Why The Liberal Media Myth Persists 
(A series originally published at The Left Coaster by eRiposte)

SUMMARY

Most left-leaning bloggers and commentators know why the notion, that the mainstream American media is liberal overall, is a myth. Indeed, I showed previously How the Liberal Media Myth is Created. What is often not discussed or acknowledged are the most important reasons why that myth persists, above and beyond the parroting of the myth by right-wing media or bloggers. This is important to explore because one cannot reform the media in the long term without understanding the real answer to the question: 

Why does the Liberal Media Myth Persist?

The answer: Apart from the role of the right-wing media, it persists largely because of the role currently played (or not played) by four groups of people - the people who matter the most in the media bias debate, the ones who have the ability to control the debate and change its terms.

1. Academics - who should be most concerned with the myth, as a matter of scientific integrity
2. Politicians on the left - who are most impacted by the myth (after the people of the US)
3. Influential, left-leaning opinion columnists/talking heads in mainstream media (especially those who take journalism seriously) - who have the most latitude to explode the myth
4. Honest front-line reporters and editors in the mainstream media - who are most subject to criticism because of the myth

Academics are important because their independence from the media provides them the opportunity to be more objective, but even more importantly because academic research (and scientific studies) play an important role in media narratives. So, if credible research is done by academics on media bias, it is my expectation (based on the data I am collecting at ICM) that such research will be unable to conclude that the U.S. media is biased liberal (overall). If anything, the bias arrow will point in the opposite direction. This alone would make it much more difficult for the media to propagate right-wing fabrications or charges that "the media is liberal." Needless to say, the situation is actually worse today because there are at least a handful of academic papers that come to the conclusion that the U.S. media is "liberal" (in some form or the other) - but as I've shown, none of these papers use valid approaches or assumptions, and their conclusions are totally incorrect as a result. Fundamentally, the most important reason why some of the academic papers on media bias, to-date, are flawed is what I have been saying for some time now - the implicit assumption made that the accuracy of media reporting is largely fine. In part, this may be because the authors seem to largely accept the media's own narratives on its accuracy or lack thereof. This deep flaw further illustrates the challenges faced by progressives on media reform. (More on this in Section 2).

In the United States, if you exclude the American people as a group, politicians on the left are the ones impacted the most by the liberal media myth. Yet, these pols do the least to dispel this myth rather than aggressively taking on the media (even by proxy, something the Republicans have brilliantly perfected over the decades). Indeed, the usual behavior of Democratic leaders and their spokespersons in front of a media clearly biased against them more often than not, ought to be beyond rational comprehension. If leading Democrats are unwilling to battle the misinformation in the media against them and against progressive values, how do they expect to successfully carry out the wishes of their constituents? (More on this in Section 3).

Talking about "liberal" opinion columnists/talking heads, it appears to me that there are two main types of "liberals" in the mainstream media: those who are more interested in sounding "centrist" (particularly at the expense of facts) - Type A (say), and those who are more interested in the facts (which is not to say they are infallible) - Type B (say). There is enough evidence that the "Type A" liberals sometimes have a deep-seated contempt for journalistic values, by confusing "independence" with an avoidance of facts - or worse, with a need to invent false balance. While this may not be as egregious as the more routine journalistic malpractice of their counterparts on the Right, it does explain in part, why people like them would have a tough time dispelling the liberal media myth: if you don't like mentioning the facts (or worse, if you invent myths), how can you dispel myths? Type B "liberals" are probably best suited to critique the media, but they face a structural problem, which the Right largely avoids. As Brock points out, lefty columnists (or talkingheads) are usually dependent on the mainstream media for their jobs, which makes it more difficult for them to criticize the media's constant misbehavior, even if they took journalism seriously. This is sad because left-leaning columnists actually have the most latitude to explore and debunk the liberal media myth - especially because they are opinion columnists. This gives them considerable leverage to educate themselves and their readers about the case against a "liberal media" at every possible opportunity. (More on this in Section 4).

Finally, we come to the journalists themselves - in particular the honest ones. Even if journalists facing the daily barrage of right-wing criticism are truthful enough to publicly acknowledge that the media is not really biased liberal overall, they are likely to find it more difficult to make a convincing case to their open-minded readers that the media is actually slanted conservative overall (either from a corporate perspective or from a political/ideological perspective) and that, it therefore requires appropriate reform. There are multiple (not necessarily justifiable) reasons for this, including their job security within the MSM being a function of their candor about the true nature of the MSM. Of all the reasons, though, two are probably more important than the others. First, due to the enormous success that the Republican party and its misinformation machinery has had in bashing the media into emphasizing opinions over facts, even the better MSM journalists have taken it upon themselves to push and defend the "he-said, she-said" style of "journalism" (leading to predictable, yet egregiously absurd, nonsense like C-SPAN wanting to give equal time to a holocaust denier to "balance" their coverage). With a mindset tuned to "false" balance rather than journalism, it is far more difficult to be objective about facts, without letting opinions about bias "balance" the facts about bias. Second, the way to make the case that the media strongly tilts conservative, requires journalists to acknowledge that even though one may find examples of "liberal bias", a pro-corporate or pro-conservative bias exists that exceeds any "liberal bias" that's present. Unless this point is made clearly and convincingly, they will continue to be bombarded with examples of "liberal bias" from readers (never mind that a lot of it will have nothing to do with facts) - and unless they give up much of their daytime job to keep debunking their challengers it's tough to fight back and retain their independence in the MSM without interference from their bosses. The challenge for those who want media reform is to provide comprehensive and convincing arguments that honest journalists can use to get the meme out in the MSM about the real nature of the media. The objective of my next series is to kick start this effort. (More on this in Section 5).

SECTIONS

Part 1: Why

Part 2: Academics

Part 3: Politicians on the Left

Part 4: Left-leaning opinion columnists/talking heads

Part 5: Honest reporters and editors in the media

DETAILS

Part 1: Why

[Posted originally at The Left Coaster]

Why the Liberal Media Myth Persists - Part 1

I have written previously about How the Liberal Media Myth is Created. What I am going to examine next is the question of Why the Liberal Media Myth Persists. If you answered: "Right-wing media"/"bloggers"...I'd give you a C. That answer would be passable (because the right-wing media does play a role in keeping the myth alive), but is nowhere near complete. As a friend keeps pointing out, we need to be careful not to miss the forest for the trees.

