Wash. Post ombudsman Howell misrepresented former Post reporter Edsall's conclusions on media bias
SUMMARY: In her
column, Deborah Howell misrepresented Thomas Edsall's views
on the purported liberalism of most journalists. Although Edsall asserted, as Howell reported, that
"most journalists he knew were liberal" during a radio appearance, he explained in a
subsequent online chat that, while many of its members are indeed liberal, the
press at large is "inclined to lean over backwards not to offend critics
from the right" and that the
right wing's
"campaign against the media ... has turned the press into an unwilling,
and often unknowing, ally of the right."
In her November 12 column titled "Media 'Liberalism' Under the Microscope," Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell misrepresented former Post political reporter Thomas Edsall's stated views on the purported liberalism of most journalists. While discussing recent instances of "Republicans claiming bias," Howell noted that, on the September 21 broadcast of The Hugh Hewitt Show, Edsall asserted that "most journalists he knew were liberal," in Howell's words. But Howell did not report a subsequent online chat hosted by the washingtonpost.com's own "Book World" in which Edsall explained his remarks. Edsall asserted that, while many of its members are indeed liberal, the press at large is "inclined to lean over backwards not to offend critics from the right" and that the right wing's "campaign against the media ... has turned the press into an unwilling, and often unknowing, ally of the right." Howell ended her column by asking readers to "tell me if you see bias, and I will write more on this subject important to the credibility of The Post and all journalists."
In his interview on The Hugh Hewitt Show, while discussing purported bias in the media, Edsall said, "I agree that whatever you want to call it, [the] mainstream media, presents itself as unbiased, when in fact, there are built into it, many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left." Later during the interview, at Hewitt's prompting, Edsall estimated that the ratio of reporters who identify themselves as Democrats to those who identify themselves as Republicans is "probably in the range of 15-25:1, Democrat."
Subsequently, while discussing his book, Building Red America: The New Conservative Coalition and the Drive For Permanent Power (Basic Books, August 2006), during an October 10 washingtonpost.com online chat, Edsall was asked by several readers about his interview on Hewitt's program, and expanded on his earlier remarks:
The conservative movement has been very effective attacking the media (broadcast and print) for its liberal biases. The refusal of the media to disclose and discuss the ideological leanings of reporters and editors, and the broader claim of objectivity, has made the press overly anxious, and inclined to lean over backwards not to offend critics from the right. In many respects, the campaign against the media has been more than a victory: it has turned the press into an unwilling, and often unknowing, ally of the right.
In her November 12 column, which purported to address readers' concerns about a so-called liberal bias in the media, Howell wrote, "In the past six months, [reader feedback] has shifted to Republicans claiming bias. Several readers also have mentioned remarks by former Post political reporter Tom Edsall, who in September said on a conservative talk show that most journalists he knew were liberal." Howell went on to write, "Most of the reporters and editors I know well are more liberal on social issues than the general populace, and that's the leaning you can sometimes see in stories. But many of them are political centrists and can lean conservative on issues that affect their pocketbooks." But Howell made no mention of Edsall's comments on washingtonpost.com.
From Deborah Howell's November 12 Washington Post ombudsman column:
Reader R.K. "Dick" Fazzone of Potomac taunted me recently: "Deborah, every day, The Post continues to practice news journalism with a liberal political bias without comment from you, The Post's ombudsman." Okay, Dick, here I go into the lion's den.
During my first six months here, I heard more from liberal Democrats who complained that The Post was going easy on the Bush administration. In the past six months, it has shifted to Republicans claiming bias. Several readers also have mentioned remarks by former Post political reporter Tom Edsall, who in September said on a conservative talk show that most journalists he knew were liberal.
