Amerikan Media=Right Wing Crap

LOL ... mainstream press not slanted enough for ya, pistoff?

Some folks, apparently devoted to disappointment and frustration, look for fairness in an unfair world. Other folks, given to rational assessment and broad discernment prefer Accuracy when it comes to Facts.

Truth is not partisan, though partisanship lies in the mind of the beholder in place of truth.

Timber, tell the truth, do Pist and Umby work for you?

That's the best chuckle I've had today, hbob ... thanks to both Pist and you for the entertainment!

Welcome
It is gratifying that someone enjoys some of what I type

timber

Love those two links!! I had not known previously that the movie Rosemary's Baby was, in fact, an account of Ted Kennedy's conception and birth. I'd thought Night of the Triffids was the correct account.

Serious question...we are close to the same age and have grown up observing the same news media as it has evolved on radio and, particularly, on TV. For example, though this doesn't relate just to news, there was a specific day (I've forgotten the year, but around 1960) when CBS first ran two advertisements back to back. It had never happened before and the public was outraged.

But we can remember TV news as it was when Walter Kronkite was heading up CBS news, and when the news departments were effectively separate from the rest of the networks' activities, and much less driven by ratings and advertiser preferences.

Is it your perception that during that period, TV or press news was generally biased to the left?

Well, I dunno if I'd say biased toward the left so much back then as elitist and manipulative. Not that that's all bad, or that its anything new; "Dewey Defeats Truman" and William Randolph Hearst and The Spanish American War come immediately to mind, and then there's Ben Franklin to consider. I do sense today's mainstream media ... the broadcast networks, including most particularly PBS, papers such as The New York Times, the LA Times, The Washington Times, USA Today, cable outlets such as CNN and MSNBC, periodicals sauch as Time and Newsweek, all are definitely leftward in tone and content. There are countervales in each genre to be sure, but The Left in general gets better press today than does The Right.

Quite honestly, my perception on this is somewhat different. I'm not sure what I might say here that would be terribly valuable, as it will all be quite susceptible to the errors of memory. So, a grain of salt ought to accompany.

As to TV, the main American networks were available to us (and we watched them more often because of the cool westerns and private eye shows) and I read the main Vancouver paper every day from age 13 (as a paperboy, I delivered the Vancouver Sun to the hospital, and while I waited for the nurses to take the paper around to every room on the women's floors, I had nothing else to do but read the paper).

My sense of, say CBS or NBC then and now, is that there has really not been much change in political tone. I think they (actually all media and the citizenry) trusted politicians more then, and deferred to them less critically. But as to leaning, I certainly don't recall them being further right than presently. That holds true when I see clips of old news shows...the change I see is merely in pace, the old shows being much slower with far less of the teensy sound bite.

The Vancouver paper too seems unchanged overall. Or at least it did until Conrad Black took it over, and then it clearly moved to the right. But that was the first instance of real politicization I witnessed here. Now Black would argue (and he did) that the media had always been too far left (it was impractical and anti-US and and anti-Israel and anti-business, he figured). But Black, I would contend, is the worst sort of fellow to take advice from on the role and appropriate tone of newspapers. He bragged, for example, that his paper had only one reporter for every two people working on sales...and that is newspaper as facilitator to personal wealth. That's a tradition such as Hearst, or Murdoch. But we'd be very foolish to accept their notions of demarkation for the unbiased political center.

My sense is that there was a significant shift to the right, in political discourse generally, during the period when the Reagan, Thatcher, and Mulroney (in Canada) governments were in ascendance. Certainly, there was an increasing partisanship in discourse at that time. But I'd attribute this not to a correction from some earlier leftist period (unless it was a period that began long before my birth), but as a fairly new phenomenon related to corporatization of media in fewer hands, the growth in internationalization and power of corporate entities, and the philosophical notions of those three governments. The only previous period where I can recall much talk about the press being too left was at the time of Nixon/Ed Meese. But that was a point where - like now - the sitting government really didn't like the press saying negative things about them, arguably, both administrations being particularly elitist and autocratic.

Here too, I suppose, we ought to note the arrival and growth of right wing radio, Limbaugh being the paradigm case, but not nearly the only example. That's new. And can you recall anyone previously from daily papers or mainstream network TV who was, in either direction, as extreme as Ann Coulter?

So my personal understanding of all this is that there really hasn't been a shift to the left in the major media at all. Rather, what we've seen is the growth of an increasingly radical right wing voice (commonly way more radical than you) and the whole damned picture, relatively, has gone sliding starboard.

As a journalism major, I can testify that almost all those choosing journalism as a career in the 50's, 60's, and 70's did so with visions of making a difference in the world and most of us were pretty left-wing in our view of how that should be done.

Newsrooms in the big three--NBC, CBS, and ABC-- as well as most cable news outlets and big city newspapers are now controlled by those or proteges of those from that era, especially those who came of age during the social unheavals of the 60's.

As a result, not so long ago, when Gallup polled political preferences among national journalists and talking heads, more than 75% acknowledged being registered as and voting as Democrats and described themselves (knowingly or unknowingly) as left of center in personal outlook.

Though it is not unusual to find that the editorial department tilts right and the newsroom tilts left--The Wall Street Journal is a classic example of this--the network and cable news is likely to present the leftish viewpoint more favorably than the rightish viewpoint. On the other hand, right wing radio has been incredibly successful and well received while left wing radio does not fare as well. If we listen to/watch both sides and fill in with a little unvarnished evidence from Cspan, we can actually get a fairly balanced view of the bigger picture on any issue.

There was a time however that both the right and the left could differ on the issues without resorting to politics of personal destruction. That started changing in the Reagan years and has escalated to this time until just about all we have now is news slanted to smear or discredit one side or the other.

I would like for us to get back to debating the issues. It really can be done without personally attacking each other or thinking a person has to be seen as evil in order for him or her to be opposed on the issues.

foxfyre

That's interesting. I wonder what a poll of other professions of a communitarian nature (out to do good in the world, as differentiated from out to make a pile of dough...teachers, nurses, etc) would reveal. Likely much the same ratios, would you suspect?

As to your last two paragraphs...I would place the change (if there is one, and it's not merely a function of my personal age and experience) in the Nixon period. There were folks supporting Nixon who truly revelled in dirty tricks, character assassination being one of them. But otherwise, I'm very much in agreement with you in those final paragraphs.

Blatham, I'm not sure how those in the communitarian professions would fare in a political poll. I think it would be interesting to know. Their sphere of influence would be far more limited, however, than would a network anchor or syndicated columnist.

But I disagree that the press was irresponsible and overly partisan during the Nixon years. Those of us in the media then still had strict standards to follow and the country was relatively united on core values. They were critical of Nixon yes as they should be, but they were balanced in that criticism. They made gentle fun of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and when both made disastrous decisions in office, it was reported but without the visciousness that we see now.

I still think the trend toward eroded professionalism, increased sensationalism, and a tendency to report now and look for the facts later began during the Reagan years. And I think there is an obvious bias in the media now that was not evident 30 years ago.

foxfyre

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the media was involved in irresponsible and partisan behaviors during the Nixon period, rather I meant to suggest that the Nixon administration set to the task of smearing with great ease and facility, the press being one of their targets...'nattering nabobs of negativism', and threats from Meese.

I agree, of course, that teachers and nurses surely have less influence than media people, but I was suggesting that perhaps the same sort of communitarian values are likely to be found in reporters as in nurses. Neither having entered their professions with a goal of accumulating great personal wealth, but with (perhaps) a sense of contribution to the community which might not be present in, say, auto salesmen or commodities brokers.

Two questions...if you see a change towards sensatinalism and irresponsible journalism during the Reagan period, to what to you ascribe this change? Second question...what is the bias you see, and would you insist it is likely due (I'm assuming you see the bias being 'leftist') to sixties kids coming on board?

Blatham, you're cool. Let's have coffee the next time I'm in Vancouver

Yes, the Nixon staffers got pretty defensive. A lot of them also went to jail. But they were under seige, the Democrats wanted Nixon impeached, and they were being forced out of office. A good excuse? No. But it's a reason.