Let me backtrack a bit.

I suspect my series on How the Liberal Media Myth is Created evoked two major types of responses. To most liberals and progressives who are readers of this blog, the reaction probably was:

"Well, I knew that. So what's the big deal with this series anyway?"

To most conservatives who are readers of this blog, the reaction probably was, "Yeah, right!" (to put it mildly). As of now, I'm blogging here to reach out to the former group - so let me say a couple of things to those of you who fit that bill. I will answer your question (yeah, the one I made up on your behalf :-)) in upcoming posts, and, I'm going to ask for your participation what I'm about to say in my future posts, because if you want to solve the dual problems of the liberal media myth and the insidious, corporatist media, you need to understand the real answer to the question:

Why does the "liberal media" myth persist?

Answer: Apart from the role of the right-wing media, it persists largely because of the role currently played of four groups of people - the people who matter the most in the media bias debate, the ones who have the ability to control the debate and change its terms.

1. Academics - who should be most concerned with the myth, as a matter of scientific integrity
2. Politicians on the left - who are most impacted by the myth (after the people of the US)
3. Influential, left-leaning opinion columnists/talking heads in mainstream media (especially those who take journalism seriously) - who have the most latitude to explode the myth
4. Honest front-line reporters and editors in the mainstream media - who are most subject to criticism because of the myth

I have listed the groups in the order of importance (1 being the highest). I'll explain why in my subsequent posts, where I will discuss each of these groups.

P.S. Do share your thoughts in the comments.

Part 2: Academics

[Posted originally at The Left Coaster]

Why the Liberal Media Myth Persists - Part 2

In Part 1, I pointed out that, apart from the role played by the right-wing media (including columnists/bloggers), the liberal media myth persists largely because of the role currently played by four groups of people: academics, politicians on the left, influential left-leaning opinion columnists/talking heads in mainstream media (especially those who take journalism seriously), and honest front-line reporters and their editors in the mainstream media. In this part, I discuss the role of academics.

I consider academics to be the single most important group in terms of the influence they can exert in the media bias debate. Why?

First of all, they are the only group that does not depend on the media for their existence, success or failures. This provides them a high level of independence that is hard for any of the other groups to match.

Second, and equally importantly, they are often the media's go-to people when "expert" opinions are needed.

The second point is crucial. Science (of all kinds) plays a critical role in media narratives. I know we live in difficult times where radicals and frauds on the Right have gradually hijacked the media discourse on solid scientific constructs, but how much worse do you think media coverage of evolution (v. "intelligent design") would have been without the strong scientific backing for evolution? How much worse do you think media coverage of global warming and global climate change would have been without the strong scientific backing for global warming?

In other words, when there is a strongly established scientific basis for a particular position, the mainstream media (MSM) will find it far more difficult (but not impossible) to behave as paid or unpaid stenographers of the Right. So, if credible research is done by academics on media bias, it is my expectation (based on the data I am collecting at ICM) that such research will be unable to conclude that the U.S. media is biased liberal (overall). If anything, the bias arrow will point in the opposite direction. This alone would make it much more difficult for the media to propagate right-wing fabrications or charges that "the media is liberal."

Given that, it is certainly surprising to me that even the most informed progressives rarely talk about this aspect when discussing the media problem in the U.S. It is also disappointing that progressives have not hounded (figuratively speaking) professors and researchers to do serious and credible research on the topic of media bias. Indeed, the academic community, which has always realized the importance of policing the accuracy of media depictions or narratives on topics that have a scientific basis, should be most concerned with the liberal media myth, as a matter of scientific integrity. After all, media bias is subjective only in a minority of situations (where an issue has to do with opinions alone, rather than facts). There are a preponderance of issues where bias can be quantified and described with a scientific or at least quasi-scientific basis.

That's not all. The situation is actually much worse.

In my readings in the past month or two, I've discovered that even when academics decide to address the media bias problem, which is not as often as I would have liked, the approach used is often flawed, leading to unreliable conclusions. This is one of the things I have tried to provide a flavor for in my series How the Liberal Media Myth is Created - which is also one of the reasons why I published that series in the first place. As I reviewed multiple studies and papers, I discovered that every paper or study that seems to infer some kind of "liberal bias" really doesn't make its case when subject to a reasonable level of scrutiny. I don't mean that they make a weak case - I mean that they literally have NO case. Yet, other than the occasional debunkings of these studies on a few websites, the significance of these studies continuing to make it to print (so to speak) without being challenged critically by the academic community itself, should be a matter of serious concern to all of us.

Now, some conservatives may be tempted to ask me the obvious question: "How come you have no confidence in academic papers on media bias, yet seem to have so much confidence in academic research on global warming or evolution?" The answer is quite simple really. What I have confidence in is in the ability of the academic research and peer review process to eventually get to the truth. For example, prior to 1953, the published scientific data led even leading scientists to think that the building blocks of life were likely to be amino acids (proteins) and not DNA molecules. It took new discoveries (following a little noticed earlier study) pointing to DNA being the building block, that eventually led to the DNA revolution.

Put another way, the confidence in the scientists who have demonstrated that evolution is a fact and that global warming is a fact is based not on one or two studies, but on a scientific consensus formed from the publication of hundreds or thousands (or more) papers that have withstood the toughest scrutiny by critics. In contrast, papers on media bias are far far fewer and credible papers are uncommon - and many don't withstand even moderate scrutiny as of today. (Now, this is not to say that the researchers who produce such papers are incompetent. I don't think that is the case at all. I just think they are deeply mistaken because they haven't looked at the problem carefully enough - as I briefly discuss below. Scientists are not infallible. For example, Chemistry Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, arguably a great scientist in his time, was one of those who initially believed in the amino-acid-building-block theory.)

