The Media:

January 5, 2002 4:59 PM

The Media: After 30 years of working in the journalism industry, CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg has released this book, apparently a scathing critique of the media's liberal slant. The book, of course, has created much controversy, with many saying that Goldberg is biting the hand that feeds him. There are many who would argue that, contrary to Goldberg's claims, the media (at least in recent months) has been censoriously conservative in the wake of wartime patriotism.

You may have thought the fourth estate has been corrupt for quite some time, but recent months have brought a heightened degree of scrutiny of the media. America's relationship with the press seems to be more complex than ever. The plight of (now released) amateur journalist Vanessa Leggett posed some interesting questions about restrictions on the power of the media. What is the actual state of the American media, and in which direction is it going to go?
posted by grrarrgh00 (18 comments total)

I was prompted to post this after USA Today ran this editorial decrying the Vanessa Leggett situation right next to this one about the media's sexist dismissal of Elizabeth Dole in the 2000 election. The two editorials seemed to be a sort of oblique point-counterpoint about the extent of the media's power and what it should be. Of course, we've discussed both Vanessa Leggett and the media's treatment of women before on MeFi, but I thought the Goldberg situation brought to light some curious points about the media's place in society today.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 5:08 PM on January 5, 2002

On the surface it appears simple: the purpose of journalism is to provide just the facts. However journalism is like a deep river that seems docile and friendly on the surface, but has many dangers lurking underneath.

Since the days of William Randolph Hearst, we've known the power of editorializing the media. How tempting the power must be, to potentially alter the perceptions of millions to the world outside their easy reach. For so many, the media is the only doorway to a larger world. Those custodians of that doorway show us what they believe to be important, or in more recent decades what will sell more advertising. Just facts alone don't sell shit. So the facts get spinned until they do sell shit.

Today's media is filtered through the custodians. Some of which are conservative. Some of which are liberal. Some of which laugh at such tags. Some of which embrace them. Sometimes the slant is more than noticable, because birds of a feather tend to flock together. Even if they were ever to automate everything, the people pushing the buttons and coding the programs would still be human - one cannot dissect subjective humanity from objective reporting. What one observes, one also affects.

Compare the hidden power and apparent insignificance of Tolkein's fictitious ring to the media of today and you might see a new perspective to both. I like to think Tolkein's work was using hobbits and wizards metaphorically, trying to warn mankind of something far more real: Mankind's own weakness to power and corruption of any kind.
posted by ZachsMind at 6:10 PM on January 5, 2002

I remember when Goldberg came to Nebraska specifically to do a hatchet job on Tom Osborne (dispensing with any pesky facts that didn't suit his predetermined bias). Sensationalism sells and Goldberg was a hack. The notion that he's now whining "bias" is a source of endless amusement to me. Isn't irony ironic?

btw: There's no "controversey" here. It's like saying "the flat-earth controversey". As far as I can tell, no one but drudgeniks and dittoheads are taking him seriosuly.
posted by RavinDave at 6:17 PM on January 5, 2002

Hatchet man talking out his ass. Enough said.
posted by fleener at 6:55 PM on January 5, 2002

I do think the media, despite their increasingly corporate parents, are liberal in their outlook and reporting. The bias is apparent in two domains. The first is in the adjectives used to describe actors and issues. For example the NRA, and Charlton Heston are invariably referred to as a "lobby/lobbyist", while Sarah Brady and her kind are referred to as an "advocates". Doesn't advocate sound cleaner? Regardless of your view on gun control, this isn't even handed treatment. You can find thousands of examples of this at the Media Research Center. MRC over-reaches at times, but the sheer number of examples is impressive.

The second domain in which a liberal bias is apparent in the major media (NYT,CBS,ABC,NBC, WaPo, TimeWarner) is in the story selection. To pick up a random issue of Time Magazine you would think the major issues facing the country at any time are 1)Abortion rights, 2)Gay rights, 3)Race relations/Affirmative action. While these are somewhat inflammatory issues, the course has been set for a mostly liberal resolution that the vast majority of people are comfortable with. They are also fringe issues to the majority of people in their day-to-day lives.

