Among the ideas I left behind when I drifted away from conservatism was the notion that there is a pervasive liberal bias throughout mainstream news media.
Like many other conservatives, I saw a liberal behind every network anchor desk and liberalism lurking in every news story, whether on television or in print. Today, of course, I see things a bit differently.
Now, I see the rather obvious point that mainstream journalism isn’t biased toward liberalism or conservatism as much as it is biased toward compelling and controversial stories, whether it be Ronald Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal or more recently Bill Clinton’s sex scandal, during which the allegedly “liberal media” made special prosecutor Ken Starr a household name and contributed to the near-death of Clinton’s presidency.
But despite the fact that journalists are primarily interested in good stories, there still remains a detectable bias wafting through the mainstream media milieu. And whether such bias is liberal or conservative depends on where you live and where you look.
Newspapers, like people, have a voice, and many subscribers want that voice to be a friendly one, at least friendly to their view of the world. Here in Missouri, if you are a conservative and live in Kansas City, chances are you are not going to be happy with many of the editorial positions — the voice — of The Kansas City Star. If you are a liberal and live in Joplin, chances are you are not going to relish many of the editorial positions of The Joplin Globe.
In truth, both of these Missouri newspapers generally represent the views of a majority of their subscribers, which is nothing more than admitting that the news business, like any other industry, is subject to certain economic realities, one of which is it can’t ignore its customers’ wishes and prosper.
As for television news, most discussions of bias involve the national media. Before the advent of cable, the three broadcast networks, NBC, ABC and CBS, dominated broadcast news largely through their evening newscasts, which included little commentary.
But cable news changed everything. While you can still get some real news on cable television, most of it is presented in conjunction with strong opinions and commentaries, whether they come from the host or from a panel of interested parties or pundits. This sometimes makes for enjoyable theater, as opponents trade barbs, but in sound-bite doses it doesn’t always leave the viewers more informed.
And a well-informed citizenry, receiving information from multiple, reliable sources, is necessary for maintaining our republic, which is why both broadcast and print media should strive to provide a rich diversity of reasoned opinion, even if it sometimes offends the ideologues.
I often hear people say that as far as cable goes, liberals have MSNBC and conservatives have Fox “News” Channel. And so they do. But MSNBC does at least feature the ubiquitous Pat Buchanan, a stunningly ultra-conservative commentator, and Joe Scarborough, the conservative host of “Morning Joe.”
Fox “News,” however, is not just a media company practicing slightly right-of-center journalism. It is consciously a public relations arm of the conservative movement, and by extension, the Republican Party. I submit as evidence for this assertion the fact — yes, fact — that Fox did not just aggressively cover as news the anti-Obama tax protests this year; it openly and shamelessly promoted them. There is no sense in which such advocacy can be considered real journalism, and it is different in kind from anything else on television, including MSNBC.
I saw a picture of someone proudly holding a sign during the recent Sept. 12 anti-Obama rally in Washington, a sign that symbolized the sad fact that some people have become drunk on the right-wing propaganda flowing ceaselessly from Fox “News."
The sign read: I AM A FOXAHOLIC.
Duane Graham lives in Joplin. His blog “The Erstwhile Conservative” can be found at www.joplinglobe.com.