Fundamentally, the most important reason why some of the academic papers on media bias, to-date, are flawed is what I have been saying for some time now - the implicit assumption made that the accuracy of media reporting is largely fine. Now, I understand that the media bias topic is complex to analyze, making it challenging to build a scientifically convincing case about bias, one way or the other. In science, the initial analysis of complex topics does tend to involve the use of simplifying assumptions. But the assumption on accuracy is one that has no connection to reality, and it is therefore no surprise that studies that make that assumption produce results that are untenable.

For example, here's an extract from the Groseclose-Milyo paper that I reviewed here (bold text is my emphasis):

Before proceeding, it is useful to clarify our definition of bias. Most important, the definition has nothing to do with the honesty or accuracy of the news outlet.
...we argue that our notion of bias is meaningful and relevant, and perhaps more meaningful and relevant than the alternative notion. The main reason, we believe, is that only seldom do journalists make dishonest statements. Cases such as Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, or the falsified memo at CBS are rare; they make headlines when they do occur; and much of the time they are orthogonal to any political bias.

Here's an extract from the Puglisi paper which I reviewed here (bold text is my emphasis):

As briefly anticipated in the introduction, the empirical analysis performed here and the interpretation of its findings are based on the following set of identifying assumptions:
(1) The issue ownership hypothesis holds.
(2) “All publicity is good publicity”.

Studies have also examined things like "tone" of coverage, think tank citations, public opinion, etc. - all of which I discussed in my series How the Liberal Media Myth is Created, showing how these kinds of metrics are rarely useful (taken in isolation) and cannot be used to assess bias without also knowing the accuracy and content of the news reports. Yet, because of the limited academic critique of such metrics, conservatives have been able to circulate the claims from studies like these, further propagating the false meme that the media is biased "liberal".

There may be another reason (beyond simplification) that explains why some academics make the assumption that the media is largely accurate: a general acceptance of the media's own narratives on its accuracy or lack thereof. This is what I have pointed out in my review of the chapter titled "The Mass Media and Voter Information" in the upcoming book "Analyzing Elections" by Rebecca Morton (NYU):

Morton's chapter attempts to provide a detailed review on the topic of media bias (as well as its possible impact on election outcomes) and I don't doubt her intentions. However, it largely suffers from the same problems that so many other academic studies of the media suffer from: a general lack of emphasis on the accuracy of media reporting. Morton and most of the other authors she cites also don't seem to have much exposure to the widespread media malpractice outside of what they hear from the media itself (e.g., CBS and Bush, Jayson Blair). This is problematic for two reasons. An independent examination of a subject should not rely overly on the subject's claims and underemphasize independent, critical analysis of the subject's claims (this is the cardinal law of any independent research). Further, considering that the media rarely, if ever, reports its own gross inaccuracies or malpractice when the targets are Democrats (see here for a small selection of evidence), this adds a clear bias to their analysis, which they don't seem to be cognizant of. All of these authors would benefit substantially by widening the scope of their research to include web sites like The Daily Howler, Media Matters, etc. 

Academics, who can do a lot to reverse the rampant inaccuracies, biases and routine journalistic malpractice in the media are unfortunately too hooked into the media's own discourse to realize that they are missing the main problem with the American media. It is rarely accurate on controversial topics. That's where the search for media bias should begin.

This needs to be fixed and this is one of the areas I will be returning to when I discuss media reform.

Part 3: Politicians on the Left

[Posted originally at The Left Coaster]

Why the Liberal Media Myth Persists - Part 3

In Part 1, I pointed out that, apart from the role played by the right-wing media (including columnists/bloggers), the liberal media myth persists largely because of the role currently played by four groups of people: academics, politicians on the left, influential left-leaning opinion columnists/talking heads in mainstream media (especially those who take journalism seriously), and honest front-line reporters and their editors in the mainstream media. Part 2 discussed the role of academics. In this part, I discuss the role of politicians on the left.

In the United States, if you exclude the American people as a group, politicians on the left are the ones impacted the most by the liberal media myth. Yet, these pols do the least to dispel this myth rather than aggressively taking on the media (even by proxy, something the Republicans have brilliantly perfected over the decades). This clearly ranks second only to The Universe in the list of Top 10 Mysteries Ever Known to Mankind. Indeed, for anyone who is beyond kindergarten, the usual behavior of Democratic leaders and their spokespersons in front of a media clearly biased against them more often than not, ought to be beyond rational comprehension. As I said shortly after Election 2004, referring to Democratic supporters:

Many Democrats (even in CA) are not aware of what was really done to Clinton and Gore, and just barely aware of what was being done to Kerry mainly because they were much more tuned in to this election. "The Hunting of the President" is a revelation to almost EVERY Democrat I have met (if this does not reflect a major failure of the Democratic party I don't know what does). Many people express complete skepticism when told that the media is not liberal (politically speaking) or that it treats Republican politicians much better that Democrats - and these are supporters of the Democratic party! You can imagine the reactions from Independents and Republicans.

I should point out that this is not just a matter of the liberal media myth impacting Democrats. This is a more pervasive problem, in terms of how the media unjustifiably spins many issues in favor of the GOP (nowhere is this more apparent than in the media's fables about Bush and the GOP being "strong" on national security). I don't think readers of this blog need much explanation on this matter. So, what I'm going to do is simply provide a couple of examples from Campaign 2004 to show how leading Democrats displayed a surprising inability to take on the anti-Democrat media bias, head on, despite the opportunity having been dropped on their lap.

Let's take the example of Carl Make-Sh**-Up Cameron of Faux News, via Media Matters:

On President George W. Bush's second Inauguration Day, FOX News managing editor and chief Washington correspondent Brit Hume announced that FOX News chairman and CEO Roger Ailes had promoted Carl Cameron from chief political correspondent to chief White House correspondent [eRiposte emphasis] and Jim Angle from senior White House correspondent to chief Washington correspondent. Media Matters for America has documented numerous instances of inaccurate, incomplete, and distorted reporting by both Cameron and Angle. For example:

Carl Cameron has:

• fabricated statements from Senator John Kerry during the 2004 presidential race as part of a "parody" of the Democratic candidate; he included them in an October 1 "Trail Tales" report on the FOX News website. The article was removed soon afterwards, but an archived version is available here;
  ...
• falsely claimed that in a September 20, 2004, speech, Kerry referred to Bush as a "warmonger who wants a perpetual state of war around the world"; and
  ...

