MSM: Journalists - Democrats, Owners\Management - Republicans? Not Really ...
By Martin A. Knight Posted in Liberals — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
... the owners [of media corporations] tend toward conservatism and the GOP, at least economically (stereotypical "rich Republicans". See: Rupert Murdock). And he who has the gold makes the rules, as the saying goes.
Now Aleks311 is perhaps the only self-described "moderate" registered here at Redstate that I actually respect, largely because I believe he actually is a moderate and not a liberal fraud as most self-described "moderates" who come (and self-reverentially announce it here) here turn out to be.
But right here Aleks311 just posted a KnownFact™ - even with his citing of Rupert Murdoch.
Read on ...
Liberals who scoff at the idea that the American mainstream news media is biased to the Left invariably make this argument; the media is "corporate" and owned by rich industrialists who are all Republicans, they say, how could it possibly be liberal?
First of all, after hearing this argument or seeing it in print, I conclude that, like most Lefties, the person who just made it actually has absolutely no idea what "corporate" really means and just takes it to be a synonym for "evil." I continue to be mystified at what it is exactly that makes a liberal associate the political leanings of a business owner to whether or not the business is a corporation, a limited partnership or sole proprietorship. Herb Kohl, Jon Corzine and even Nancy Pelosi are/were owners and heads of corporations - didn't they get the memo?
Second; a few names pop into my head, Sumner Redstone (Chairman: CBS Corporation), Katherine Graham (Publisher & CEO: Washington Post), Arthur Sulzberger (Publisher: New York Times), Robert Iger (Chairman: Disney (ABC)) and Ted Turner (Founder: CNN). Granted, Mrs. Graham is late and her son is now the publisher, but all the evidence supports the proposition that Donald Graham shares his mother's political leanings.
That said, what we do know about these folks is that they are/were the "owners" (for lack of a better term) of the "corporate" mainstream news media. Here's another thing we know about them; they are all liberal. Very liberal. Take a look at Iger's political contributions here. How about Sumner Redstone's - here? And here is Ted Turner's own contributions history.
And by the way, I am of the impression that "Newsmeat" is pretty much a liberal website.
Either way, it would seem that the notion that the owners and chief executives of the mainstream news media are all rich "corporate" conservative Republicans who make sure the news is always slanted to the Right may actually not be entirely accurate. Perhaps ... even wrong. At least when it comes to ABC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post (and Newsweek). It seems as if it's just a KnownFact™, or worse, conventional "wisdom" - like the "Southern Strategy."
That got me thinking - which is a dangerous past time for us racist, homophobic, sexist, theocratic, dangerously low tax loving, "corporate" environment haters, considering how dumb, ill-educated and easily led we are - what are the political inclinations of the owners, board members and chief executives of the mainstream media? People like Jay R. Smith (President: Cox Newspapers), David Westin (President: ABC News), Gary Pruitt (Chairman & CEO: The McClatchy Company), Dennis FitzSimons (Chairman & CEO: Tribune Company), George Irish (President: Hearst Newspapers), Joe Hladky (President & Publisher: The Gazette Company), Douglas McCorkindale (Chairman: Gannett), etc.?
Why don't we find out?
In the well-loved (by the Left) words of "Deep Throat" in "All The President's Men"; maybe we should just "follow the money ...." After all, money talks and bull[expletive deleted] walks, or so the saying goes.
And maybe we could kill a KnownFact™ while we're at it.
LiberalsTM who scoff at the idea that the American mainstream news media is biased to the Left invariably make this argument; the media is "corporate" and owned by rich industrialists who are all Republicans, they say, how could it possibly be liberal?
well, small-l liberals like myself believe that corporations, despite their name, are not persons; they are entities with a single function, and that function is to profit. Profit is not a good or a bad thing, it is a thing. If a corporation profits, that is "good" by the intrinsic value system under which corporations operate. That value system is not moral relativism; it's defined by design into the very foundation of what a corporation is.
Since profit can at times be made to serve less than righteous causes, or worse, profits can be had via actions that persons might consider immoral or unjust, then yes liberals tend to take a dim view of that activity.
Since Republicans tend to implicitly excuse such immoral profitmaking by their advocacy of reduced regulation of corporations, they do have to live with the perception of being "evil" (or at least, heartless). Those Republicans who try to articulate moral positions first and decry the adoption of corporations' profit motive as a substitution for genuine human moral concepts are to be commended - one sterling example of such a mensch is RedState's own Paul Cella.
First of all, after hearing this argument or seeing it in print, I conclude that, like most LeftiesTM, the person who just made it actually has absolutely no idea what "corporate" really means and just takes it to be a synonym for "evil."
Well, LeftiesTM are simplistic that way.
I continue to be mystified at what it is exactly that makes a LiberalTM associate the political leanings of a business owner to whether or not the business is a corporation, a limited partnership or sole proprietorship. Herb Kohl, Jon Corzine and even Nancy Pelosi are/were owners and heads of corporations - didn't they get the memo?