I don't have a problem with the press being liberal. What I do have problem with is the blindness of their denials and the insistence of their "objectivity". This insistence makes me distrust both their motives and their competency.
posted by prodigal at 6:56 PM on January 5, 2002

We have the best press that money can buy.
posted by Postroad at 7:07 PM on January 5, 2002

Just FYI: Broadcasting is generally referred to as the fifth estate, print as the fourth.
posted by melgx at 7:45 PM on January 5, 2002

I somewhat agree with prodigal with the media being liberal on certain issues, but I disagree that the media is liberal. I was just thinking, those that argue the media have a liberal bias and those that argue the media have a corporate bias are both right if you except this model:

Liberal bias: Women's issues, race issues, gay issues, gun control, won't give Libertarian party a break.

Corporate bias: W.T.O., health care, Suharto, Pinochet, trade with China, won't give Green Party a break. DMCA (bigtime, where's the 'liberal' media on one of the most talked about issues on the net?).

Good model? BTW: an editorial by Goldberg, and another article on the book.
posted by bobo123 at 9:04 PM on January 5, 2002

I wonder if this "liberal slant" has anything to do with "conservatives" being in the wrong?
posted by mcsweetie at 10:15 PM on January 5, 2002

That's a helluva blanket statement to make without further explication, mcsweetie. What're you thinking?
posted by verdezza at 10:38 PM on January 5, 2002

I expected this post to froth up the happy warriors, and yet it didn't.

How about that.

Maybe conflict is the new boring.
posted by dglynn at 1:12 AM on January 6, 2002

First of all, journalism, real journalism, is in the ICU. If you haven't already done so, you need to explore the incredible corporate hold over the media in this country and ask yourself how any reporting could be free of hidden commercial agendas. Newsroom decisions are based on what's best for the parent company, not what's best for the consumer. Second, I get ill when I think about how the press has just rolled over and played dead when it comes to reporting truth about the war and about the civil rights abuses that have followed. When "journalists" stops doing what they're supposed to be doing because the executive branch asks them to, the watchdog function of the press ends. Our loss. Third, the Media Research Center is so far to the right that to use it as source for media bias is laughable. If you want a more balanced look, try FAIR.
posted by willrich at 4:03 AM on January 6, 2002

a little commentary from Bartcop.
posted by ferris at 6:35 AM on January 6, 2002

the Media Research Center is so far to the right that to use it as source for media bias is laughable

And The Nation (willrich's "corporate hold" link) has such a middle of the road perspective that we can take it as a source for media bias with nary a chuckle?

What is "real journalism" and, more important, has it ever existed in practice? Is it the responsibility of publishers (let alone is it possible) to eliminate all bias (aka perspective) in reporting, or is it the responsibility of citizens to utilize a variety of sources for news?
posted by dchase at 9:01 AM on January 6, 2002

willrich,

Newsroom decisions are based on what's best for the parent company, not what's best for the consumer.

Can you back that up? I've been in newsrooms and the contempt for corporate concerns, including the parent company, is almost palpable (until bonus time anyway!). Editors and reporters are generally very wary of corporate influence.

Anyway, I stand by my original statements. I don't really care about journalists being liberal or conservative. I do have a problem, however, with the riduculous claims of "objectivity"
posted by prodigal at 9:51 AM on January 6, 2002

Be on the look out for the media aka "the press" last seen in the toilet heading in the direction of the sewer. Be advised suspect is armed with an array of mistruths, half-truths, misleading statistics and prefabricated press releases. Use extreme skepticism.
posted by euphorb at 10:34 AM on January 6, 2002

Can you back that up? I've been in newsrooms and the contempt for corporate concerns, including the parent company, is almost palpable (until bonus time anyway!). Editors and reporters are generally very wary of corporate influence.

For what it's worth, here's a previous thread on media bias that links to a (left-leaning) media study with some particularly egregious examples of corporate-friendly leaps over the Chinese wall.
posted by snarkout at 10:39 AM on January 6, 2002

And The Nation (willrich's "corporate hold" link) has such a middle of the road perspective that we can take it as a source for media bias with nary a chuckle?

Ok...you're right, The Nation is left leaning...but the chart doesn't lie. Ten corporations own what is and isn't reported in this country. Laws that restrict media ownership have been stripped away by the conservative members of Congress whose pockets are lined by those very same conglomerates. The line between news and entertainment gets thinner every day as corporate agendas influence reporting. It's all dumbing us down to the point where very few people can separate truth from fiction. And prodigal, while we may disagree on what happens in news decisions, we do agree on objectivity being lost from just about all of the mainstream press. People are too bored or lazy to make up their own minds. We've been conditioned to be told what to think, and reporters and news organizations know this and feed into it. They wouldn't have any "consumers" otherwise.
posted by willrich at 4:48 PM on January 6, 2002