Can you imagine Republicans letting CBS get away with promoting Mary Mapes or Dan Rather if they had attributed fabricated quotes to George Bush? Not in a thousand years.

A second example relates to the infamous Kerry vote (or lack thereof) on the $87B war spending Bill.

The facts were simple, as illustrated by Bob Somerby here:

Russert started by quoting Zell Miller. Here was the Top Cop’s first question:

RUSSERT: Zell Miller was just on. Let me show you what he had to say about your candidate, John Kerry. “I think John Kerry made the right decision when he voted to authorize the war in Iraq. But then he went out on the campaign trail and started spending too much time with Howard Dean. And he came back to Washington and voted against the $87 billion the troops need for protective armor, combat pay, and better health care. That's the worst kind of indecisiveness, and the wrong leadership at this critical moment in history.”

Biden’s response was self-serving and weak, as we’ll see. But he did begin to sketch the history of Kerry’s much-ballyhooed vote—a vote they love to spin on Nantucket. No, this isn’t a very good answer. But it does lay out some basic facts:

BIDEN (continuing directly): Well, the irony is that what Zell may not have remembered, but I'm sure he'll remember when he hears me say it, is that there was an attempt to break out that $87 billion. I voted for the $87 billion. I got in trouble with the Democrats immediately saying I would support it. But I understood their point. They said, “Look, let’s take the $67 billion for the troops, the body and armor, etc.”...We said, John Kerry said and a number of others said, “Let’s take the $67 billion and have two votes. Vote immediately for the $67 billion for the troops. The remaining $20 billion roughly, because we don’t trust these guys that they’re going to be able to manage it very well, let's attach conditions to it.” They had $30,000 for pickup trucks, for example, in this thing. And so that was the big debate.

When faced with having to vote for that [20 billion] that was going to be mismanaged, they thought—they decided not to vote for it. Now, I didn't vote that way, but there is merit to their position. Of the $18 billion, Tim, we voted to reconstruct Iraq, that our military says they badly needed to help them secure order in Iraq, only $450 million have been spent so far. That’s incredible mismanagement. And we voted that money last October.

Biden’s narration laid out some key facts. Kerry wanted to vote immediately for the $67 billion that would go to the troops. But he wanted a separate vote on the extra $20 billion—the money for reconstruction projects. Later, Biden returned to that unspent money—the $18 billion for reconstruction that ended up getting passed. “The bottom line was, I happen to disagree with the vote. But the irony of all ironies is that [Kerry] was more right about their ineptitude in how to deal with it than I was.” Throughout this session, Biden seemed more eager to cover his own kiester than to speak on behalf of Kerry. But even Biden noted the “irony:” as it turns out, Kerry was rightin his concern about that extra 20 billion. “Kerry was more right than I was,” Biden finally said of that vote.

...Biden noted the obvious fact—Kerry was never against the money that would have gone to the troops. But before we return to Russert’s performance, let’s note what was wrong with Biden’s answer. Biden gave some basic facts, but totally missed the larger picture. If he wanted to speak for his man, here’s what he should have said:

BIDEN (AMENDED ANSWER): Look, Tim, this whole thing is a phony. The troops were always going to be funded. No one was ever against doing that. But there were fights and legitimate questions about the way we were going to do it. Look, at one point, George Bush said he would veto the $87 billion if it contained a provision he didn’t approve of! Nothing wrong with that—that’s how bills get shaped. But Kerry had legitimate objections to the form of the bill that we passed—and here’s what those objections were. By the way, he turned out to be right...

But uh-oh! This amended statement would have forced Joe to be a bit tough on Russert’s position—and major pols don’t like to go there. So viewers never heard Biden say how fake and phony this whole issue is.
...
No, it isn’t Russert’s fault that Democrats cover their asses this way—that Biden promoted his own interests first, and then, as an afterthought, spoke up for Kerry. But Russert can be blamed for the questions he asks, and for the issues he fails to bring up. To state the obvious, Russert knows what Biden knows—that this “issue” is a Big Total Phony. After all, we know from his book, Big Russ & Me, that Russert is always prepared:

RUSSERT (page 147): [T]he key to success is preparation. In journalism, it’s absolutely critical. Like everyone else, I have days when things go well, and days when they don’t. But one mistake I have never made is to show up unprepared for an interview.

So yes—Russert knows that Bush said he would veto the $87 billion. And he knows that Kerry had valid reasons for opposing the form of the bill that passed. But there’s something else the great bulldog knows—he knows that he shouldn’t mention these facts. Back on the island, his rich, inane colleagues had fallen in love with this dumb, inane story. Why should Russert oppose all the squires? Why should he work for the people?

In fact Kerry's advisor did take on this same crap on CNN with Wolf Blitzer as Somerby noted:

PLETKA: Susan, that is punishing our soldiers.

RICE: Excuse me. Excuse me. Talking about politics here, it was President Bush who threatened to veto the $87 billion resolution when it didn't suit his needs either.

In short, Bush fought against—and threatened to veto—a form of the bill which he opposed. Kerry voted against a different form of the bill—a form which he disfavored. None of this is worth discussing. But note what happened when Rice made this point. To all appearances, Blitzer didn’t have any idea that Bush had threatened a veto:

BLITZER: In almost every speech the president makes, Susan, he makes that specific point, that—that he voted for the war, that he voted against—for the $87 billion, then he voted against the $87 billion. He says it's not as complicated as John Kerry wants it to be.

RICE: All right. Wolf, have you asked the president why he threatened to veto the $87 billion for political reasons?
...
BLITZER: Well, we're out of time. But do you remember the president threatening to veto the $87 billion appropriations if he didn't get some—some provision that he wanted?

