Media bias? Waa!

OP-ED:
Media's Presidential Bias and Decline, By MICHAEL S. MALONE, ABC News, Oct. 24, 2008

Ha! There's always a media bias when you lose, and when you court the anti-intellectual, as the GOP is wont to do, then you're mad as hell!

But guess what? Winners always charm the media to a certain extent--even Nixon in '72.

So this is a bunch of whiney, smoke-blowing cry-baby-ism.

What is very clear in today's world is that both the Right and Left have their dedicated media, so it's false to claim a systemic bias. Only the unaware buy that BS.

If anything, people's ability nowadays to live in the media bubble of their choosing make them far too irrational and Manichean in their world views--as in, "If my side doesn't win this election, it's the end of America as we know it!"

Yes, yes, the media's pro-Democrat bias certainly must explain the GOP winning 7 out of the last ten White House elections. No, no, wait a minute! That was "good Americans" overcoming "evil" ones!

Or maybe Americans just vote for who they want, when they want them, and the media's not nearly as all-powerful as it's made out to be. Maybe Americans aren't as stupid as many experts would believe.

End of America? Yet somehow we survive political shift after political shift, this being the sixth in my life. How does the all-powerful liberal media allow this?

But yes, go on and believe in your media conspiracy if you want.

Just go on to another blog where your whining will be tolerated, perhaps even celebrated, for this is the wrong bubble.

(Thanks: Rob Johnson)

Comments

[Jeff Thomas]

I’m one of those anti-intellectual, rightwing nutjobs who happens to believe studies such as UCLA’s that show a “quantifiable and significant bias” to the left at nearly all major media outlets, so the only thing I found particularly newsworthy about Malone’s article was the fact that a well-respected journalist had the sphericals to write it. Maybe that bears repeating: Malone is a journalist; 4th generation, 30-year career, ink-for-blood kinda guy – he is not some partisan shill doing the usual chin boogie. So while I’d be the first to admit that the right can occasionally get all hyperbolic when the subject turns to media bias, I think dismissing Malone’s piece as “a bunch of whiney, smoke-blowing cry-baby-ism” is inaccurate and a bit unfair.

As for the rest of it, I think I’ll pull that pin another day.

[Robert Langland]

I have kinda always wondered; if a media is overly bias one way or another and their print circulation or viewership keeps declining, would it not be in their best interest to change course? This seems to have worked for FOX from the conservative point of view. MSNBC being very much on the other side, seems to be really disconnected.

[Jeff Thomas]

Your house, your rules.

Continued success.

[Dean Wakeham]

Even though I sort of agree (though I think typically the term "media bias" is reserved for the major TV networks, NY Times and Washington Post), is denial of media bias by ABC indicative of media bias, or does the author just confirm that his outlet is biased?

Other places, such as blogs, talk radio, and other conservative outlets (excepting mayb FOX News) don't claim to be other than biased. And even if you roll FOX into the major networks, you can't say that they balance out the other 3, unless FOX has viewership that trumps all three?

I think when you claim to be objective and you are not perceived to be objective, then you have a credibility problem, and it is no wonder why people are putting themselves into bubbles.

[Louis Heberlein]

However .... public must feel it got an open, fair and balanced media presentation if it is to hunker down and accept necessary consequences of significant transformations. Not much real TV media dialogue on reality of economic, social and global political issues and needed transformations ... just gee whiz repetition of neat personalities, political tactics, and talking points. It worked for us with JFK, but public accepted consequences of his transformations in part out of sorrow over his death.

[William Millan]

You are out to annoy your readers today, aren't you? Get it all out of your system by the election, then we can get back to basics. :>)

[Galrahn]

Anti-intellectual was probably a poor choice as a description for either conservative or Republican, whichever you are referring to. Your general point the media conspiracy is overblown is correct up to the point where a "fairness" doctrine to govern specific types of political speech within some predetermined sense of balance becomes a conversation. It is a catch-22, if there is no media bias, why would we need a "fairness doctrine" for media?

That sense of "fairness" and "bias" in media that attempts to balance all sides is problematic for any nation-state society and is worthy of a national debate without the sort of personal criticism that politics tends to bring out in people, In many ways, the political perception of bias/fairness is a small part of the manifestation of a larger issue, something Bing West is hitting on today in the SWJ. I think the total media bias/fairness conversation, and not just the moments of political panic during an election season, is something important to think about.

[Christopher Thompson]

I think this idea of media bias ignores the reality that the spectrum of political discussion in the US is Center Right to Right. I don't think some of the commenters here know what real Left positions are.

The UCLA study exemplifies this. That study used the ratings of members of Congress as the spectrum to rate the press against. This is the same Congress that couldn't stop the Iraq war, pass universal healthcare, or really do anything actually liberal. We live in a country where reducing tax breaks for the rich is branded Socialist or Communist. That "left" is far to the right of the real Left.

[Anonymous]

not that this will comfort anyone who took offense, but Tom said the GOP has courted anti-intellectuals, not that they are or that everyone who votes for McCain is. can you argue the GOP has NOT courted anti-intellectuals?

Christopher: right. as Tom has said, we are closely (the candidates aren't that far apart on policy) but deeply divided. and that's a problem. if you're going to call Obama a socialist, we may as well call McCain a fascist (both exaggerations in their general direction). heck, painting with that broad a brush, we can call McCain a socialist. he hasn't disavowed Medicare or Social Security...

[Galrahn]

Sean,

I guess I'm seeing both sides do it when it serves their purpose, and fail to see how one side has a monopoly. Bush was a Yale grad, and there was certainly a degree of demonization that took place on the left just 4 years ago in regard to his intellectual associations. The right today exploits the same tactics today with Obama they cried over only 4 years ago.

Your point on the demagoguery of the candidates is on the money. I think it is part of a larger issue.

Tom's point in time referrence to the way political demagoguery is conducted today isn't typical of his judgments that usually take in a greater context in time. I've left the rest of my thoughts on the subject last night on my blog. Tom deserves credit, as usual he has a sense of timing, touching on a timely issue that raises an important aspect of the larger media discussion, and his larger point on the perception of political bias is on the money.

[Christopher Thompson]

I fully agree that politicians across our narrow spectrum are guilty of demagoguery. However, at some point you have to discuss reality. If Obama or Biden were out on the stump saying, "Gosh, ya know, what John McCain said sure sounds like fascism!" then there might be some equivalence here.

Likewise if George Bush hadn't presented himself as a humble, grammar challenged West Texas boy -- distancing himself from his own Connecticut/Yale roots -- then that "demonization" of his "intellectual associations" could have be considered unfair. It was the same with Gore's aloofness. The Left complained but there was something to it. People just don't seem to like it when the truth about their guy or gal sticks...

[Mark Stevens]

The best breakdown of media bias I've yet come across, courtesy of a journalism professor from Missou:

http://rhetorica.net/bias.htm

A tease:"Is the news media biased toward liberals? Yes. Is the news media biased toward conservatives? Yes. These questions and answers are uninteresting because it is possible to find evidence--anecdotal and otherwise--to "prove" media bias of one stripe or another. Far more interesting and instructive is studying the inherent, or structural, biases of journalism as a professional practice--especially as mediated through television. I use the word "bias" here to challenge its current use by partisan critics. A more accepted, and perhaps more accurate, term would be "frame." These are some of the professional frames that structure what journalists can see and how they can present what they see."