An Honest Assessment Of Media Liberalism
By K. Daniel Glover | June 25, 2009
Vanity Fair better be careful, or it's going to be labeled as part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. In the past few weeks, the magazine and its online sister publication have taken aim at the liberal media.
The first jab came in an essay for the July print edition about the Obama White House's success in taming the liberal media. Michael Wolff called it a "perfect re-creation of a relationship between president and news media that has not been seen since the White House pressroom was a clubby place with reporters invited into the press secretary's office for whiskey and cigars."
The Web side of the Vanity Fair operation followed that lead a couple of days ago by publishing on its Culture and Celebrity Blog a piece that asked and answered why Americans hate the media these days. Writer Matt Pressman gauged the validity of each complaint.
"We're too liberal" was the gripe at the top of the list -- and Pressman confirmed that the complaint is extremely valid. On a scale of 1 to 10, he gave the media a 7 for its liberalism and then explained why:
It's true that the overwhelming majority of people who work in media vote Democratic. But most of the people reporting the news (as opposed to editorializing) make an honest attempt to hold both parties to account and not to allow their personal views to impact their work.
Liberal bias is a legitimate complaint, but it's vastly overblown, especially given the proliferation and power of unabashedly right-wing media outlets. Plus, reporters may sometimes overcompensate for their liberal leanings by giving excessive credence to certain right-wing arguments (see global warming, Iraq war).
The apologetic explanation doesn't mesh with the 7-point ranking, but admitting that "liberal bias is a legitimate complaint" is a good start. The overall grade is about right, too.
Some journalists, like CNN's Susan Roesgen, have scored a perfect 10 for bias, and the press collectively deserves a 10 for its coverage of President Obama to date. But based on my nearly two decades as a reporter and editor, most of it in the Washington press corps, I agree that most of my colleagues, most of the time, "make an honest attempt to hold both parties to account and not to allow their personal views to impact their work."
When they fail, it's often because they are blind to their own biases. Pressman's bias toward the Al Gore school of thought on global warming is a perfect example.
I don't doubt that he honestly believes liberal journalists have given "excessive credence to certain right-wing arguments" on that topic, but he's flat wrong. The reality is that too few journalists even care to be objective in covering the debate about climate change.
They, like Gore, believe that manmade global warming is "settled science," and they give no credence whatsoever to the scientists and politicians who disagree. They may include critics in their stories, but they work hard to marginalize those sources and don't report stories about science that contradicts their preconceptions about global warming.
Pressman deserves kudos for acknowledging what has long been obvious to most Americans -- that journalists let their liberalism seep into their reporting. Now he and the rest of the press need to take a closer look at how they report individual stories like global warming, or they're going to start moving the wrong direction on the scale, from a 7 to a 10.
K. Daniel Glover is a project manager for Accuracy In Media. He has worked as an editor, writer and new media specialist in the Washington area since 1991, spending most of that time at National Journal and Congressional Quarterly.
35 Comments | Post a Comment
Re: Post 1;
Your statement:
“...I suggest that journalist actually bend over backwards in an attempt to be fair and thus give too much exposure to unreliable and untrustworthy sources just so they cannot be accused of bias…”
I agree that seems to happen frequently - and, often, it results in a polyglot of information that actually becomes worthless.
Media bias—hell that’s just plain ignorance and arrogance. The global warming “debate” is pure obscurantist religious argument.
K.D.Glover is about right. Liberal reporters see the world through prisms they developed in their liberal education. Thus they carry in their heads a stereotype world (much of which is false) by which they judge everything. (It saves research time!) They intend being honest and are blind to their own bias. Conversions occasionally happen when a liberal attempt at reality checking goes haywire. Somebody defined a “neoconservative” as a liberal who got mugged by reality.
Notice how that racist punk, Jamie Foxx, got away with his statement to the BET Awards crowd with his “We want to celebrate this black man - he belongs to us - and we shared him with everybody else.”
Imagine the media fallout and their ‘outrage’ if a white celebrity made a similar comment right after Elvis’s or John Lennon’s death about “celebrating this white man - he belongs to us”.
That celebrity’s showbiz career would be history.
Add to that, Jackson in 2002 calling Tommy Matola a racist because of Jackson’s frustration with lousy record sales of his album “Invincible”. [Maybe… just maybe it was because the music on the album wasn’t at the “Thriller” quality level?]
Naw, can’t be. It must be because of white racism.