PLETKA: Let me be honest. I can't answer that. I have no recollection of it whatsoever. But let me tell you—

RICE: Go check on it. We'll see.

Amazing, isn’t it? Completely amazing! There was nothing wrong with Bush’s veto threat. There was nothing wrong with Kerry’s “no” vote. But there is something wrong with Bush’s clowning, in which he says there was “nothing complicated” about the funding votes in question.

Got that? OK, now let's see how spectacularly bad then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's subsequent handling of this issue was on Meet The Press (bold text is my emphasis):

MR. THUNE:  Didn't Senator Kerry vote against $87 million for aid to the troops?

SEN. DASCHLE:  He did.  I disagree with that.  And when I was over there, that was one of the most important things we could do is to send the message, I think, that these members of the Guard and reserves, our active duty personnel, need the support need the equipment they've got to have.  And I think that's something that this administration, frankly, has failed to do in addition to listening to their military commanders.  If they'd have listened to the military commanders going in, we would have had a plan now.  But to subject these people to the tremendous pressures they're feeling, to ask these thousand people to put their lives on the line as they did and lost, to see those 7,000 wounded, and then not to have a plan and not to listen to your military commanders is just a big mistake.

This is how Democrats kill themselves in the Press and abandon opportunity after opportunity to call out the media for what it is, to correct it, to use these examples to point out how there is a conservative tilt in the media, and to emphasize that there is no liberal bias. And the example above is just the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg, as I like to say.

I will discuss how to address this when I talk about media reform.

Part 4: Left-leaning opinion columnists/talking heads

[Posted originally at The Left Coaster]

Why the Liberal Media Myth Persists - Part 4

In Part 1 of this series I pointed out that, apart from the role played by the right-wing media, the liberal media myth persists persists largely because of the role currently played by four groups of people: academics, politicians on the left, influential left-leaning opinion columnists/talking heads in mainstream media (especially those who take journalism seriously), and honest front-line reporters and their editors in the mainstream media. I discussed the role of academics and politicians on the left in Part 2 and Part 3, respectively. In this part I discuss the role of influential left-leaning opinion columnists/talking heads in mainstream media (especially those who take journalism seriously).

As I followed the work of Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler (among others) over the years, I came to realize that there are two main types of "liberals" in the mainstream media: those who are more interested in sounding "centrist" (particularly at the expense of facts) - Type A (say), and those who are more interested in the facts (which is not to say they are infallible) - Type B (say).

Of the two, the Type A "liberals" are the most compromised in being able to analyze the media. Let's talk about them first.

The following extract from David Brock's seminal book The Republican Noise Machine (pages 136-138) is illuminating:

Unlike the conservatives, the liberals are unmoored to any cohesive political movement, and they have no symbiotic relationship with politicians. No liberal columns in wide syndication are "sponsored" by partisan think tanks or subsidized by opinion magazines. The liberals either make it in the market or they don't, while the so-called free marketers are on the dole. Nor are the liberal writers known to attend weekly closed-door strategy meetings to forward the agenda of the Democratic party. They are truly independent columnists and, therefore, a much less potent fighting force when going up against the right wing, which plays a different role in the media wars.

The spectrum of opinion is itself out of balance. Ideologically, left-wing voices that were the true polar opposites of those of the right wing - anti-capitalist, anticorporate, populist, or pacifist - long ago had been all but expunged from the nation's editorial pages as the print media became increasingly corporatized and reliant on advertising.²⁴
...
Liberal advocacy is further tempered by the reality that counterintuitive thinking and criticizing one's own political bedfellows are valued and even celebrated in liberal journalistic circles. By contrast, independence is looked on as disloyalty in the conservative media, which ironically prizes "political correctness." As The American Prospect's Michael Tomasky has noted, "[Liberals] bend over backwards to 'prove' their 'independence.'" 

In principle, "independence" is a good thing. But when it comes to the "Type A" "liberals", what Brock describes is really not "independence". To understand why, it's instructive to read Bob Somerby.

Somerby has often highlighted how these so-called "liberal" columnists at mainstream media outlets are so timid and unwilling to actually stand up for the truth (facts), while their ideological opposites leave no stone unturned in their quest to mislead or lie to their readers on a daily basis (acting as a covert or overt propaganda arm of the GOP):

A bit of background: In late November 2002, we marveled at a puzzling piece by the Washington Monthly’s Nick Confessore (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/29/02). Confessore, a fiery liberal, was analyzing a fairly obvious fact. Paul Krugman had become a famous pundit by trashing the Bush Admin’s lying, Confessore said. But for some strange reason, Confessore noted, mainstream reporters and center-left pundits hadn’t chosen to follow Krugman’s lead. The Monthly scribe was puzzled by this. “What makes Krugman interesting, in short, is not just why he writes what he writes. It’s why nobody else does,” the scribe wrote.

Confessore had noted an important fact—the rest of the press corps’ reporters and pundits had left Krugman twisting in the wind. The comedy came when the Monthly scribe tried to explain this situation. Why had others left Krugman hanging? First, Confessore politely explained the failure of mainstream reporters to examine the “facade of lies” surrounding the Bush budget plans:

CONFESSORE (12/02): [I]f dismantling the facade of lies around, say, Bush’s tax cut is so easy to do—and makes you the most talked-about newspaper writer in the country—why don’t any other reporters or columnists do it themselves? Because doing so would violate some of the informal, but strict, rules under which Washington journalists operate. Reporters usually don’t call a spade a spade, unless the lie is small or something personal. When it comes to big policy disagreements, most reporters prefer a he-said, she-said approach—and any policy with a white paper or press release behind it is presumed to be plausible and sincere, no matter how farfetched or deceptive it may be.

Politely, Confessore re-typed a tired old line; reporters weren’t “dismantling the facade of lies” because to do so would “violate some of the strict rules under which journalists operate!” In short, reporters weren’t reporting the facade of lies because they were far too professional! And don’t worry—Confessore’s clowning was just getting started. Having praised reporters for their inaction, the bright young writer politely explained why pundits weren’t echoing Krugman:

CONFESSORE (continuing directly): Similarly, among pundits of the broad center-left, it’s considered gauche to criticize the right too persistently, no matter the merits of one’s argument. The only worse sin is to defend a politician too persistently; then you become not a bore, but a disgrace to the profession and its independence—even if you’re correct. Thus, in Washington circles, liberal Times columnist Bob Herbert is written off as a predictable hack, while The New York Observer's Joe Conason, who vigorously defended the Clintons during the now-defunct Whitewater affair, is derided as shrill and embarrassing. Obviously, conservative columnists and pundits aren't quite as averse to being persistent or shrill. But center-left journalists do not, to put it mildly, take their cues about what's acceptable practice from conservative pundits.

Confessore was describing great moral cowardice—but he almost made it sound heroic. Why were center-left pundits so quiet? Easy! Such pundits “do not, to put it mildly, take their cues about what's acceptable practice from conservative pundits!” It couldn’t be that these pundits were vast moral cowards; instead, Confessore said that they were simply refusing to act like a bunch of conservative hacks! No, this didn’t make any sense. But as he continued, Confessore kept making it sound like the cowardice of his center-left colleagues was a badge of professional honor:

CONFESSORE (continuing directly): That's because liberal journalists and conservative journalists have different value systems. Most liberal pundits—E.J. Dionne, Ronald Brownstein, or Maureen Dowd—came up through the newsroom ranks, a culture that demands shows of intellectual independence from politicians, especially Democrats. Many conservative pundits, on the other hand—Safire, Tony Blankley, or Peggy Noonan—come straight from political careers, a culture that encourages intellectual fealty and indulges one-sidedness. Krugman is not a journalist by training, and he's never held appointive or elective office. But like conservative pundits, he doesn't feel bound by the niceties that professional reporters do. Hence the discomfort with Krugman's methods among center-left journalists.

...
Confessore’s analysis was utterly laughable—an insult to the intelligence of Monthly readers. According to Confessore himself, Bush was involved in “a facade of lies”—but he made it sound like his “center-left” colleagues were being Top Pros when they refused to pursue that story! They were following their high-minded “value systems.” They were refusing to “violate the strict rules under which Washington journalists operate.” They were showing “cultural independence from politicians” and refusing to be “one-sided.” And they were refusing to “take their cues about acceptable practice from conservative pundits”—from the very conservative pundits Monthly readers correctly dislike. By the time Confessore got done, he had almost transformed his Silent Colleagues into Heroes of Modern Press Culture. What a stud! He praised Paul Krugman for dismantling Bush’s lies. And he praised the rest of his cohort because they hadn’t dismantled them!

Yes, Confessore made a set of silly excuses for the failures of the mainstream press—and in the culture of the mainstream press, such fawning is always rewarded.

Now, I don't know Confessore much and what little I do know of him (while he was at TAPPED) I didn't have much to complain about (interestingly, Confessore now works for the NYT). But I would be disappointed if he looks back at this article of his with much fondness. In fact, I would hope that Confessore himself doesn't believe this abject poppycock wherein "independence" or lack of "one-sided"ness is demonstrated by an unwillingness to cover the facts.

Having read Somerby for years now, I have no reason to believe Confessore is not speaking the truth about the crock that at least some prominent "liberal" columnists believe; I think Brock's comments only support this interpretation. What do their observations suggest? That there is a deep-seated contempt for journalistic values among the "Type A" "liberals", who confuse "independence" with an avoidance of facts - or worse (as the examples in the Appendix show), with a need to invent false balance. While this may not be as egregious as the more routine journalistic malpractice of their counterparts on the Right, it does explain in part, why people like them would have a tough time dispelling the liberal media myth: if you don't like mentioning the facts (or worse, if you invent myths), how can you dispel myths?

The Type B "liberals" are probably best suited to critique the media. But they face a structural problem, which the Right largely avoids. As Brock points out, lefty columnists (or talkingheads) are usually dependent on the mainstream media for their jobs, which makes it more difficult for them to criticize the media's constant misbehavior, even if they took journalism seriously. Their counterparts on the Right, on the other hand, have the benefit of, shall I say, the Affirmative Access Program for Fabulists, not to mention they are more safely ensconsed in the Right-leaning media anyway.

Somerby's recent mention of a Jack Shafer revelation is pertinent:

SHAFER (4/8/05): I started writing press criticism at Washington City Paper back in 1986, because as editor I couldn't get anybody else to do it. Writers were frightened that if they penned something scathing about the Washington Post or the New York Times they'd screw themselves out of a future job. Today, the sort of dagger and epee work I used to perform on big media gets done by hundreds of bloggers before I can rise and read the morning paper. Thanks to blogs, we've gone from a culture where few criticized the press to one where it's the new national pastime.

Huh! Indeed, “hundreds of bloggers” are savaging Time for its bizarre product-placement of Coulter. But from within the established organs—from press-connected, professional sites which might even have some actual influence—we largely hear the sounds of silence.

This is sad because left-leaning columnists actually have the most latitude to explore and debunk the liberal media myth - especially because they are opinion columnists. This gives them considerable leverage to educate themselves and their readers about the case against a "liberal media" at every possible opportunity. In fact, this is especially true of the Type A-"liberals" who keep bending over backwards to hide the unpleasant truths about the Right and to downplay the gangrene of immorality represented by its leaders, because they have the additional benefit of pointing to themselves to dispel the myth of a liberal media. However, for this to happen, they (the latter) should show at least a modicum of moral fibre, courage and journalistic integrity to actually take on the media bias in favor of the Right and its long-time malpractice against Democrats and the left. I can't say whether they will choose to do so (although I realize history is not on my side), but they surely have the power. However, because they don't do much, credible, media critiques today, they contribute, in part, to the persistence of the liberal media myth.

(I would have liked to discuss radio and TV in more detail, but other than the flegling Air America radio and scattered liberal radio outlets, there are few really liberal talkingheads on mainstream radio or TV programs. If at least some of the op-ed columnists are willing to do what it takes to critique the media, and, if we can multiply the number of liberal talkingheads on radio and TV, the blogosphere can empower them in meaningful ways. More on that when I get to media reform.)