First, facts. The most recent survey (2004) from the Pew Center on People and the Press, reflecting the findings of earlier surveys, said that about 54 percent of national and 61 percent of local-level journalists described themselves as moderate. The percentage identifying themselves as liberal increased from a 1995 survey: 34 percent of national journalists and 23 percent of local ones described themselves that way, compared with 22 percent and 14 percent nine years ago. "As was the case a decade ago, journalists as a group are much less conservative [7 percent nationally, 12 percent locally] than the general public [33 percent]," the Pew Center report said.
My experience is consistent with the Pew study. Most of the reporters and editors I know well are more liberal on social issues than the general populace, and that's the leaning you can sometimes see in stories. But many of them are political centrists and can lean conservative on issues that affect their pocketbooks.
Many political reporters and their editors don't talk about their partisan beliefs. And some, including Post Executive Editor Len Downie, don't vote. Others don't vote in primaries if they have to register with a party. And, let's face it, readers don't care about the political leanings of reporters who cover the Washington Redskins.
Conservative talk-show hosts love to criticize the media as too liberal because they see everything through an ideological lens; journalists do not. The answer to the bias question is much more complicated than that.
Journalism tends to draw to its ranks those who are idealistic, who want to right society's ills and who look upon their work as a calling. They look at journalism less as a job with a business than as a calling to public service, which can put them at odds with their own business executives.
Journalists possess two traits that are more important than political beliefs. By their very nature, good journalists are skeptical. The old newsroom saying goes: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out." And they challenge authority in whatever form it exists. Ask any president. I've read The Post for 16 years, and Post journalists were every bit as tough on Bill Clinton as on the Bushes before and after him.
There's an old satirical line from Mr. Dooley, the character created by American humorist Finley Peter Dunne, that newspapers "comfort th' afflicted" and "afflicts th' comfortable." There's a lot of truth in that. Journalists tend to be softhearted toward the afflicted or the underdog, which tends to make them less critical of illegal immigrants or poor people in bad straits, and more hard-nosed toward those who wield power.
But don't some pols and other powerful people get better press than others? Sure. Reporters like best the ones who talk to them (duh) and are willing to mix it up. Witness the appeal of John McCain, not a liberal, who gets a lot of positive coverage.
[...]
This ombudsman believes the real issue is not what journalists believe or how they vote, but what is in the newspaper. It's my job to be the watchdog, so you tell me if you see bias, and I will write more on this subject important to the credibility of The Post and all journalists.
From the October 10 washingtonpost.com "Book World" chat:
San Francisco, Calif: Mr. Edsall, I've been a fan since I read "The New Politics of Inequality". I agree with your answer to an earlier question that transparency is the best policy in reporting. Being human, reporters will inevitably have opinions about areas in which they've done lots of research, as you have. "Objectivity" was an honorable goal, but never realistic.
It seems to me that the builders of red-state America used the theory of objectivity in reporting to advance some of the less honest parts of their agenda. What's your take on that? Also, to what extent do you think those builders are interested in transparency with respect to their motives and their funding?
Thomas B. Edsall: The conservative movement has been very effective attacking the media (broadcast and print) for its liberal biases. The refusal of the media to disclose and discuss the ideological leanings of reporters and editors, and the broader claim of objectivity, has made the press overly anxious, and inclined to lean over backwards not to offend critics from the right. In many respects, the campaign against the media has been more than a victory: it has turned the press into an unwilling, and often unknowing, ally of the right.
going virtually unreported, which one would think a supposedly liberal media would jump on to point out as proof of bush lying about wmd, then it's really hard to see some liberal bias to the media. on the other hand, you have all the phony stories about democrats, gore lies, kerry flip flops, the dean scream. whatever the reason, it's hard to see a liberal bias. because really all the decisions are made at the top.
by anything that comes out of the mouth of that ink-sucking slag.