Also the fact that the Jackson family themselves, supposed followers of Jehovah Witness, have been affiliated with the racist thug, Al Sharpton, for many years. Over the weekend, Fox News showed a group picture of Katherine, Janet, Michael, and other family members with Sharpton from the early 1980’s (Janet looked about 15 in the photo).
This double-standard that black bigots within the black community enjoy because of the Liberal press, is one of the many reasons for this country’s inevitable downfall.
My opinion only:
To use “media” and “honest” in the same
sentence is an oxymoron. (Does that mean
2 morons in the same sentence? LOL)
Re: Post 6;
I do believe that the media has an inherent problem in trying to be “honest”: since damned near everybody today spins, shapes, rationalizes, justifies, misrepresents, omits, colors, exaggerates, minimizes and/or fabricates relative to their own personal and/or ethnocentric agenda - - I believe it is EXTREMELY difficult for any reporter to actually find “honest”, i.e., the truth!
In many cases, I think the media has a significant problem having to wade through all the mistruths and untruths in order to find the real truth - and in a lot of cases, I think the truth is actually undetectable.
Garbage in - garbage out.
I think a lot of the criticism of the media is the result of the media being willfully and purposely misled by their so-called “sources”. In other words - “used”.
The truth is there. Just because it is hard to find/see, or because it isn’t what we wish for/hope for does not change truth in any way.
Truth is, in spite of our desires.
In history, one set of events happened. Even if we don’t know what they may be, there realy was only one thing that happened. All the stuff that “May have happened,” DIDN’T.
Only that that happened happened.
There is no such thing as your reality and my reality. There is your opinion and mine, but there is one set of facts. One reality.
So is it asking too much to require reporters, like in Dragnet, to report on, “Just the facts, Lady! Just the facts!”
We don’t need or want journalists telling us what and how to think. At least I don’t.
I just need the facts and getting those, accurately, I can form my own educated opinion based on my personal ability and/or desire to assimilate facts.
Liberalism has no place in journalism.
Re: Post 8;
You comment:
“... The truth is there. Just because it is hard to find/see, or because it isn’t what we wish for/hope for does not change truth in any way…”
Correct.
HOWEVER, and there are plenty of cases throughout history, including political history, where smokescreens, cover-ups and public relations spinning literally made it impossible for ANYONE to be able to “find the truth”. And - this circumstance is more prevalent today than at anytime and anywhere else!
I’m sure you’re aware of how difficult it is for the police to “find the facts” - and they fail more times than they succeed.
In certain instances, do parents of teenagers always “find-out the truth”?
Does every jury ALWAYS “get all the facts”?
It’s easier said than done.
And, your comment:
“...Liberalism has no place in journalism…”
I presume (unless you’re clearly prejudiced or biased) that you would also agree with “...Conservatism has no place in journalism…” ???
Journalists in the Media are like Black Jack Dealers in a Las Vegas casino. Y’all can believe in them if you want to but don’t cry in publc over your being deceived.
Millions were deceived by a man called Lovrentii Beria.
Another modern day Deceiver known as Noam Chomsky makes use of his linguistical skills to hoodwink millions of students and journalists every year into accepting Marxism as an acceptable belief system under many alternating titles.
Too many Americans tout their overblown egos to eachother, thus weaving linguistical webs of their own.
This is why America is in the situation it is in today. Too much hot air and not enough product.
Media, what a pile of crapp.
Re: Post 10;
Lavrenti Beria, a Georgian, executed in Russia in 1953 because he allegedly engaged in “activities against the state”, was a younger contemporary of Joseph Stalin, a one-time head of the secret USSR security force, and a deputy prime minister at the time of Stalin’s death. At one time, Beria claimed to have poisoned Stalin, causing his death; he was said to have tried to develop political alliances that he could use to succeed Stalin; and, as a deputy prime minister, he was said to have attempted to bring about a certain amount of “liberalization” to the USSR.
So - what relevance does Lavrenti Beria have to this topic?
And, “...linguistic webs…”?
You said it:
“...what a pile of crapp…”
TK, you made a good point, and I applaud you.
Except for that part about, “(there were times) where smokescreens, cover-ups and public relations spinning literally made it impossible for ANYONE to be able to “find the truth”. “
If it were impossible, then we would not know the truth, yet you seem, dispite the impossibility of the situation, to know.
Why? Because in retro-spect we come to conclusions based on bits of information that were and are at hand. Hence, it isn’t impossible to know the truth.
If the facts are not know to the journalist, he has no place invinting a scnario to support his agenda, be it liberal or conservative.
BUT, and here is the part tyat will shake you; the nature of Liberalism is to change things. Hence the propensity for liberals to lie and not even blink. It is part of their nature, because they justify the lie saying, “The ends justify the means.”
Conservatives prefer the “good old ways,” and they, by nature, are ad-nauseum pointing out how great things were with the old systems. Tried and True!
They make the lie of omission. They often don’t tell the entire story.
TK, do you see why liberal reporters get the reputation of being false? Maybe you would like them to guide world, national and local events. Maybe they represent what you also desire. But is that the duty of the media?
I think not. And here is why; knowly or not, if the media reports without confirmation of fact, they can be manipulated. They become the smpke machine. It isn’t always like this, and if the media policed itself, it would never be like this.
But the media doesn’t police itself.
It influences issues, all the way up to and including naming the president. Just look at what the media did to Palin! You may think she was a dunce or a rabid red-neck hick. But do you really know? The media MADE Obama.
That used to be the job of the Mafia, now in the media’s hands.
Here is another observation for all of you; How many of you see the link between acts of terror and it’s reportage by the media? Is it too gr4eat a leap to see that terrorists use the media, because the media simpley can’t refrain from reporting on a bombing? The only point TO BOMB is to create terror, and that is done not so much by the bomb but by the reporting of the bomb!
Stop reporting, and the reason to terrorize evaporates too.
How to stop terror? Stop reporting it. It will still happen for awhile, but get less and less, and then simpley be a thing of the past, as the terrorist develop new techniques to gain their wishes.
Maybe they will go to law school? Join PETA or became liberal writers? Or Blog about it.
Who knows, but the way to end suicide bombers is to stop reporting them.
But that is a dream; the media can’t police itself.
So why do we accept them policing us?
Sorry about the long and typo filled post, guys. Maybe I should become a reporter?
I will be the first to say it:
“...what a pile of crapp…”
Ooops, Plagiarism!
Well spoken Joseph. It is not how big the words are and how how perfect the spelling is. It is the quality of thought.
Thanks for the ideas. I’ll work on them to improve my thoughts.
Nice to read something that is not a load of Crapp.
Thank you,
BB
Joseph Reinhart (#12) - “The media MADE Obama”
So true.
Just about any politician, with a decent appearance, would be elected had they received the same MSM protection as Obama, Soetoro, or whatever is real name is.
As far as charisma, I think it’s laughable that the media is hell-bent in comparing his supposed ‘charisma’ with the likes of JFK, Reagan, Martin Luther King, or FDR. To me, he’s got the charisma of a government staffer; a lightweight, and someone who is embarrassingly way out of his element.
However, the MSM knows that if they prop him up, ignore his public gaffes, ignore his relationships with radicals such as Ayers and Frank Marshall Davis, and keep drilling into the sheeple that this impostor is a talented, adept, shrewd, gifted politician (which he is not due to the needed media protection in the first place), that the big lie will be pulled off. Dan Quayle would be elected with such media worship and protection. Everything about this guy smells of life-long affirmative action.
I, personally, would never refer to this bum as President since he’s not constitutionally eligible. Those citizens who don’t find it suspicious that he’s spent so much money to keep from public the release of his long form birth certificate, adoption records, education records, health records, selective service records, passport records, and social security records, including disclosure of all social security numbers he has used, are guilty of ideological prejudice to the extreme and apparently believe that the ‘ends justify the means’.
My disgust isn’t so much with Obama, after all, he’s just an opportunist scoundrel taking advantage of the free pass given to him through the conspiracy of silence from our political, media, and judicial systems.
If we don’t have a duopoly running the country, why hasn’t the McCain campaign, or any other high-ranking Republican politicians brought up the birth certificate issue along with the other personal records being legally hidden from the public before the election took place?
Was McCain just going through the motions of running for president with no intentions of winning?
Neo-Conned,
Check! In total agreement with every word.
When the facts become so self proving and baldfaced evident that only the builders of piles of Crapp attack them, we know we are involved in a growing part of the American population that will not and cannot be ignored.
I did not mean to step on (cut farts) you and Wesley in the other blog. It seems that certain individuals have a way of hooking and baiting to skew the whole thought processes of the discussion. This is no place for Liberals they truly intend harm. Most of us are trying to figure out soultions to the untangling the Gordion Knot of Media Liberalism(Crapp).