APPENDIX

The following examples, from Bob Somerby, are the epitome of the desertion of journalistic standards by some of the so-called "liberal" columnists (Type A), borne out of a fundamental lack of understanding of the meaning of journalism in this age of fake "fairness and balance".

Somerby on Richard Cohen:

ANOTHER OUTSPOKEN LIBERAL: And then, of course, there’s Richard Cohen, another of the Post’s fiery “liberals.” Last Thursday, he offered more of the puzzling work that has become his great trademark. Throughout his column, Cohen implied that Donald Rumsfeld gilded the lily about WMDs. But at the end, he drew this weird conclusion:

COHEN: Now elements of the Bush administration, particularly within the Pentagon, are rattling their sabers in the direction of Iran, making some of the same arguments they made about Iraq: links to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, etc. Given what has happened in Iraq, should they be believed?

The answer is yes. But asking whether the Bush administration should be believed about Iran is different from asking whether it will be believed. The question, after all, is not whether the U.S. intelligence agencies are competent but to what uses the intelligence has been put. If, as it seems, information goes into the Pentagon at one end and comes out the other with a political spin, then we are right to wonder about ulterior motives.

“The answer is yes,” Cohen says. “[T]he Bush administration should be believed about Iran.” But in the very same paragraph, he says the administration’s findings will almost surely be dripping with spin. Many readers wrote to complain about the absurdity of this column. But Richard Cohen is a Post “liberal.” There’s no one quite like them on earth.

Somerby on David Broder (a flashback to 1998 just to point out that the problem is not just about inventing "balance" to favor Bush, but it is also about inventing "balance", er, "independence" to bash Democrats like Clinton) [Note: I've indented the Broder quotes even though they don't appear indented in Somerby's webpage]:

BRODER [first two paragraphs]: Leadership by example.

The simple phrase evokes the most basic of values--responsibility, trust, honor and courage. It came into view in dramatic fashion yesterday morning when Bob Livingston, the Louisiana Republican, said he would step aside as the speaker-designate of the House of Representatives.

Broder went on to suggest that Vile Clinton should take the “Livingston challenge”--should think about stepping aside himself, to serve the good of the nation. Quoting the long-since anointed Jim Leach, Broder tossed a gauntlet:

BRODER: “Leadership is a conjunction of good ideas and good character. One without the other is unsustainable.” So Livingston concluded. Does Clinton think otherwise?

Indeed, some of the analysts were audibly sniffling as our public reading of Broder’s column concluded. Some stared darkly off into space, determined to avoid meeting eyes. And the blood was really beginning to boil, as they considered the example that Livingston set, and his selfless decision to leave the House--and the contrast it drew with Vile Clinton.

But finally one of the analysts rose, and spoke to us there in the counsel. Saint Bob had abandoned his speaker quest, he declaimed, when it was clear he would not be elected. And he’d only admitted his rounder ways when Larry Flynt was preparing to limn them. And most important by far, this knowing sage cried, Saint Bob had some Dimmesdale to him. He had watched and said nothing, for the past seven years, while his party slammed Clinton for what he too had been doing. He had watched Vile Clinton be roasted and splayed for conduct he engaged in himself.

Now the analysts began to mutter against the great dean of the pundits. Could he ever describe even simple events without creating vile contrasts with Clinton? What kind of “courage” had it taken for Livingston to give up on a post that would never be his? And as was well known: he’d long planned to resign from the House, if he couldn’t be Speaker, because he wanted to make extra cash.

But life in this celebrity press corps means always spinning stories so they Look Bad For Clinton. No matter what the other guy does, one must craft a vile contrast with Bill. Livingston had cheated on his wife; deceived his party; stepped aside when he had to; slammed his own sins in Clinton. And the pundit dean, seeing Liv was unVile, came up with a word for it:

Honor!

Part 5: Honest reporters and their editors in the mainstream media

[Posted originally at The Left Coaster]

Why the Liberal Media Myth Persists - Part 5

This is the concluding part of this series and the stepping stone to my next series where I will explore the real nature of the American mainstream media and show how it is like the state of Idaho, i.e., much more conservative than liberal.

Starting with Part 1 of this series, I pointed out that apart from the role played by the right-wing media, the liberal media myth persists largely because of the role currently played by four groups of people, three of which I covered in some detail in follow-up posts: academics (Part 2), politicians on the left (Part 3), and influential left-leaning opinion columnists/talking heads in mainstream media (especially those who take journalism seriously) (Part 4). In this final part, I discuss the role of the fourth group - honest front-line reporters and their editors in the mainstream media.

As I explained in a couple of precursor posts, even if (and that's a big if) journalists facing the daily barrage of right-wing criticism are truthful enough to publicly acknowledge that the media is not really biased liberal overall, they are likely to find it more difficult to make a convincing case to their open-minded readers that the media is actually slanted conservative overall (either from a corporate perspective or from a political/ideological perspective) and that, it therefore requires appropriate reform. There are multiple (not necessarily justifiable) reasons for this, including their job security within the MSM being a function of their candor about the true nature of the MSM. Of all the reasons, though, two are probably more important than the others.

First, due to the enormous success that the Republican party and its misinformation machinery has had in bashing the media into emphasizing opinions over facts, even the better MSM journalists have taken it upon themselves to push and defend the "he-said, she-said" style of "journalism" (leading to predictable, yet egregiously absurd, nonsense like C-SPAN wanting to give equal time to a holocaust denier to "balance" their coverage). With a mindset tuned to "false" balance rather than journalism, it is far more difficult to be objective about facts, without letting opinions about bias "balance" the facts about bias. So, the notion of false "balance" that is deeply entrenched in today's media is a structural defect that needs to be eliminated if we are to reform the media - and its going to take a number of different steps to eliminate (including, but not limited to, the initiative of academics, politicians on the left and left-leaning op-ed columnists and talking heads).