It's telling that these self-professed "Liberal" journalists only give credence to right wing claims of bias and never to the claims of the left. If they do give it any mention at all, it is by being snarlingly derisive with accusations of the so-called "angry left." Do you ever hear them talk about the angry right? Even when Rush Limbaugh mocks Micheal Fox or Ann Coultier calls for the assasination of judges, they are given a free pass. When the Swift Boat liars attacked Kerry's war record, journalists told us that they were just expressing what they believed so it should be reported, never mind the facts. Isn't all that an indication of right wing bias? And by what measure would a corporation be Liberal or left wing? What would be the financial motive? Yes, maybe journalists don't hate gay people but on matters of foreign policy and economics, they are rabidly Conservative. The real issue of press bias does not lay with the alleged political leanings of the journalists themselves anyway but rather with the leanings of the ombudsmen and editors who tend to be almost exclusively Conservative. They are the final arbiters of what stories are pursued and what makes it into print. The journalists who work for them only provide a product that is acceptable to their bosses.
It is useless to present journalists' party identification instead of analyzing their articles when trying to determine whether the media is pro- or anti- anything. Media content leans considerably to the right. The NY Times helped fuel the Iraq war push with the false Judith Miller articles.
Ombudsman Howell has been known for having to apologize after spewing false right-wing garbage.
Fox News is, well, Fox News.
MediaMatters analyzed TV shows and found that Republicans are significantly more likely to be invited than Democrats, and conservatives more than liberals.
So shut up, Deborah Howell.
[link to www.cmpa.com]
It isnt a function of BIAS that Foley was trying to predate a teenage boy, the Iraq war is a disaster, and Abramoff bribed GOP Congressmen or Duke Cunningham was a corrupt crook and went to prison. Unless the point of this website is that FACTUAL REALITY has a liberal bias there is no point whatsoever. What was the media supposed to do? Ignore a specific number of FACTUAL stories because they made Republicans look bad for some weird sense of balance? Is anyone anywhere claiming that if Abramoff had been a Democrat the press wouldnt have covered it? Foley? Cunningham? Ney? There is nothing there
In defense of Deborah Howell, she did not misrepresent what I said, and she used the short quote to get into the larger subject. At the same time, I think the conservative movement has been very effective using the liberalism of the press to turn the media into an unwitting ally, driven to often to prove its objectivity by tilting to the right to overcompensate. Here is a (too long) excerpt on the subject from a recent book, Building Red America:
THE LIBERAL MEDIA AS A WEDGE ISSUE Early on in the drive to remake America, conservatives recognized that one of their key adversaries would be the media: the major mainstream newspapers – including The New York Times, The Washington Post, the news pages of the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the weekly newsmagazines, and the big three network news shows. On November, 13, 1969, Vice President Agnew fired what many on the right view as the first real salvo in what has become a sustained, and highly successful, drive to constrain the establishment media and to discredit its legitimacy. In a speech entitled "On the National Media," Agnew declared that a week earlier President Nixon had “delivered the most important address of his Administration….For thirty-two minutes, he reasoned with a nation that has suffered almost a third of a million casualties in the longest war in its history. When the President completed his address--an address that he spent weeks in preparing--his words and policies were subjected to instant analysis and querulous criticism.... The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every Presidential address, but more importantly, wield a free hand in selecting, presenting, and interpreting the great issues of our nation….One Federal Communications Commissioner considers the power of the networks to equal that of local, state, and federal governments combined. Certainly, it represents a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history. What do Americans know of the men who wield this power? ….We do know that, to a man, these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C. or New York City….The American people would rightly not tolerate this kind of concentration of power in government....The views of this fraternity do not represent the views of America." The national media were vulnerable to attack. The liberalism of the media is not only or even primarily the economic liberalism of Roosevelt’s New Deal -- redistributive and pro-union. Instead, it is the newer social liberalism, firmly supportive of racial equality, of the women’s and other liberation movements, of sexual autonomy, of abortion, and of reproductive and sexual privacy rights. The media’s liberalism is that of a well-educated, professionally oriented elite -- which makes the press susceptible to the same attacks that conservative populists have used against the Democratic Party, capitalizing on the fear of family breakdown, amorality, racial change, immigration, foreign enemies, ‘the homosexual agenda,’ an urban and inner-suburban underclass, and the coarsening of the popular culture. By the end of the 1970s, Republicans and conservatives fully recognized that they had in hand a powerful weapon – accusations of ideological and partisan bias – to weaken the influence and authority of the mainstream media. As those attacks began to mount, conservatives found that their adversaries in the media were not quick to recognize their own ideological and partisan convictions, and thus their vulnerability to attack.
