About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

October 08, 2009 5:44 pm ET by Jamison Foser

Veteran reporter Tom Edsall has a piece in Columbia Journalism Review that I'm sure I'll respond to at greater length fairly soon.  For now, though, here's a taste (via Calderone):

The mainstream press is liberal. 

... 

The refusal of mainstream media executives to acknowledge the ideological leanings of their staffs has produced a dangerous form of media guilt in which the press leans over so far backward to avoid the charge of left bias that it ends up either neutered or leaning to the right. This happened at The Washington Post and was reflected in weak and sometimes fawning coverage, first of the opening years of the Reagan administration, and even more so during George W. Bush's first term-when not only the lead-up to the Iraq invasion but key domestic initiatives went largely unexamined, with disastrous consequences.

Here's my question for Edsall: If I call myself a vegetarian and believe with all my heart that eating meat is both immoral and unhealthy, but I enjoy a nice steak dinner twice a week, does it make sense to refer to me as a vegetarian?

In case my point isn't clear: If the press "ends up either neutered or leaning to the right," why on earth does it make sense to call it "liberal"?

Tags: Tom Edsall

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by goesto11 (October 08, 2009 6:39 pm ET)
      2 1
      A simple rule:

      Media are always liberal, even when they're not.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by phredicles (October 09, 2009 12:42 am ET)
           
        Sounds like the argument here is that they're always liberal, especially when they're not.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (October 08, 2009 8:38 pm ET)
        3
      It's probably called "liberal" because a poll of members of the press (and media in general) would reveal that the majority votes a pretty straight ticket (and it doesn't have an R after the names).
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mk3872 (October 08, 2009 10:46 pm ET)
        5  
        You are conflating the way someone votes with the way someone does their job.

        The idea of the press is to be neutral and fair in their REPORTING.

        That does not mean that the way they vote in the voting booth has any reflection on their work.

        But you'll find anything to make this long-time conservative argument seem true, I am sure of that ...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by political_left-religious_right (October 09, 2009 2:11 pm ET)
           
        A poll of members of the press may very well show liberal leanings, but a poll of the editors and media owners--the ones who actually control the content--would show exactly the opposite. I have yet to see a conservative acknowledge that rather simple fact.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Butterfly813605765 (October 08, 2009 9:15 pm ET)
         
      And... since all the talking heads a FOX cannot separate their ideology from their on-air punditry making their shows just opinion
      oriented they are incapable of believing that real journalists can and do do just that in their reporting
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mmfa.fan (October 08, 2009 9:19 pm ET)
         
      Nonsensical drivel.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by steve34434443 (October 08, 2009 10:46 pm ET)
      1  
      I'm a bit familiar with a study that found most journalists to identify as liberal in that they favored democrat views on issues more than republican, but it was mainly for social issues. If I recall correctly, most journalists are also fiscal/economic conservatives. In any event however, it doesn't matter much because most editors are conservative and they decide what stories get attention and how they will be framed, and on even a larger scale, journalists and reporters (and editors) are often part of much larger corporations and conglomerates and the basic structure of news reflects this business oriented perspective, (another consequence being that the press tends to also play it safe by staying within the confines of the status quo political and social attitudes and perspectives as challenging them would threaten profits and the construction and support of business favorable policies). That's why so many papers and news segments (even on the supposedly liberal PBS) have a business sections that serves investors. Imagine if there were a labor section that served wage workers, or a women's section that offered issues on women's issues (like the wage gap), or a section on race relations that actually addresses structural racism, or even knew what that term means). That, of course would be seen as biased, but as it is now we don't even recognize the perspectives we're fed. They're hegemonic.
      At the end of the day, however, the question isn't really about bias (liberal/conservative) because there's really no such thing as objectivity or neutrality. Instead, the real issue is about freedom. Is the press free to report in a noncoercive, independent, and open way (ask any 3rd parties candidates about this). And given the economic and political constraints, and about 30 years of sociological and communication research the answer is a resounding no.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by phredicles (October 09, 2009 12:41 am ET)
      2  
      Wait, the fact that the mainstream press is "liberal" but refuses to acknowledge it is the reason why it leans right and kisses the @$$ of brain-dead right-wingers like St. Ronnie and Cowboy Caligula?

      Congratulations, Columbia Journalism Review: You hurt my brain.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by puttforever4682 (October 09, 2009 8:27 am ET)
         
      Eric Alterman --What Liberal Mediais a very well documented book on this subject, I highly encourage all to read it.
      The Washington Post which has been accused of being part of the liberal media truly has been backing the conservative agenda for years, The only area where I would say the Post has been liberal would be in the area of race relations.
      Just this week on Monday I think, The Style section had a two page puff piece on Orly Taitz. I cannot get a complete leaderboard on a golf tournament because of space limitations, but the Post allows luxuriating space for Taitz?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (October 09, 2009 2:07 pm ET)
         
      Astonishingly dumb and outdated.

      The charge of liberal bias in the media has one single data point -- polls of rank and file reporters. Once that's dispensed with (rank and file reporters don't write actual liberal things that are seen by actual people), the whole charade collapses.

      The charge of conservative bias has dozens of data points -- whitewater, the 2000 campaign, Iraq, ... The most recent is the total absence in the media of the fact that the US pays twice what the whole world pays for health care.

      "In the main, they find such figures as Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell beneath contempt." -- then why is every single friggin' profile of these figures fawning and glowing?? (At least, every profile that gets out to lots of people.)

      This is the kind of crap that in normal circumstances will get cited ten years later as proof of liberal bias. Luckily these aren't normal circumstances. If the republicans are destroyed, the media will go down with them. If the republicans are not destroyed, the united states will largely cease to exist ten years from now.
      Report Abuse