« Stating The Obvious | Main | A Clinton/Clark Deal? »
September 15, 2007
They Shall Fight Us On The Radio, They Shall Fight Us On TV, They Shall Fight Us In Every Newspaper
by Stephen of the Thinkery
When I was in college - waaay back in the day, before camera phones and Web 1.0, let alone 2.0 - the right wing assault on America's media industry had already been in full swing for some time, long enough for the concept of "The Liberal Media" to have been accepted by pretty much everyone. All conservatives believed it, of course, because that explained why their philosophies didn't always square with the way the world was working. Liberals tended to believe it back then as well, based partly on the idea that "facts have a liberal bias" and the impression that journalists, being well-read and traveled, would naturally be liberals.
We
know better now, of course. While it may be true that most journalists
are registered as and give to Democrats, Update: as per comments, it's not true that a majority of journalists are Democrats or that most journalists give to the Democratic party. However, even if these claims were true, the US media has for a long
time been controlled by large corporations that are reliably
conservative, at least in fiscal policy, and The Boss's opinions tend
to get in print whatever the underlings might think. Conservatives
haven't let up with their critique, or with their desire to control the
media. Talk radio is of course dominated by conservatives, newspaper
editorial pages publish more conservatives
than progressives, and in response to Rupert Murdoch's growing wingnut
media empire, other cable news outlets have stocked their rosters with
what appears to be anyone willing to shill for the right.
But these are all editorial in nature - with the exception of Fox News, of course, which still tries to pass itself off as a "straight news" operation. Even Fox News, though, is being exposed as a mouthpiece for the right, with conservatives taking the attitude that liberals once enjoyed about the media.
What's truly fascinating and frightening about the right's assault on the media is how they targeted not only editorial venues or established their own networks, but also actual journalists from other media outlets. Certainly the Bush Administration has been quite adept at granting/removing "access" in order to convince journalists to run White House spin as either fact or as if it were coming from sources outside the White House itself.
Nothing, however, comes close the the ways in which journalists have been duped by Alexis Debat. From fake interviews of Obama, Bill Clinton, Pelosi, Kofi Annan and others to fabricated reports coming from "sources" in Iraq and Iran, Alexis Debat has steadily and successfully pushed the neo-con agenda of his colleagues of the Nixon Center and The National Interest. Closely connected to the Debat saga is the story of Amir Taheri, an Iranian exile who has worked for Rupert Murdoch publications and, notably, was the editor of Politique Internationale, which published the fake interviews. Taheri was the source of the bogus story about Iran forcing its Jewish citizens and other religious minorities to wear armbands identifying them as non-Muslims, which was immediately debunked, though that didn't get in the way of Taheri going to the White House just days after the fabricated story was published to advise President Bush on Iran.
Clearly Alexis Debat and Amir Teheri are brilliant manipulators of the rules and culture of journalism - that they have been exposed doesn't take away from that at all. But they are only two of what appears to be a fairly large cohort on the right who have discovered at different times and ways that once the rules of the journalistic world are accepted and internalized, they can be turned into powerful methods for undermining the very purpose that journalism is supposed to serve.
The lesson for liberals, of course, is not that we need to adopt these methods, but that we need to be as skeptical of straight news stories as we are of the Journal's editorial page. As important as it is to have progressive politicians in Congress and the White House, the political battlefield has always been in the nation's media, and the other side, as it were, has established fronts in the media's every iteration.
September 15, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
"While it may be true that most journalists are registered as and give to Democrats,"
No. It's not true. The overwhelming majority of journalists do not contribute to either party. Among the tiny fraction who do, a majority give to Democrats. http://mediamatters.org/items/200706240002
So the statement, "Most journalists give to Democrats" is a lie. I know you're not originating it, but you're repeating it. Please correct it.
As for party registration, it would be nice to see a citation before you repeating another bit of conventional wisdom that may be nothing more than another Republican talking point.
Posted by: Bloix | Sep 15, 2007 2:24:29 PM
I wonder if the right-leaning media is a matter of culture as much as anything else. I think that Joe Klein decided in 1968 that liberals were dirty and smelly and extreme, and he's been fighting that battle ever since. And it just seems so uncool to defend Democrats on talk shows.