Second, the way to make the case that the media strongly tilts conservative, requires journalists to acknowledge that even though one may find examples of "liberal bias", a pro-corporate or pro-conservative bias exists that exceeds any "liberal bias" that's present. Unless this point is made clearly and convincingly, they will continue to be bombarded with examples of "liberal bias" from readers (never mind that a lot of it will have nothing to do with facts) - and unless they give up much of their daytime job to keep debunking their challengers it's tough to fight back and retain their independence in the MSM without interference from their bosses. The challenge for those who want media reform is to provide comprehensive and convincing arguments that honest journalists can use to get the meme out in the MSM about the real nature of the media. (The objective of my next series is to kick start this effort.)

As I have stated before, I'm not trying to make excuses for journalists who are bad at their jobs and publish tripe just because of pressure from the Right. Having been a rather strong media critic for quite a while, I would hope readers here understand that. But you cannot reform the MSM to make it focus on facts over opinions, unless you understand the pressures and realities faced by today's best journalists. Additionally, criticism of media and journalists' inaccuracies alone will not solve the media problem (although fact-based criticism should continue); one needs to understand the journalists' weaknesses against the Right's misinformation machine, and figure out how to provide honest journalists the resources they need to plug that weakness - such that neither wingnuts nor editors can pressure them away from publishing facts. (I will explore further when I get to my series on media reform.)

For now, I am going to wrap up this post by using an example that epitomizes the points I make above. Recently, an article by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post (and some statements made by lefty blogger Kevin Drum of Political Animal) in response to Milbank's article ignited understandable outrage among lefty bloggers. Now, I've always liked Kevin, but if you read what he said you can see why the bloggers were right to take exception to his comments:

Actually, media bashing is still primarily a right wing phenomenon, but I think Milbank is right that it's slowly creeping into the left's foundational mythology as well. If this continues, the eventual result will be an almost universal ability to ignore any news report you don't like simply by claiming it's the result of bias and therefore not to be trusted. This is unhealthy.
...
I continue to believe that on a list of problems with the American media, ideological bias barely cracks the top ten.

Kevin's claims were unfortunately faith-based. His unfortunate phrasing also suggests critics on the left care less about facts than about whether they like an article or not, which is the opposite of reality and which is actually the mainstay of the Right. By making such claims, Kevin shows shades of the left-leaning columnists I discussed earlier, but, I'm less interested here in Kevin's comments than I am in those of Milbank, who despite having a mixed history (good + bad) in his reporting, is one of the better reporters around. Critics of Milbank's article - Digby, Avedon Carol, and Michael at Reading A1 in particular - covered some of the important details that needed to be stated to refute Milbank (especially, Milbank's false equivalence in comparing criticisms from the left and the right). However, what I would like to do here is step back for a minute and take a look some of the introductory comments from Milbank, because it reveals the two fundamental problems, the real significance of one of which has been largely missed in the lefty blogosphere, in my view :

A conservative magazine put me on its cover as "Dana 'Bias' Milbank." A liberal Web site made me its "Media Whore of the Week," and a posting on a liberal blog proposed "Whore" as my middle name. (I've decided to combine the "Bias" and "Whore" suggestions and make my middle name, simply, "Bore.")

In political journalism, complaints from ideologically driven readers come with the territory; sometimes I've gotten dueling complaints that I have betrayed my conservative and liberal biases in the same story.

Milbank's statements reflect both the tendency to take recourse, conveniently, to the "he-said, she-said" narrative and the reluctance to sort out the facts and point out that one side may have a stronger case than the other. This, in a nutshell, is the barrier to crossing the chasm to dispel the liberal media myth and establish the real nature of the media for open-minded readers.

Some of you may ask, justifiably, why journalists like Milbank cannot do fact-checking on their own to establish the real nature of the media. After all, they do know that there are myriad books on the left and right claiming the media is biased in the other direction (and there are critiques of such books as well). In my mind, the question is not whether they can - it is whether they, acting as non-partisan agents, can do so without feeling muddled in the end because of the myriad claims and counter-claims (in countless books and articles), without having an authority or arbiter who can make sense of it all or without relying on someone who can extract the big picture from those claims. Moreover, can they really do so, when an average, even smart, blogger has limited time to do so separate from his or her daily job? Put another way, I am saying that Milbank can be accused of laziness in his article and making claims that are untenable, by equating two sides just because it is convenient to do so. But asking him to make an objective judgment as a neutral journalist as to what kind of media bias dominates overall requires a lot more time commitment from Milbank than we allow for. After all, if Eric Alterman needed an entire book to make his case, and even then, gave some (unjustifiable) ammunition to those who claim "liberal bias" (as I will show in future posts), what can we expect from journalists who are expected to respect the views of everyone who publishes books on media bias or writes papers on media bias?

Don't get me wrong. I'm writing all this obviously because I am trying to make it clear that mainstream media bias is like the state of Idaho - it's much more conservative than liberal. I've spent a long time now trying to point that out. But when you keep doing something and you don't see the effects on the MSM you'd like to see, you need to sit back and ask whether you are asking the right questions and pursuing the right solution. Unlike Kevin Drum, I believe strongly that there should no cessation in factual media critiques. That should continue because an accurate media is a foundation of democracy. But, anecdotal critiques or even compilations of critiques may be insufficient because there are so many other factors that end up influencing a journalist's reporting or inferences. For example, if the media is not liberal (overall), why are some academic papers saying the media is liberal? Why do left-leaning politicians not point out consistently that the media tilts to the Right? Why do influential left-leaning columnists not point this out at every opportunity? To this, add the myriad false claims from the Right and the publicity generated by the CBS 60 Minutes fiasco - and you can see that for a journalist who has limited time to read much beyond what is required for his or her job, it can easily appear like a maze that says: "well, there's bias of all types and both parties are right or wrong" (or some variation thereof). Again, I'm not excusing the journalists for their lack of attention to detail - but even the best journalist today faces challenges in providing comprehensive evidence that the media is biased more to the Right than to the Left without spending an inordinate amount of time compiling such evidence. This is what we need to fix if we want journalists to report the reality about the media itself.

I'm going to try and contribute my 2 cents to the fix, in the next two series.