in the world). (Some analysts put the number at six in the mass media field, excluding Sony, Seagram and AT&T.)"


(From the link below). When's the last time anyone saw this phenomenon discussed in the media?


A byproduct of media concentration is that the actual messages are increasing delivered by a handful of multimillionaire media celebrities (like Katie), whose interests and life experiences are increasingly removed from those of ordinary Americans. Mencken once wrote that a good reporter should earn about as much money as a good bartender or police sergeant. Nowdays, ordinary reporters for big city papers are probably closer to lawyers and doctors, the biggest names in TV earning as much or more than CEO's and investment bankers. The biggest message isn't "liberal" but closer to what we'd expect: a system that favors the most successful must be working pretty well, if imperfectly, and radical critiques are beyond the pale.

You raise some interesting questions, some I have thought about a bit at various times. I think there is still some difference between the suits and the reporters, and the reporters and editors have enough autonomy to present what they want. I do agree that the corporate ownership has prevented radical critique from coming out and thus you could argue that there is a bias toward the right on that basis. But the way out right isn't presented either, so I don't know how much the overall effect is. I do think coverage oozes toward a uniform, franchised product a lot of the time because of business interests. The internet will make media access cheaper for all, with no need for government regulation or corporate structure. This is a wonderful trend that will benefit everybody seeking information.

Anyone who refers to Mr. Helms as the Conservative Senator has payed him a compliment. He is (I guess I should say was) far to the right of conservative, a vicious, bigoted disgrace of a human being.


How is it that Ronald Regan was a teflon President and that Bill Clinton was impeached? With the press so liberal, wouldn't one have expected the opposite? Since I have been old enough to vote (and I'm plenty old), the Democrats have elected two presidents: one was kicked out in a landslide to a man who was widely regarded as unelectable his entire prior adult life and the other was impeached. So if the media is indeed liberal, it sure ain't a very effective liberalism. The book "Bias" is getting a lot of press now, but it should be read in conjunction with David Brock's book "Blinded by the Right."

"But the way out right isn't presented either"


They're presented but too broadly, unfairly so. To give one example, the radical right includes a lot of social conservatives that are variously bothered by a leadership that's cynical about religion, tolerates the degredation of mass culture, promotes mindless consumerism and work addiction and ultimately could care less about local community rights. The media tendency is to marginalize them by lumping them together with whackos and bigots.