Of course MMFA didnt CLAIM she misrepresented what you SAID. They claim she misrepresented your CONCLUSIONS and your stated views on the purported liberalism of most journalists. Do you agree with her statement here?
"Most of the reporters and editors I know well are more liberal on social issues than the general populace, and that's the leaning you can sometimes see in stories.
Of does this mistate your conclusions? It does seem odd to me if they dont. IF they bend over backwards to avoid the rightwing charge of liberalism its hard to see how you can see their liberal leanings in stories.
I immediately responded to Howell's request for emails that point out bias.
I reminded her about the WAPO running a story stating that the President lied about the tenure of the secretary of defense, for his own political gain. Then a few days later removing the phrase, without trace or explanation, that explained that the president misled the american people.
I guess 1984 was a very liberally biased book.
Funny, when Clinton was in office calling the president a "LIAR" was the cool thing to do in every branch of the media, the fact that they hold Kerry to his jokes but W skates on his daily "gaffs" clearly shows some more of that ol librul bias.
Also humorous: Howell trying to paint Abramoff as bipartisan, the most important issue for the Democratic Wave? corruption.
"The liberalism of the media is not only or even primarily the economic liberalism of Roosevelt’s New Deal -- redistributive and pro-union."
I would have to say that the "Liberalism" of the Corporate Media is not at all traditional economic Liberalism. How many papers do you see with a labor section? Uniformly, the Corporate Media supports corporate driven "free" trade and is by and large, anti-union. What motivation would a corporation have to advocate workers rights and strong unions? It seems what you, and other media analysts routinely miss or ignore, are the economic imperatives of the corporations that you work for. They have a vested financial interest in the deregulatory ideology of the Republican party. Why else would issues of importance to the public interest such as the FCC trying to loosen the regulations on media ownership and consolidation be missing entirely from the commercial press? Net neutrality? You won't see that discussed on the evening news. Let's face it, Liberalism implies a critique of corporate power that is perceived as threatening to the owners of the commercial media. This is one reason they are so eager to portray Liberals as nothing but social libertines and exclude Liberal economic analysis. It serves the interests of Big Business to marginalize the left in such a fashion and simultaneously portray the media as Liberal thus manufacturing consensus around Conservative economic theory. The press is only as Liberal as the people or corporations that own it.
I would say that the "Liberalism" of the media is exclusively social and only so in that it does not advocate intolerance towards minorities.
So how truly right biased does the media have to be to present something leaning left with a right-wing tint?
The answer very much so wittingly or un-. I am betting mote un- than not, as I have seen a member of the media with a whit of wit in sometime. Try saying that three times fast.
Isn't Mr. Edsall the same dude that once claimed that the Democratic party primaries were dominated by an upscale, socially (and culturally) liberal elite...but he forgot to mention that dirt-poor and low-income people in general always for those candidates.
[link to mediamatters.org]
I meant to type "always vote" for those candidates. I omitted the word "vote".
That's the bottom line, isn't it? On that point, I agree with Ms Howell. However, she misses other parts of the survey [link to people-press.org] which say something about the finished product.
For example, a majority of journalists "believe that increased bottom line pressure is 'seriously hurting' the quality of news coverage." Of those,
o 86% believe the news avoids complex issues o 56% believe the press is too timid o 52% believe that journalism is "increasingly sloppy"
One piece of information that may also be relevant to the finished product is the breakdown of liberals vs conservatives among editors and executives. However, that information is not provided in the survey report. Instead, the survey simply lumps them together with the rest of the "working journalists."