I dunno. However, liberals tend to understand that a CEO is not an emperor. There are inconveniences like boards of directors and stockholders and whatnot who exert quite a bit of influence over a corporation irrespective of what the God-King CEO may desire. Didn't Steve Jobs (CEO of ultraliberal Apple Corp with Al Gore on the Board) just proclaim DRM to be obsolete last week? Yet iPods sold today still bear the black mark. What gives?
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
Your are offering a critique of the very idea of corporations. Whatever the merits of that critique (I think it has some), it is seperate from the question of whether or not corporations lean to the left or the right politically. (And in this context, left and right mean Democrat and Republican.) I think you'll have a difficult time trying to argue that corporations in general, and the media and the very wealthy in particular, do not favor the Democratic party.
I dont critique corporations for being what they are. I just attempt to describe them factually. I dont think that corporations are "bad" or "good" and neither will I accept a flat assertion that corporations "favor" left or right.
As for Martin's broader thesis about the media, I do indeed dispute it vigorously, but I'm not going to write a 15-post reply. I'm satisfied to register my dissent. We arent going to come to compromise on this. That's ok.
-
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
I suppose it was your references to "immoral profitmaking" which made me think that you were not completely agnostic about the merits of corporations.
neither will I accept a flat assertion that corporations "favor" left or right.
That should be an easy enough contention to prove or disprove, so I see no reason why anyone needs to accept flat assertions. If corporations favor left wing causes over right wing ones by a ratio of ten to one, would that not be sufficient evidence for you?
If corporations favor left wing causes over right wing ones by a ratio of ten to one, would that not be sufficient evidence for you?
I dont see how you're going to document such a fact. Its just an excercize in competing anecdotes, so its not worth either your time or mine to try.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
So you are now saying that the truth on this matter is unknowable?
Corporations donate $X to various non-profit groups every year. If the majority of that $X goes to groups such as NOW and La Raza, and little or none of it goes to groups like the Heritage Foundation or the Minutemen, then that is data, not an anecdote.
Since Republicans tend to implicitly excuse such immoral profitmaking by their advocacy of reduced regulation of corporations, they do have to live with the perception of being "evil" (or at least, heartless).
Maybe. But this takes it as axiomatic that favoring a reduction in regulations on business is the same as favoring profits at all costs.
What if I don't accept that premise?
Anyway, let's put a halt to this threadjack. Post up a diary on this (i.e. is being pro-business necessarily mean one is unaware of or in favor of business using profits for evil - or that seeking profit invariably leads to evil) and we can continue this there.
huh. I replied to a point you made and now its a threadjack? I'll decline the invitation to diary it. If you don't think it's relevant, it neednt be discussed further.
Maybe. But this takes it as axiomatic that favoring a reduction in regulations on business is the same as favoring profits at all costs. ... What if I don't accept that premise?
In fact, if a corporation seeks to abide in spirit by a regulation,. I believe that their profits will increase (though over a longer time frame). A good example is environmental regulations. I don't think you can make a serious argument that regulations serve to do anything other than inhibit behavior by corporations as they seek profit, however. Corps seek profit as water flows downhill; regulations are dams on various routes. Those may turn out to have been (long term) more expensive routes anyway, but they are certainly the easiest ones in teh short term to the same goal. Corps dont take the long view because their masters have short-term demands (stock markets, etc).
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
some responses anyway, just for the heck of it:
well, small-l liberals like myself believe that corporations, despite their name, are not persons
Well, obviously. They don't have heartbeats. They don't bleed.
But, legally speaking, they are very much like persons. If they weren't, you couldn't sue them -- as an example. They have rights. They also have responsibilities to do such things as follow the law.
There are some rights and protections afforded individuals that are not afforded corporations (the right to vote being one such example). But being that corporations can be sued for legal liability in civil matters, can be and are taxed, etc., there really isn't too much that distinguishes them from flesh-and-blood persons, legally speaking.
Good thing or bad thing, it's a long-held standard of the law. In either case, a corporation is still a human entity -- in that it is comprised of stakeholders (owners, employees, etc.) that are real human beings.
Since profit can at times be made to serve less than righteous causes, or worse, profits can be had via actions that persons might consider immoral or unjust, then yes liberals tend to take a dim view of that activity.
And this serves to distinguish liberals from others.....how exactly? Surely not you're not suggesting that non-liberals don't mind unjustly or immorally gained profits.
But I think a lot of people have a dim view of profit in general, the good (ie, normal) kind. That's why the word "obscene" is so commonly used with it. IMO, there's no such thing as an obscene profit -- so long as it's gained honestly, as the vast majority of profits are.
Those Republicans who try to articulate moral positions first and decry the adoption of corporations' profit motive as a substitution for genuine human moral concepts are to be commended
Not a substitution at all. I don't think morality and profit are mutually exclusive concepts. A profit is made when two willing parties in a transaction gain. It's a win-win thing. I profit from every single thing I buy at Wal-Mart -- so do they.
Knowing that, where is there any breakdown in morality -- particularly considering my free will to enter (or not enter) into a transaction with somebody selling something?
put in a slightly different mold. I.E. that the 'conservative' views of the owner 'tempers' or 'moderates' the 'liberal' views of the editor and reporter, therefore the end result is in the middle. If you don't know any better, you just might buy it. But I don't now.