In answer to your question:


It was during the Reagan years that the anti-establishment children of the 60's came into their own in the media and most of them definitely tilted left. (I was one of them but I had drifted right by that time.) At the same time television advertising was putting a serious squeeze on the nation's big newspapers who were forced to downsize their newsrooms and cut costs as much as possible. The downsizing meant there was less money to do good research before a story was printed, and there was a relaxing of a time-honored journalistic code that all news, especially news that could harm the reputation or livelihood of somebody, be verified, verified, verified before it was printed. This trend has unfortunately escalated since that time. The media was aided and abetted by Democrats in special orders, night after night, who were determined to hang Reagan, and then George Bush the elder, on Iran-Contra. The GOP countered with special orders just as contentious and many of these made it into the newspapers and nightly news, etc.

The bias I see now tends to be quite subtle. You often see a Republican congressman or a conservative media figure described as "conservative Republican so-and-so" or "ultra rightwing so-and-so" when they are referenced in a news story. Or if there is something positive said about a conservative figure, it will be reported with something negative about that same figure immediately following. When reporting about someone on the other side of the aisle, however, a negative story will say simply Congressman so-and-so sometimes without even mentioning his party affiliation. You almost never see the media attach the term 'liberal' to anybody but they will frequently use the word 'conservative' for GOP affiliates. Sometimes bias shows in the choice of photos or in how a headline is written or the placement of a story in the newspaper. These are just some of the things. I could write a book. In fact I may

Admittedly most media figures do not see themselves as biased and would want to be seen as impartial, objective, and fair. They may be totally unaware of how they favor their preferred personality or candidate though sometimes I wonder how they could not be.

Are there media types who tilt right. Of course there are. They are in the distinct minority, however, and they are generally despised by the leftwingers in this forum

Yeah, he's pretty cool, considering he's not only a Librul but a Canayjun ta boot

Seriously, there are few folks period for whom I have more regard than blatham, something which may startle some folks who've followed some of our mutual interactions. There's no need to agree with someone all the time in order to like them and respect them as individuals. And disagreeing with somone most of the time is no reason to dislike or disrespect them as individuals.

Believe it or not, the freindship between blatham and I goes way back, and has nothing to do either with our conflicting politics or our respective tastes in eveningwear.

Oh, and Foxfyre, I'm startin' to think maybe you're pretty cool too, even if I happen to agree with much of what you say :wink:

Doncha main ta boat?

ROFL guys. I love ya all.

Oh and I sometimes get to Denver and Wisconsin too

Hmmm....you could make a cheeseburger from those two cities. oh blast, now I'm hungry!

Gosh. I haven't woken to such compliments since those rejuvenating dates with Bubbles LeFevre.

As it happens, I hold timber and foxfyre to possess high coolitude too. And reasonable balance, all things considered. They are...no, let me rephrase in the more appropriate and, yes, even intimate, second person...YOU ARE, both of you, my favorite sort of right wing demons. I label you as pinko-facists. (As to hobbit...he and I often meet in the park late at night, so we're fine too).

This bias issue is a tough one. Not surprisingly, I don't perceive the tilt of things quite the same way you do. I wonder if we might be able, in some organized manner, to address this. Could we, for example, take two representative journalists and place their writing against some set of criteria? Say, Paul Krugman and Krauthammer?

Blatham writes:



Sure we can--I am terribly busy at work this week to do much research but will have time later--but it will be more constructive to use straight news reporting rather than those on the opinion pages. For instance, I have a great deal of admiration for William Buckley who will criticize the right but generally tilts right and this is to be expected. I also have a great deal of respect for William Raspberry who is not opposed to criticizing error and extremism from the left but who will generally tilt left on most issues and this is also to be expected. I have no problem with columists as we know where they are coming from and expect them to be biased. We should, however, be able to expect reported news in the papers or on television, etc. to be objective and impartial. I don't think it always is.

So maybe we could compare some stories on the same topic say from the Washington Post (deemed liberal) versus say the Washington Times (deemed conservative) to see which does a better job at objectivity?