We are here to raise the American Flag and present it in a proper and respectful manner. We do know there are Flag Burners and Soilers at every gathering of eagles. I personally get tired of their odor. They smell of Crapp. They cannot smell their own stench.
Like Mary said again and again, “Ignore them”. It is not easy to do so because their thought stink is so offensive. Maybe they will go play Spin The Bottle with their little friend Barney Frank and Al Franken. Al Gore can be Referee.
Re: post 16 -
No hard feelings on my end, Boston. (although you sure did have me scratching my head the other night!)
Thanks
By the way, I left out Obama’s racism in my other post, since he did attend ‘Rev’ Wright’s bigoted congregation for 20 years and took his kids there as well.
Black, White, and Hispanic racism is all acceptable to the MSM….just as long as said racist is a Democrat. (think Robert Byrd and Sotomayor).
Re: Post 12;
Your statement:
“...If it were impossible, then we would not know the truth, yet you seem, dispite (sic) the impossibility of the situation, to know.
“Why? Because in retro-spect we come to conclusions based on bits of information that were and are at hand. Hence, it isn’t impossible to know the truth…”
I agree regarding the process you outline - but I don’t believe the process NECESSARILY results in “The Truth”. I think, most frequently, that process results in an “educated opinion”, a “theory”, a hopefully enlightened “assumption”, a “potentiality” - which MAY of MAY NOT actually end up being certified as FACT or “The Truth”.
In reality, I believe most people complain about the mainstream media exactly because of this, i.e., reporters, newsreaders, and commentators are TOO OFTEN promoting “educated opinion”, a “theory”, a hopefully enlightened “assumption”, or a “potentiality”. The whole miasma of the recent reportage of the death of Michael Jackson is an example of all of this.
And, while I agree that the most basic definition of “liberal” is “one who seeks change” (whereas the most basic definition of “conservative” is “one who seeks to maintain the status quo”) - - I certainly DO NOT believe that ALL “liberals” are “liars” any more than I would believe ALL “conservatives” are “truth-tellers”!
Your statement:
“...How to stop terror? Stop reporting it. It will still happen for awhile, but get less and less, and then simpley be a thing of the past, as the terrorist develop new techniques to gain their wishes…”
Theoretically, I agree. A similar case exists as regards public officials’ policies on graffiti, i.e., REMOVE IT as soon as possible (and keep removing it whenever it appears) - - after all, sole purpose of graffiti is that it has to be seen by others - - if few people ever get to see it, the graffiti artist will soon stop and will move on to some other form of expression.
And, finally, BOTH “liberalism” AND “conservatism” HAVE NO PLACE in “good” journalism (i.e., “news reporting”)!
Good journalism (speaking of “news reporting” only) is supposed to be accurate and objective and need only include the who, what, where, when and, if evident, why, and, if singularly germane, how. The reporter’s, copywriter’s, proofreader’s and editor’s personal feelings are not supposed to intrude into the report.
And, I’ll stand by my earlier comment: ESPECIALLY today, with all the varied agendas out there and with so many people/organizations/institutions actually looking for publicity or the opportunity to “sell” some story or concept - - IT IS MORE DIFFICULT THAN EVER for even the most adept and thorough reporter to find “the truth”.
TK, Some day when you become a little older and wiser you will realize that Journalists and reporters do not get paid to seek or report the Truth.
Maybe People’s World has what you want. Is Ramparts still in business?
Then of course, AIM would be out of business if reporting and Journalism were truthful.
A massive web of lies. A great pile of Crapp.
You are wasting your time.
TK
You will enjoy this site. Great blogs for those who wish to gather with and associate with other politially correct and highly intelligent people.
I am a regular church goer so I have no need of Perfect People.
Enjoy!
Re: Posts 19 and 20;
I’m predominantly a print media type. I don’t do news websites - even those of my local area newspapers and TV channels.
Your comment:
“...I am a regular church goer so I have no need of Perfect People…”
Good for you ... I guess ?!?
Your comment:
“...You are wasting your time…”
If you mean I’m “wasting my time” responding to you - you are most-certainly CORRECT! (Which, I would guess, might qualify as some kind of a miracle!)