'mispellers of the world, untie!'
I think it's fair to say that the top corporate leadership of any mainstream media company may be, and in some cases obviously are, quite liberal in terms of social issues that don't really affect their bottom line, such as abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, and the like. Even if the leadership is conservative, they are less likely to influence editors and reporters who publish stories taking a liberal line because, hey, it doesn't affect the bottom line.
The criticism that the mainstream media is owned by huge corporations goes to whatever corporate bias may slip in to reports on business issues. The big corporations may have a significant financial stake in such issues as union organizing and labor laws, corporate taxes, shareholder rights issues, environmental quality laws, safety laws, family leave, pensions, etc.
I don't have any reason to believe the big companies, as a rule, actually squelch or impact the editorial freedom of their editors and reporters on such issues, and in fact I think the best ones don't interfere at all.
But you can see where the question of conflict of interest is raised. When the lefties don't see what they consider adequate or sympathetic reporting on such issues, it doesn't seem that unreasonable to me if they wonder to what extent the issue is being downplayed to protect the bottom line. They might be and usually probably are wrong, but they don't strike me as being insane by raising the issue.
... it's not as if he is exactly pro-business in the way most people recognize it. And considering that Jon Corzine (former Goldman-Sachs Chairman), for example, was liberal in every possible way, including fiscal and economic issues, I don't think that flies.
What you need to look at also include the Think Tanks and candidates donated to. Sumner Redstone, Robert Iger, Ted Turner, etc. have donated vast sums of money to organizations and candidates who hold as dim a view of the average businessman and business as Aziz shows above.
Martin, you seem determined to put words in my mouth and misrepresent me. I don't know how to make you stop apart from asking you nicely.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
That's really a different issue. As I said, the big media CEOs and honchos might be quite liberal on social issues, and proudly declare themselves Democrats and even liberals. They donate to Kennedy and other liberal politicians because that's how they identify themselves.
And even if this tends to undermine their business interests, it still isn't so hard to understand. Kennedy might not be pro-business in many ways a conservative would accept, but he might be pro-business in specific ways important to a big media company, at least on a few important issues. Kennedy might be sympathetic on their concerns with the FCC, or on shielding media from libel suits or establishing some sort of press privilege, or promoting open records acts. (I'm not saying Kennedy is for these things, just throwing out examples.) They might want him on their side for some things even though they know he will be against them on other things. They will line up support for those other things from other politicians. It's rare to have a truly bought and paid for politician you can depend on for all things, and it is a scandal when it is found out you do.
Also, the really big money guys toss their money around. The individual liberals up top might toss money to Democrats, while cash from the corporation itself gets sent to pro-business PACS which favor Republicans. That way, they have access to both sides of the debate.
But the point is, a liberal CEO might give plenty of money to Kennedy and other Dems, but conceivably (not saying they do, but conceivably) at the same time pressure editors to lighten up on those stories critical of lowering capital gains taxes, or about polluting newspaper factories, or increasing media concentration, or spiraling CEO pay, or how shareholders are being inadequately informed on how companies are run. Despite the liberal views the CEO holds, these stories are against his or his companies' interest. If Kennedy proposes the Big Media Surtax Law of 2007, the CEO could (not will, but could) pressure editorial to downplay or criticize this development, even if he champions Kennedy's proposals in areas that don't directly affect his company.
These guys are sophisticated, they wouldn't be where they are if they weren't very political themselves. They know how to advance on one front while covering their rear.
The disappointment with the media from the left seems to focus on the idea that, for example, Republican lies are not P.1 over the fold every day. It's sort of along the lines of "Where's the Outrage?"
This says more about their misunderstanding of "news" than it does about their misunderstanding of who runs the newsroom (Although with Abu Ghraib, the New York Times managed to keep it's ideology proudly above the fold for a very long time -- including days when there was no "news".).
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
MSM outlets lean left because:
1. When a problem arises they instinctively think "What shall the government do about it?"
2. They don't want alienate the viewing public by stating that in the U.S. you are responsible for yuourself not the government.
thestalkinghorse
A cross-tab of some occupational categories versus self-placement as liberal, moderate, or conservative (from the American National Election Study 2004):
| Occupation | Liberal | Moderate | Conservative |
| Protective Services | 20.8 | 5.8 | 73.4 |
| Military | 8.8 | 20.2 | 71.0 |
| Management Occupations | 29.9 | 3.1 | 67.0 |
| Legal Occupations | 24.1 | 9.0 | 67.0 |
| Education, Training | 52.4 | 4.4 | 43.2 |
| Arts, Enter., Media | 58.0 | 4.6 | 37.3 |
| Social Services | 61.8 | 3.8 | 34.4 |
| Financial Specialists | 49.2 | 24.4 | 26.4 |
| Phys, Life, Soc Sciences | 70.6 | 20.1 | 9.3 |
"Management Occupations" includes CEOs, but also all kinds of other managers. Sadly, "Arts, Entertainment, Sports and Media" is where journalists are lumped, along with artists, dancers and actors. So it's hard to be sure which way they lean. I would have expected more moderates, though.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes