Howard Kurtz reveals the double standards that keep the “liberal media” myth alive

One of the key reasons the myth of the “liberal media” persists is that there is a clear double standard in the examples that are used by (theoretically) neutral observers to illustrate purported media “bias.” Washington Post/CNN reporter Howard Kurtz inadvertently illustrated this during today's online discussion.

Kurtz:

Columbus, Ohio: Howie: How can Walter Cronkite be considered an unbiased journalist when he would conclude each telecast by giving the number of days Americans had been held hostage by the Iranians under President Carter? An American soldier is being held captive now and I don't know of any media outlet doing a similar thing.

Howard Kurtz: The Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-81 was the dominant issue of its time, great influenced the '80 presidential campaign and undoubtedly contributed to President Carter's defeat. It received huge coverage everywhere, including the ABC program “America Held Hostage,” which became “Nightline.” I don't see anything particularly biased about Cronkite's signoff. He was, after all, stating a fact, and perhaps voicing the public's resentment that such an atrocity--seizing another country's diplomats--could go on for so long.

So, according to Kurtz, Cronkite's practice of concluding each telecast by giving the number of days Americans had been held hostage under President Carter was not “particularly biased” because it was a statement of fact, and a reflection of the public's view. Fair enough.

But would Kurtz say the same about a broadcaster who did something similar when George W. Bush was president? Or would he say the signoff was evidence of “liberal bias”? From the same online discussion:

RE: Cronkite/Hostages: If an MSNBC anchor ended each broadcast during the Bush years by announcing that the U.S. had been in Iraq for XXX days, you would have said that was evidence of MSNBC's lurch leftward. Wouldn't you?

Howard Kurtz: Gee, didn't Keith Olbermann have a signoff about the number of days since President Bush declared Mission Accomplished?

And, gee, doesn't Howard Kurtz point to Olbermann as evidence of MSNBC's purported leftward shift? Yes, he does.

So Kurtz responded to an assertion that he would ascribe a leftward tilt to a journalist who did to a Republican president the same thing Conkite did to a Democratic president by pointing to a broadcaster who Kurtz says tilts to the left. Kurtz, in other words, proved the reader's point. (Note that, as usual, the point seems to have sailed over Kurtz's head.)

Another reader then spelled things out for Kurtz:

RE: Cronkite/Hostages:: I think your reader was too subtle in making his Cronkite-Olbermann point. Olbermann does make a comment about the number of days since Mission Accomplished (a fact) and the media (you?) have named Olberman as evidence of MSNBC's lurch leftward.

Howard Kurtz: I don't think Keith would compare his program to the CBS Evening News. If the signoff comes after an hour of criticizing the Bush administration and the war with consistently liberal guests, that's a tad different, no?

And Kurtz continues to fail to grasp the point. Also: Kurtz says Cronkite and Olbermann are not comparable -- but he's the person who brought Olbermann up in the first place! And in doing so, he revealed his own double standards. The only broadcaster Kurtz can think of who behaved towards Bush the way Cronkite behaved towards Carter is one who Kurtz says tilts to the left. And yet Kurtz says Cronkite's hostage comments were not evidence of a rightward tilt.

Not only did Kurtz inadvertently confirm his double standards by bringing up Olbermann, he basically admitted to them. He was given two separate chances to say “No, I would not say that an anchor was exhibiting an anti-Bush bias by ending each broadcast by indicating the number of days the Iraq war has lasted.” And he chose not to do so. Maybe because he knows nobody would believe him, or maybe because he is oblivious to the double standard he displays. Either way, he gave a pretty good demonstration of why the myth of the liberal media persists.

(NOTE: My point is not that Cronkite's broadcasts demonstrated a conservative bias. I am not making any such claim. I am simply illustrating a clear double standard on Kurtz' part.)