TK,
http://www.pww.org is where you can subscribe to “People’s World Weekly”. I am doing you a favor. I like you am a reader of the printed word. There is more to the world than your little home block. Here I am doing you a kindness and you come back with Hate.
Really, you will very much enjoy People’s World Weekly. You will feel very much at home there. The opinions at PWW are very much in total agreement with yours. You will not have anyone to hate there, just Love.
Honest I mean it. Relax and enjoy.
BB
This article might have some weight to it if it was actually able to define what “liberal” is. Do you mean “democrat,’ as in voting for the demoractic party? As in, what used to be, Labor, and equity, and making sure that the elite of the society didn’t completely rob us blind (as they did in the Bush years)? What exactly is a “liberal?” I sure as hell don’t know. —althought judging from the article and the posts, it’s a four letter word used to describe anyone that diagrees with you, makes you uncomortable, or doesn’t try to flatter you.
A good writer, and certainly a good journalist, and a good thinker, going back to Plato and Aristotle, knows you have to define your terms before you can have a intelligent dialague. it’s called a dialectic. But I guess soe of these people on this web site aren’t too interested in books and education…....too, um, liberal perhaps?
Re: Post 49;
Can’t you take “no” for an answer?
And you have no idea whatsoever what “opinions” I might find in agreement with mine (certainly NOT yours) and you have even less of an idea of where I might feel “at home”.
Mind YOUR OWN business.
Re: Post 27;
My comment in my Post 25 was for Beaner “49”.
HOWEVER - I do agree with some of the sentiments you expressed in your Post 23.
“Another modern day Deceiver known as Noam Chomsky makes use of his linguistical skills to hoodwink millions of students and journalists every year into accepting Marxism as an acceptable belief system under many alternating titles.” - beaner
Maybe you should check your facts there, beaner.
Chomsky describes himself as an anarcho-syndicalist—if that’s something you don’t understand, look for the wikipedia articles titled “anarcho-syndicalism” and “Politics of Noam Chomsky”
You can’t get much more “small government” than no government (anarchism). Not even close to Marxism, although syndicalism is socialistic and collectivist.
Noam Chomsky is a man of a thousand faces. Pick any face that matches your ideals. His track record shows him to be a Pro-Marxist Linguist.
Looks like he Basketweaved you into a personal view.
Will G., you of all people, need to be governed very very closesly. You are a sick a deloded person who probably should be in prison.
In a cell with Chomsky, maybe. You can be his wife.
andrew, “...if (writer) was actually able to define what “liberal” is.”
Rest assured that even though you don’t know, WE do know what a liberal is.
It is not this post’s function to bring you up-to-speed on the vernacular of the day. Twit.
Joseph, Have not laughed so hard in a month. Nice to see another person who can hit the bullseye.
Reinhart:
What does deloded mean?
See my article on Chomsky for more details.
W Gerard,
Did you read the article you sent Joseph?
Maybe your priorities are in the wrong place. Commie America Attackers like Chomsky are a bit more troublesome than one mispelled word by someone with twice the brain power you are able to produce.
Go take a nap with TK.
Beaner:
I wrote the article.
All anarchists are enemies of the state. The state’s propaganda machines have less-than-thoughtful people like you hoodwinked: just as I was.
You think the Republicans are actually fighting the Democrats (or vice-versa)? It’s all a kabuki dance that keeps you mesmerized and easily controlled while they steal your liberty and property.
June 29 at 12:54 pm | #1 | Link
Mr. Glover gives too much weight to the notion of “he said, she said” fairness in journalism. I suggest that he give journalists a little more credit for being able to evaluate their sources.
Many journalists have backgrounds that include scientific training, I personally studied engineering for several years before eventually becoming a journalist. I was able to look at some of the ostensible science that was behind the nay-sayers to global warming and make quick judgments of the kind journalists are required to make every day. My judgments were also somewhat colored by the story that came out several years about Exxon hiring a public relations firm to flood the Internet with opinions they represented as private citizen opinions, that were all highly critical of Vice President Gore’s findings. When they were exposed, they had egg on their faces, but they still might be doing that in other ways for all I know. Journalists do try to be fair, but fairness requires considering everything you know, not only about the “facts” that are presented to you, but also about those who pose as objective observers while presenting those facts.
I suggest that journalist actually bend over backwards in an attempt to be fair and thus give too much exposure to unreliable and untrustworthy sources just so they cannot be accused of bias.
As JFK once said, “Where there’s smoke, look for a smoke-making machine.”