Of course, there's always the argument that he only gets the megaphone he does because of his reflexively anti-liberal views.
Also, Bloix is right. Let's not give into false right-wing talking points, even if they are widespread.
Posted by: Elvis Elvisberg | Sep 15, 2007 2:49:52 PM
Fixed. Sorry about the confusion.
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 15, 2007 3:01:26 PM
>...neo-con agenda of his colleagues of the Nixon Center
Such as Nixon center fellow Robert Leiken pushing for recognition and negotiations with Hamas!
>...Joe Klein decided in 1968 that liberals were dirty and smelly...Um, Klein had not even started writing for Rolling Stone then. In the 70's he wrote a sympathetic biography of Communist Woody Guthrie.
Posted by: Michael Pugliese | Sep 15, 2007 3:09:20 PM
Um, Klein had not even started writing for Rolling Stone then.
And your point is? Klein still nevertheless seems to have had a bad experience with the late 60s, leading him to decide to be "the liberal who hates liberals liberal." That he became a writer after this experience is besides the point.
In the 70's he wrote a sympathetic biography of Communist Woody Guthrie.
To rip off indie writer Jim Norton, "You are what you like" is the most ill-informed, the most immature, the most chauvinistic form of criticism imaginable. ... Therefore, it's truly painful to say that anyone who dislikes Woody Guthrie is a stump-licking disgrace to the very notion of human free will.
Posted by: Tyro | Sep 15, 2007 3:17:23 PM
>...the neo-con agenda of his colleagues of the Nixon Center and The National Interest...
Um, as an actual reader of The National Interest, you should know that about two yrs. ago there was a major split on the editorial board of The National Interest between the unilateral interventionist neo-cons and the traditional conservative realists. There are liberal realists like Anatol Lieven that have published there as well. See, http://www.nationalinterest.org/ , for example, here, A Conversation Continued: Debating Democracy
by Thomas Carothers, Andrew J. Bacevich, Wayne Merry, Robert W. Merry and Amitai Etzioni. Carothers is a liberal scholar on democracy promotion. Wrote very critically on the Reagan era support of the Salvadorean
death squad regimes of the 80's. Bacevich, as you know is solidly anti-war, Robert Merry is a paleo-con, see his excellent book vs. the neo-cons.
Posted by: Michael Pugliese | Sep 15, 2007 3:22:06 PM
"Communist Woody Guthrie"!! WTF is going on with this blog?
As for the "sympathetic biography," here's what the Amazon review says about it:
"He may have been a genius and a staunch advocate of the common people, but Guthrie was also a bad husband, neglectful father, and difficult friend, as Klein shows."
This about an orphan who supported himself from age 15 through the dust bowl and the depression, spent the war years in the merchant marine and the army, lost a daughter in a fire, and started his slow slide into mental deterioration due the Huntiington's disease that eventually killed him no later than 1948.
Klein mastered the art of the concern troll early on.
Posted by: Bloix | Sep 15, 2007 3:25:55 PM
Has anybody every cross-checked journalists' party registration and their home localities?
If I were a Washington journalist, I would register Democrat if I lived in D.C. or Maryland, assuming I wanted a vote in the contest that usually counts, the Democratic primary. Virginia voter registration is default-independent (stating a party preference is an option, but most people don't take it) and primaries are open, so you can safely register independent.
Posted by: allbetsareoff | Sep 16, 2007 8:14:57 PM
Regardless of party registration, I'd be very surprised if individual journalists weren't on average more liberal than the general population. I say this as a) a journalist, and b) someone who doesn't buy the "liberal media" idea. My colleagues are certainly more liberal than average, and I work on a capital markets newspaper. It's a relatively simple function of a job that a) more or less requires an undergraduate degree, and b) doesn't pay much money. Right wingers are far more likely to go into law or banking or some other remunerative career, whereas people who value personal enrichment less are more likely to go into journalism. It's not always true, of course, but it holds up pretty well in my experience.
None of this is intended to endorse the idea of a liberal media. Personal convictions enter very little into reporters' output - only columnists and editors have that freedom. And columnists and editors, let alone proprietors, tend to be more rightwing than rank and file journalists. Moreover their incentives are aligned with the establishment.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Sep 17, 2007 5:49:58 AM



