The Backhanded Case for Media
So "cyber monday" was a hoax. It was created by shop.org an association of online retailers, yet the media jumped all over this. No one did any fact checking or they would have found that its only the 12th biggest online shopping day. In fact their press release even states that its "ONE of the biggest online shopping days of the year." But by the time the talking heads got it, it became "THE biggest online shopping day of the year." Why is this a defense? Because it demonstrates that the media is more inept than conniving. Had this been a mistake about a right wing issue, this would be yet more proof that the media is out to get the right. To me it's like government conspiracies. How can something so demonstratably inept be capable of pulling off anything nearly as complicated as a secret dedicated strategy against something, someone, or some idea? I just haven't been able to buy the biased liberal media arguement. Everything I've seen is explained by ineptitude, market forces, and the very human penchant for making mistakes. I've heard both liberals and conservatives decry their portrayal by the media. I've seen political candidates from both parties lose in part because of the media. I think its more that when bad things happen to you, or those you support, its both more noticable and it feels worse than when it happens to someone else, or someone you don't care about. I know this drives Stalin nuts, but he's so clouded by anger that he's barely my friend because I'm left handed.
Posts
3 comments:
Darth Stalin.
The bias on the national level is neither liberal, nor conservative; it's a bias toward the establishment, to preserve major media outlets' collaboration with "sources close to"-types who keep the daily news cycle pedaling without owning up to trial balloons, disclosures, smears and the rest of the NYT front page. It's the sort of reporting every j-school student from day 1 is taught to avoid, but it's de facto public policy.
Gentlemen,
First let me say that it has never been the claim of StalinMalone or anyone affiliated with StalinMalone that there is an organized liberal consipiracy in the media. I have openly stated that many times. However, that fact does not mean there is no bias. The bias is the result of the mindset of the writers who may not even be trying to be biased. If we ask 50 honest and fair Democrats and 50 honest and fair Republicans to explain what the latest social welfare bill means to Americans we will get significantly different explanations. No one is lying, and there would be no collusion. However, the people in the same group would have similar takes and they would vary from their friends in the other group. This is the bias I've always been talking about.
The Lichter and Rothman study in 1981 showed the voting habits of a large cross-section of the media from '64 - '76. In the four presidential election covered by this period the members of the media voted Democrat in these percentages: 94%, 86%, 81%, 81% (cited for it's generally accepted methodology). Recent studies (often more energetically challenged by the media) have continued to show a similar distribution of political persuasion in the media. This fact should lead a fair-minded person to the conclussion that if there is a bias, it will be to the left.
Now, perhaps journalists, as a group, are a rare breed and can keep their views to themselves. I, however, find that an unreasonable assumption. In addition, when I read stories in the "mainstream media" - a term that is losing it's meaning due to competition arising directly because of this bias - I see evidence to support this logical premise. Why do Murtha's criticisms of the war in Iraq generate enormous amounts of coverage while Leiberman's statements of support are practically ignored? I would think a Democrat breaking with his party would be a big story, it always is when a Republican does (see McCain). Or how do you explain the Rather fiasco? The daily tallying of American war dead? The identification of conservative political groups as "right wing" while groups like the ACLU and NOW receive no similar designation?
I think it would be foolish to attempt to claim there is an organized left wing agenda in the media. I also think it is foolish to think that an overwhelmingly Democratic population could present issues with pure objectivity.
I recall when Scalia refuesed to recuse himself from a case involving Cheney. He said that regardless of his personal feelings/dealings/relationships he could objectively render a decision. Ok, fine, I know you're not saying "no one can." But the check on the rest is the fact that media is, above all else, a business. That's the answer. To qote pogo, "we have seen the enemy and it is us." The media sells a product. If people buy it, they sell more, if people don't they sell less. Ever wonder why Princess Di is always on some magazine cover or another? Its because she moves copy. Same with Lewinsky. When that was hot news, that story was everywhere, liberal media, conservative media it didn't matter. It moved copy so it was pushed. Also, remember a "liberal" paper broke the Lewinsky scandal that almost brought down a President who was the darling of liberals everywhere. I'm not aruguing that most journalists are liberals, rather that the market protects you from bias. Rupert Murdoch is hugely conservateve, but his media empire makes millions off of porn. Does he find porn distasteful, probably. But it sells and he's running a business so he pushes it. If you ever wonder why something is news, just look around. Someones paying for it. Media is not a non-profit organization.
As far as Rather. I think that can also be explained as a media person looking for a scoop. Its not the first time shoddy journalism came into play when looking for a unique and fast story.
As far as daily body counts. Thats because we are at war, and it is news. Every since Vietnam, everyone thinks American's have a low tolerance for casualties. No one wants to miss that story. Also, we've had "Mission Accomplished" and "the insurgency is in its last throes." So it is, in fact, news when US soldiers are still dying. Just because something is "bad news," doesn't make it "not news."
Liebs v. Murtha. Liebs has been a solid supporter from the begining. Murtha's change was a major break. Also, for whatever reason, it resonated. Can't explain it, no one can. But it did. Also, most articles I've read in regard to Murtha mention Lieb's support.
McCain is news, less so now, because, due to Reagans 11th commandment, the GOP never broke ranks. Dems always, always broke ranks. Pick a story to sell.
I think you would be surprised at how much sales motivate editorial decisions. Ask yourself which headline is more likely to sell papers. "Lieberman still supports war." Or "Congressman Murtha, long-time war supporter, calls for troop withdrawl."
Post a Comment