The GOP & The Press [2] - Establishing New Ground Rules
By Martin A. Knight Posted in Republicans — Comments (74) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
We’ve heard demands that Senators and Congressmen and judges make known all their financial connections so that the public will know who and what influences their decisions and their votes. Strong arguments can be made for that view. But when a single commentator or producer, night after night, determines for millions of people how much of each side of a great issue they are going to see and hear, should he not first disclose his personal views on the issue as well?
Former Vice-President Spiro Agnew is not exactly one of the Republican Party's more fondly remembered politicians ... to say the least. But that does not make the question above any less a good or important one. As far as I am concerned, the entire speech is well worth reading in its entirety, and even though it was exclusively focused on the television news media, on closer inspection a lot of Agnew's observations and questions can also be seen to apply just as strongly to print, today just as much as they did back in 1969.
The question of just how much influence the Fourth Estate has on the nation's politics is probably something I should have addressed in the diary immediately preceding this one. But then again, it may be just as appropriate here considering how it ties in to the main point of this particular diary; despite claims to the contrary by to some, Spiro Agnew was right - the Fourth Estate has a virtually unparalleled impact on how people vote. Let's be clear here; no nation depends more on the intelligent and informed judgment and choices of its citizens, and therefore it really does not make any sense to believe that the information provided to the public plays little to no role in the electorate's political choices.
Read on . . .
To quote Jerry Fuhrman from From On High;
Let me pose a question. If in Bill Clinton's day, the Washington Post had run 100 articles and editorials on Juanita Broaddrick's allegation that she had been raped years before by our president, and every newspaper in the country had chimed in with similar stories, exploring every innuendo, giving ink to every crackpot who ever had a related tale to tell, analyzing the troubling implications of the dastardly act ad nauseum, etc., would the citizenry have turned against him? Of course. But the Post refrained. Something about journalistic integrity.
But the Post found it acceptable to run 100 articles and editorials on the subject of macaca and its implications of racism and bigotry.
Anyone who thinks the active effort on the part of the Post and most every other newspaper connected to the commonwealth to promote the macaca story, to blow it completely out of proportion (it wasn't even a word prior to Allen's utterance), and, in doing so, to derail the Allen campaign, didn't in itself bring about Allen's defeat, is blind.
Once again I do not deny that the GOP shot itself in the foot many times in the past two years in addition to their recent success to their ideological bedfellows that comprise 90%+ of the staff of the nation's largest and farthest reaching news outlets. As flyerhawk would have it, such a view is no different from the "Stupid Sheeple™" meme so ably demonstrated by the Left in the aftermath of the 2004 elections. Needless to say, I do not agree.
That the Press regularly provides heavily slanted, misleading and often quite false information on matters political to the voting public does not imply stupidity on the part of the electorate. Sometimes I think those of us who post on these types of forums on both the Left and Right tend to forget that political junkies such as ourselves are extremely rare. We check the Congressional Record, we look at speech transcripts and voting records, we read the actual bills, resolutions and Commission Reports, we go to government websites to confirm the numbers and statistics, etc. The rest of the nation, despite countless polls that show that journalists are generally held in low esteem, continue to depend on what they pick up from what they read on newspapers and magazines and what they see and hear on their radios and televisions.
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld; voters go to the polls with the information they have. And they vote accordingly.
So what if the news outlets that disseminate the news to the voting public are the way they are today? Where nearly 90% of the staff of the largest and most influential Press organs in the nation lean strongly towards one political party and its agenda? Redstate's major resident Lefty argues that while the New York Times and Washington Post do lean pretty far to the Left, this is only because they are products of their environments, being situated in big liberal cities. An extension of his argument is something like this one here; that many smaller conservative towns and cities have newspapers that tend to lean very Right to reflect their environment and serve their primary audience. To quote CNN's Joe Johns back when he was at NBC; "For every liberal leaning newspaper, there's the Washington Times." In other words, the argument is that both sides cancel each other out.
This would be true ... if FOX News matched ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC combined for reach and viewership - more than thrice as many people watch the lowest rated network news program alone than watch Special Report with Brit Hume. It would be true if what is on the front page of the Washington Times is just as likely to be featured on the networks' evening news headlines as what is on the front page of the New York Times.
The argument that the liberal orientation of the New York Times and Washington Post as being only a function of their location may explain the very liberal orientation of the Big Three networks' news divisions, considering that they are all headquartered in liberal cities as well. This does not even take into account the wire services, which provide content for the vast majority of the nation's newspapers - including the supposed Right leaning local newspapers. The only problem with this is that their primary audience is meant to be the entire nation, not just New York City and Washington DC. Strangely enough, Agnew made the same point in his speech as well;
Of the men who produce and direct the network news, the nation knows practically nothing. Of the commentators, most Americans know little other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence seemingly well-informed on every important matter. We do know that to a man these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington DC, or New York City, the latter of which James Reston terms the most unrepresentative community in the entire United States
... We can deduce that these men read the same newspapers. They draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints. Do they allow their biases to influence the selection and presentation of the news?
This is at the core of why Republicans perennially complain about media bias, and not just after a loss. The liberal New York Times and the Washington Post in reality actually reach 30 times as many people as their official circulation numbers. The fact is; if one were to interchange the people working at the New York Times and the people staffing the news divisions of any of the major networks, there would be no noticeable difference in the way either covers the nation's politics. When the New York Times reports something, the same thing is reported on the network news programs with practically the exact same headlines, characterizations, word choices and phrasing, pro/con arguments and experts cited, points emphasized, omissions, coverage level, etc. In other words, the shared institutional biases of the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc. means that they all echo each other and generally all tell the exact same story ... and just as bad, they all tend to ignore the exact same stories as well.
It is the rare American who follows politics with the avidity it would take to know that the reigning conventional wisdom is wrong or has since been proven wrong. Donald Rumsfeld did not callously dismiss the soldier who asked him about under-armored Humvees. Alberto Gonzales did not advise the President to ignore the Geneva Conventions. The Bush Administration did not reveal the identity of a covert CIA operative to punish her husband. The Federal Government did not do nothing as News Orleans drowned. The Bush Administration did not start a "Domestic Spying" program to eavesdrop on American citizens - even his political opponents. President Bush did not say in 2003 that Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to the United States. But the perception exists among a significant percentage of the American voting public, including a wide segment of the "Independent middle", that all these things are true.
Either way, the main point of this diary is to highlight something that both parties at some level, know to be true; journalists are not political non-combatants. Journalists and news outlets are more often than not, outright political actors (even if inadvertently), not the passive non-participating and disinterested observers they usually proclaim themselves to be. It serves the Democrats to assist in the pretense since the continued belief in the idea of a "non-partisan", "politically neutral", "ideologically balanced" mainstream news media works very well for them.
For Republicans to assist in maintaining the polite fiction, however, is, to say the least, not such a good idea. Republicans need to establish new ground rules in dealing with the Press, the first being that journalists should no longer be automatically accorded non-combatant status when it comes to politics. To the extent that journalists and news outlets allow their partisan, political and/or ideological leanings to color their work, they should be prepared to be challenged on it. The entire Democrat Party openly attacks FOX News as a partisan outlet and shill for the Republican Party, yet we have Tony Snow apologizing to David Gregory for calling a spade a spade - Gregory's question was a Democrat talking point with a question mark attached and Tony Snow was correct to call it what it was.
In other words, the partisan and ideological leanings of journalists and the news organizations they work for should no longer be considered off-limits. If the political "neutrality" and "balance" of FOX News and the Washington Times are considered fair game by not just the Democrats, but also by other institutions of the Fourth Estate, then the New York Times, CBS, CNN, etc. deserve some of the exact same type of scrutiny.
The fact is that partisan news outlets have been around since the birth of the nation; both the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties built newspaper networks as part of their political campaign infrastructure. In Europe newspapers often have openly admitted ideological leanings. What exists in America in many news outlets is practically identical, only a great deal more dishonest. The New York Times is just as heavily slanted to the Left (in the American context) as the Guardian is to the Left in the United Kingdom, but it obstensibly markets itself as being "non-partisan."
Jay Rosen (proprietor of PressThink) has long fulminated about the Bush Administration "[withdrawing] from a [supposed] consensus understanding of how the executive branch had to deal with journalists ..." The heart of Rosen's complaint is with the Bush Administration's belief that the Fourth Estate actually does not respresent the people of the United States and that it is no more than another special interest with demands to be catered to.
That the Fourth Estate represents the people is a fundamental belief in American journalism, reflected in David Gregory's assertion that he, and other members of the White House Press Corps, are proxies for the American people and the Massachusetts reporter who famously came off the worse in an encounter with Mitt Romney. Romney's answer to the reporter telling him that he represented the people, was classic; "No, I represent the people. You represent the media." Romney is correct; while a free Fourth Estate is important in any nation that holds liberty up as an ideal, elected officials represent the people. People who stand for election must (usually) tell voters where they stand on the issues, their opinions and the beliefs and interests that animate these positions.
This is where Agnew's question is at its most salient; "... when a single commentator or producer, night after night, determines for millions of people how much of each side of a great issue they are going to see and hear, should he not first disclose his personal views on the issue as well?"
The GOP's answer to this question should be an unequivocal "Yes." Journalists should no longer be able to get away with dismissing challenges to the impartiality of their work by a circular appeal to their being journalists. If one claims to represent the people, then the people have the right to know where one stands.
Note that these are the very same people who wrote articles and filed reports questioning the nomination of John Ashcroft to the Attorney General's office because they were "concerned" his "strongly held personal beliefs" would prevent him from fairly and impartially discharging his duties as he would swear to do. These are the very same people who shrieked bloody murder at Antonin Scalia because he refused to recuse himself from a case involving the Vice President because of "concerns" that his "strong friendship" with Cheney would make him break his oath and neglect to rule impartially.
So, why, when unlike Judges, Soldiers, Policemen, Doctors, etc. no journalist is required to swear any oath to be fair and impartial, should journalists be granted such a benefit of the doubt? Why are we supposed to believe that journalists, unique among all human beings upon the Earth, are capable of keeping even the slightest hint of their personal views out of their work, when the very same journalists refuse to extend the same courtesy to others?
All this is not to say that the Bush Administration's decision to stonewall the Press Corps (i.e. the McClellan Era) and eschew the hard work of trying to get its message across to the American people throughout 2005 and most/all of 2006 was in any way correct. The primary means of news dissemination is still through the establishment Press Corps, and until the GOP develops a half-way effective alternative means and method of communicating with the American people in a way that competes with the mainstream news media and neutralizes its institutional Left-ward tilt, Republicans must deal with the Press as is.
The fact is that not speaking to the New York Times' reporters will not prevent the Times from publishing whatever it wants about a Republican Administration and having it echoed loudly on the evening news. Therefore, it is far better to have an openly hostile relationship, where reporters know that they stand a big chance of being forcefully corrected and critiqued on national television from the podium, than to have none at all.
I will be focussing on new communications infrastructure and strategy.
Likely to be much shorter than this one.
by Steven M. Warshawsky. (Assuming you have not read it already.)
... does not see all things ... {sigh} Damn those Hobbitts!
Thanks for the link. Saved it to read later.
I think it's going to be a fun read.
is the obsessive focus on politics. The liberal success is due to their changing the underlying thought processes of the American people. The mass media is just one tool they use for that. Control of the educational system is the ultmate key to controlling the country.
we will start a grassroots movement to have you replace Tony Snow.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
I question the basic premise. I would imagine that moste papers and the MSM in general rely on people buying adds and stories selling papers. As you stated in the end, alternatives to papers and the regular tv stations exist and are becoming the choice of much of the younger generation. The President will have a chance to talk directly to the nation tomorrow night. America's adults will have a chance to hear what he has to say and decide whether or not it makes sense. There will be many that agree and many that disagree with what he says, but American public will ultimately decide how they receive the information. The decision still rests with the President, but whether or not he has the support of the public will be determined by what he has to say and how he says it.
The publics reaction to whatever the president says will be determined in large part by how well it matches up with what they believe to be true, based on what they read in the papers and see on TV. He's not going to reverse years of slanted information in one speech.
Check the financial of all of the major (liberal) newspapers. They are ALL getting financially pounded. Stock prices are all down. The Minneapolis Star-Trib, which was purchased a few years ago for $1.2B was just sold for $620M. NYT stock price is at or close to an all time low and going down. If the Chicago Trib could dump the LA Times it would.
Then there's the news divisions of the major networks. All lose money.
In the US, "news" is an ideology business, it has nothing to do with being profitable.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
This may be a small point, but...
I agree with your apparent sentiment about Agnew, but you shouldn't be squeamish about quoting the speech because of its source.
Though Agnew delivered it, the speech was almost certainly written by then-White House speechwriter and later NYT columnist William Safire.
Tho you may not forgive his long association with the NYT, Safire deservedly has a much better reputation and is taken much more seriously than ol' Spiro.
[As for whether "the Fourth Estate has a virtually unparalleled impact on how people vote," what one reads/watches may not be as important as you think. Tell me the party of a voter's parents, how often he goes to church, and what his income is, and I can predict his vote better than if you tell me what he reads/watches. I'm not saying the media don't matter, of course. I'm just saying they don't matter as much as they think they do.]
Re: Tell me the party of a voter's parents, how often he goes to church, and what his income is, and I can predict his vote better than if you tell me what he reads/watches.
I agree with this but would two other determinants: the age of the voter (young people tende to be disproportionately liberal) and the level of education s/he has attained (both dropouts and people with advanced degrees, the two extremes, tend to vote disproportionately Democratic).
If we go with the theory that media has the control suggested here it becomes very hard to understand how any Republican ever get elected, when it fact the GOP has been the party of choice (fir president at least) ever since Nixon's day.
If we go with the theory that media has the control suggested here it becomes very hard to understand how any Republican ever get elected, when it fact the GOP has been the party of choice (for president at least) ever since Nixon's day.
You would have a point if my argument is that the media is the primary driving force behind a person's politics. Of course, other factors also influence the political choices of people, including, of course, educational levels, values and the political leanings of their parents.
All these largely inertial factors are actually more of the reason why Republicans remain competitive in many places despite the pronounced Leftward tilt of the local Press.
Furthermore, you are forgetting that the GOP sometimes does have its moments of brilliance, the Democrats their moments of hubris and stupidity, and sometimes circumstances can dictate far more than anything else, the electorate's decisions. i.e. New York City had to descend to the level David Dinkins took it to before a Republican could be elected Mayor despite the shrieks of the New York Times; Guiliani made it clear that he was going to do something about crime in a way that Dinkins simply could not bring himself to do.
Either way, over time, if the primary source of political information in a place is so heavily slanted, the environment becomes increasingly friendlier to one side and less friendly to the other. The fact is that the politicians must deal with the Press and this often drives the terms of debate.
Fox news of course) is pure myth.
Not only do they control what is covered, but what isn't covered, and you are 100% right that they tend to echo each other.
At the very least I would like to see news people be upfront with their beliefs-at least we could weight what they say against what they believe.
I agree with what your saying. The issue is not to convince those on the left of the media's bias. First, as I stated previously, most on the left will either never believe it (b/c they are so far to the left they view the media as being in the middle) or will never admit it (and why would they).
Instead, the objective is to simply get the vast middle to be more cynical about the media, to develop better strategies at dealing with the media so that the conservative message is heard, to develop alterative media, and to challenge the media's bias and factual errors to keep them as honest as we can. And, to do this, I agree that the GOP needs to stop playing nice and pretending that the media is "neutral".
As pointed out on the Ace of Spades website today, lefty blogs constantly deny that the media is biased to the left, attempt to claim the media is baised to the right, yet constantly try to defend the media as being accurate (i.e., fake but accurate). Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too!
Could you please explain to me the elections of 1994, 2000, 2002 and 2004 if the media is so slanted to the left?
They would have been considerably more emphatic victories for the Republicans were it not for pervasive media bias in favor of Democrats.
Well,
You did not address any of the points, but I will answer this question. Considering that america, in poll after poll, is much more conservative than liberal - how did the dems retain control of congress for 40 years?
I would guess that the media bias probably pushes the vote by about 5 - 10% to the democrats in most elections than the vote would have been were the media actually "neutral".
However, I don't believe it is possible for media to be neutral.
I assume you are claiming there is no media bias? I will ask you the same question I always ask people of the left who claim such a thing. Considering that the left beleives that humans are so prejudiced and biased as to require constant watch with anti-discrimination laws for any potential victim class (and constantly seek to add new victim-groups into those laws), that the left believes that every institution is biased (police, schools, the S.A.T.), how then, can the people on the left believe that the only job in all of human existomce that can be done without any bias is that of journalist? How is it possible for the noble journalists to completely and utterly remove all bias from the decisions he/she makes in deciding a) what story to cover; b) who to talk to/interview; c) what quotes to use; d) what adjectives/labels to use; etc., etc?
Except, the left has ruled logic to be illegal. They are allowed to ignore any logic. Their only logic is double standards apply. Free speech unless it offends me on the left. No bias in media unless it doesn't agree w/ me on the left.
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
Re: Considering that america, in poll after poll, is much more conservative than liberal - how did the dems retain control of congress for 40 years?
Polls show that neither conservatives not liberal are a majority of the population. So neither can elect candidates on their own (exceptions exist in specific but relatively small areas where one side or the other really does dominate). This means that the center tends to dominate and must be wooed by whoever wants to win a bare majority. The electoral results, which show us a country very finely balanced between the GOP and the Democrats, with only a slight tilt toward the GOP reflect this reality, and therefore do not indicate a public "brainwashed" or even misled by the media. As someone said above (and I seconded) there are far stronger factors underlying how a person votes than what he reads or watches.
Re: I will ask you the same question I always ask people of the left who claim such a thing.
Leftwingers do not claim there is no media bias. They claim the media is biased toward the right! You really should visit some leftwing (or at least liberal) sites to sample this opinion. As I've posted on other threads about the media, both sides are quite convinced that the media is out to get them.
Unless you can cite some evidence to back up the notion that the media is biased to the right, it really makes no difference what "both sides" say. Only reality matters. And the reality is that the media is biased to the left. You may as well deny the earth is round as deny this.
Aleks, do you seriously think that there would be no impact on public opinion (and elections) if the current state of the MSM media were reversed? (If 90+% of journalists voted Republican rather than Democrat, if most of the major print and broadcast media leaned to the right more like Special Report with Brit Hume, Sunday with Chris Wallace, the Washington Times, the WSJ editorial board instead of to the left like Dan Rather, Sunday with Tim Russert, the Washington Post, the NYT and NPR.)
John E.
What do you think would happen if the MSM were to "reverse" itself? The Democratic Party would become extinct? Republicans have dominated our Federal government for most of the past 40 years. How much more would they dominate in your theoretical world?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
No, I don't think the Dem's would pull a dinosaur. And answering your first and third question - quality and quantity - is beyond my capacity.
Now I have answered your questions as though you actually intended to treat with me in mutual respect.
I asked a common sense hypothetical with a simple yes/no answer. I sense in your words a tone of disdain. Deserved? Perhaps it is a stupid question because the answer is so obvious.
In my ideal world we would have Truth in Journalism through Diversity: Affirmative Action Required
John E.
Now I have answered your questions as though you actually intended to treat with me in mutual respect.
I asked a common sense hypothetical with a simple yes/no answer. I sense in your words a tone of disdain. Deserved? Perhaps it is a stupid question because the answer is so obvious.
First off John of course I respect and I think that our many debates should disabuse of any sense that I don't.
But I think that your theoretical question is moot.
People become Liberal or Conservative based on their upbringing and social surrounding, not by the media reports they read. Heck most people adhere to political viewpoints SOLELY because they believe that is what a Liberal or Conservative should be doing.
So to answer your question if the media were to flip completely you would likely see very little difference in how people vote or see the world. And, truth be told, if people were to see how the world REALLY is then I suspect that their views would change wildly but that will NEVER happen.
As a personal point on this. In my youth I was largely a Conservative person. I supported Reagan as a teen. I voted for HW in 88 and 92. While I was certainly a very moderate Republican I did generally hold Republican views. But an event in 1994 changed my views considerably. In 1994 I was sent off to Haiti. When I saw how the Haitians lived, I forever was changed. I started to believe that the most important thing I can do is help better humankind with whatever means I had. That didn't mean reading The Daily Worker and parroting Noam Chomsky. But it did mean looking at ways to fix the world rather than just live on the status quo.
The media will never have that kind of impact on people.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Honestly, and no disrespect intended, I think that is the source of much frustration by liberals with their conservative associates. Liberals can't understand why anybody *wouldn't* want to help people, while conservatives don't accept that liberalism generally helps people... or that government should be the sole vehicle for providing that help, via involuntary taxation.
I would also add that I don't think most conservatives are against some government role in helping those who need it. But we are in favor of being very careful about it, taking into account personal responsibility and dignity.
That's just my take.
Liberals can't understand why anybody *wouldn't* want to help people, while conservatives don't accept that liberalism generally helps people... or that government should be the sole vehicle for providing that help, via involuntary taxation.
Most Conservatives I know thing that the military is only good for fighting wars and law enforcement. Everything else, they do poorly. I disagree vehemently.
I would like to see a poll of RedStaters regarding whether they support government helping those who need it.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I support government helping those who need it. I guess most people here feel the same.
But I expect we differ with you as to what constitutes need, and what should be done to rectify it.
compared to Puerto Rico or the BVIs or even the Domincan Republic?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Haiti is a generally barren place. Thus they relied on export trades that generally didn't do much to help out the typical Haitian.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
shares an island with the Dominican Republic. What is so different from one side of the border to the other?
Duvalier.
Papa Doc ran the place forever and Baby Doc (his son) took over when PD went to his roasting reward. They generally made Saddam & Sons look like wimps.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
The D.R. actually has some agricultural output. Haiti not so much.
As Mr. Becker points out the Dominican Republic was lucky enough to not have the Docs in charge. Papa Doc, in particular, had no problem essentially selling his people into slavery.
Not that the Dominican Republic is a paradise by any means. Up until the last 20 years or so they were right behind Haiti. But they got themselves squared up a bit.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
relatively speaking, Haiti has consistently made everyplace but a couple countries in Equitorial Africa look like heaven.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Thanks for answering Flyerhawk. If I understand you correctly, your answer is that there would be very little (I suppose you mean none for all intents and purposes) effect on peoples opinions or how they vote, because our opinions and votes are predetermined by our ideologies.
And thanks for your very sincere response. I appreciate your personal anecdote and I applaud your sympathetic qualities and your resolve to serve them.
"Your theoretical world" caused me to imagine a tone... well heck you've been at least as smug as the rest of us in the several diaries on this subject.
As to your argument, I agree that you have valid insights, but you push them farther than my common sense allows. Whether I take my personal case or that of other people I know, I cannot conclude that the effect of media sourced information on specific opinions is necessarily made (almost entirely) irrelevant by preconceptions. There may be a class of ideologues who are unaffected by information because they already have an opinion on every specific person and subject. There may be a class of voters impervious to information because they will always vote for either a Republican or a Democrat. I know quite a few. But even they need info to decide who to vote for in a primary or to form opinions on new issues.
Aleks (above) and pollsters claim that there is a fairly large class of independents. I know quite a few that are not ideologues, at least not in any sense that tracks well with the two parties. Presumably their specific political decisions are impacted by the stories they hear or read. They will judge by their own values and views, but the nature of the information they receive for evaluation will be shaped by the media. And there are even some sheeple I know whose values and views are quite susceptible to being shaped. Some of them even read or watch the news.
I'll reciprocate by taking myself as an example. At this point I am, on the national level, (apparently like you) a party voter. So the media isn't going to change our votes. But this was not always so. My first vote was for Nixon, even though McCarthy was promising to keep me from being drafted. I suppose that vote was because my parents voted Republican. I had little time for or interest in the news at that time in my life. My next vote was for Carter. I suppose that was because I had the impression that Republicans put a "cancer on the Presidency" and Ford was bumbling and Carter was a "born-again" Christian with a fresh non-Washington approach. I would say media helped form those impressions. Carter was a loser: gas crisis, wild inflation, and the Iranian hostage crisis. I voted for Reagan twice. The iron curtain came down, the economy improved and my taxes were lowered so I voted for Bush as Reagan heir. The word was that Bush's policies were wrecking the economy and Clinton had good ideas. (This was false and it determined my vote against Bush). I couldn't vote for Clinton because his explanations of war protest, lack of inhaling and rumors of affairs along with something general in his words and demeanor told me that he was a devious liar. Perot had charts, creds and seemed to have generally positive press. I voted Perot. Clinton won and I started following politics and the news much more closely. I became an ideological Republican. But I actually love George W. Bush, because I have a conception of him which is utterly different than what is presented in the media.
I can't deny that information shaped by the media has impacted upon my political opinions and votes. In several cases I am ashamed to have to admit that.
John E.
If I understand you correctly, your answer is that there would be very little (I suppose you mean none for all intents and purposes) effect on peoples opinions or how they vote, because our opinions and votes are predetermined by our ideologies.
I think that there might a slight change on some topics but the
net result would be marginal.
I cannot conclude that the effect of media sourced information on specific opinions is necessarily made (almost entirely) irrelevant by preconceptions. There may be a class of ideologues who are unaffected by information because they already have an opinion on every specific person and subject. There may be a class of voters impervious to information because they will always vote for either a Republican or a Democrat. I know quite a few. But even they need info to decide who to vote for in a primary or to form opinions on new issues.
Presumably their specific political decisions are impacted by the stories they hear or read. They will judge by their own values and views, but the nature of the information they receive for evaluation will be shaped by the media. And there are even some sheeple I know whose values and views are quite susceptible to being shaped. Some of them even read or watch the news.
Ok. But those sheeple you refer to could influenced by any number of things. The problem with pointing to the media as influencing these people is that the bias really isn't nearly as pervasive as you imagine. Again voting patterns would suggest that the media's influence on matters simply isn't that strong. Independents generally split down the middle when it comes to the party with a sway going in one direction or the other depending on current events. In 2004 those fence sitters largely voted FOR George Bush because they felt he was the better war president. Now in 2006 those same fence sitters are questioning being in Iraq. Did the media get better at influencing these people or did events simply unfold in such a way as to make those fence sitters less accepting of the war?
I must admit that I was probably unclear upthread. I think that the media can influence people but I don't think that they are able to intentionally influence them one way or the other. In general I think the media is most influential in entrenching status quo beliefs.
They be influenced but generally people already have an idea who they are going to vote for. And the people that can be swayed are affected by all sorts of things not least of which is the candidates themselves.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Slight percentage changes could have swung the last two presidential elections and in 2006 swung the control of the Senate. Admitting the possibility of slight changes due to the MSM admits the possibility of monumental effects due to the MSM.
As regards the sheeple I know, I also have to admit that they are generally apathetic about voting (but perhaps a get out the vote effort might leash them to the ballot box).
At any rate, you appear to be arguing that the observation that voting patterns are evenly split by party line implies media must have insignificant effect upon voters.
As a matter of logic, the inference you propose seems to fail. Choose from past elections any voting pattern you like and what hard inference will we be able to draw about the significance of media influence. In your model, will the one vary with the other? What predictive value does the voting pattern offer? Your inference appears to be only presumption. You argue and I agree (as it seems Martin and others do) that there are many variables which effect voting patterns. Only if we could keep all other things constant, while varying media composition, could we reason backwards from voting patterns, as you suggest, to the conclusion that media composition has insignificant effects on voting patterns.
But I understand that you aren't just trying to make a logical argument but also an empirical one. So addressing that side... Arguing against how "pervasive" I "imagine" the effect of the media to be seems tendentious. The controversy is this: Is the news media the objective and unbiased purveyor of fact that it presents itself to be? No, then any political consequences resulting from this duping are unfair. This is true whether or not the duping is intentional, though conspiracy would make it much more egregious. We are not presently discussing whether there is a conspiracy or whether the effect of the media is the major factor in determining elections. We are discussing whether it is a factor of any significance whatsoever.
You have previously declared that MSMers are more biased than they admit. However, to avoid the consequence of raising alarm and outrage over this injury to fairness, you are dismissing the issue on practical grounds by claiming that this bias has no significant effect. And if I grant your claim I would dismiss it too, because my pragmatism would override the sense of injury to principle.
By clarifying your position and granting that media can influence people by entrenching certain beliefs, your common sense joins with mine. By granting that the MSM is one of the factors that influence peoples opinions you make the issue of fairness a relevant one.
Facts are a component of peoples opinions. The MSM is mostly constrained by the facts. Peoples beliefs shape their perception of the facts. The people comprising the MSM have beliefs and those beliefs shape their perception of the facts. Public consumers of information have their own beliefs which will shape their own perception of the facts, but much of the information they receive is already shaped and winnowed by the news media. The news media prioritizes facts and sets the narrative for the thought about popular issues. I posit a correlation between volume and content of MSM stories and national poll results as an empirical proof, if common sense will not otherwise do. Do you know any pollsters who would want this one?
Did the media get better at influencing these people or did events simply unfold in such a way as to make those fence sitters less accepting of the war?
In 2004 people had conceptions of Kerry and Bush, shaped by the media in course of dealing with certain facts. Kerry's war record and the SwiftBoat charges, and other negatives could have been creditably amplified by a more hostile press. In the MSM, the low-IQ image of Bush was augmented with creditable amplification of claims that significantly undermined the perceived integrity of the administration, but the MSM discredited itself by going after Bush's service record. But as you say, perceptions of Kerry's flipflopping on the war and Bush's firmness sunk Kerry. The media doesn't control events but they do shape them. I think it is possible that Kerry could have had a worse showing; I sure think he deserved one. By 2006 the popular wisdom reflected in the MSM is that the Bush administration is incompetent in dealing with domestic and foreign crises, in denial about losing the war, not helping an inadequate economy. And there was no "Kerry-like" figure with which to draw a contrast, so the negative meme on Bush ruled the day. That is the Democrat's meme and the MSM creditably amplified it up to the level of popular wisdom (as is reflected in the polls). I expect that a press which votes 90% republican would have established a somewhat different take on these subjects and that would have affected the popular wisdom in ways that would be reflected in polls.
John E.
you don't realize it yet, but one day you will lift a glass and fondly reminisce about the day your were flyerhawked.
Well I hope getting flyerhawked is better than getting birdmojoed and I expect it to be. If I have laid a trap of inconsistency for myself, I will fondly toast his springing it upon me. I have extended myself quite a bit upon that scaffolding he has constructed but perhaps I have not been careful enough.
The thing I would regret most though is getting hawked and being to dumb to realize it. If that happens, please have mercy upon me pound it through my thick skull.
John E.
There is a lot there. However I do not have the time right now to respond to this. However I will try to do so later tonight.
You make very good points.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
What do you think would happen if the MSM were to "reverse" itself?
I doubt you'd be scoffing about media bias then. If the Right were to secretly organize a hostile takeover and grab control of at least one of the major networks, you'd definitely not be here trying to downplay that happenstance's political effect.
If that network makes it so that the front page of the Washington Times gets just about the same play as what is on front page of the New York Times, I guarantee that you'd see a major difference in the way politics is covered - from the questions asked, stories covered, headlines and phrasing (no more "Domestic Spying"), etc. On every network.
Heck, if Disney were to hire Roger Ailes to remake and run just ABC's news division, the shrieks you'd hear from the Democratic National Committee would tell you something interesting.
The Democratic Party would become extinct?
No. Republicans are still here despite 1958, 1964, 1974, 1992, etc. Why should anyone expect the Democrats to just wither and die?
Let's not go into extremes here, flyerhawk.
Republicans have dominated our Federal government for most of the past 40 years.
Since you're talking about 1967 to 2007, I assume you're wholly ignoring Congress and focussing exclusively on the Oval Office. Kinda disingenuous, eh? Especially considering that the 74th Congress (1975-1977) actually fielded more than twice as many Democrats as Republicans in the House and more than 60 Democrats in the Senate.
We were in pretty bad shape at the state level too. To be honest, it's a wonder the GOP actually survived that. Which is why I am pretty confident that the Democrats would not necessarily go the way of the Whigs if the MSM were to reverse itself.
If the Right were to secretly organize a hostile takeover and grab control of at least one of the major networks, you'd definitely not be here trying to downplay that happenstance's political effect.
I honestly don't care about that sort of stuff. FoxNews doesn't bother me in the least. I understand there reason for doing what they are doing. The Washington Times is generally harmless but there are times that I get a good chuckle out of their stuff. Personally I have a hard time comparing the Washington Times to the New York Times. But if you think the reason why so many people believe that the Times is a credible news agency is because of bias, well I don't think there is much we can discuss about them.
Heck, if Disney were to hire Roger Ailes to remake and run just ABC's news division, the shrieks you'd hear from the Democratic National Committee would tell you something interesting.
Sure. But that's what political organizations do. You think the RNC would be jumping for joy if James Carville took over Fox?
Let's not go into extremes here, flyerhawk.
Well I did so for a reason. For all the talk about media bias it doesn't seem to have much effect on elections. Sure the partisans always moan about it because it is an easy scapegoat to explain why everyone doesn't see things the way they do. Conservatives talk about the Media's anti-American anti-military bias. Liberals talk of the Media's pro-corporate anti-worker PRO-military bias. Ho hum.
You see this same sort of thing in sports. Invariably when someone's favorite pro-team gets consistently ripped because they sign thugs, fans claim there is a media bias against their team.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
FoxNews doesn't bother me in the least.
OK. But I do know that it bothers Howard Dean and other big dogs (Governors, Congressmen and even Presidents) in the Democrat Party, and the rest of the Fourth Estate. But if you say it don't bother you ... alright.
The Washington Times is generally harmless but there are times that I get a good chuckle out of their stuff. Personally I have a hard time comparing the Washington Times to the New York Times.
Of course, the New York Times is a much larger institution.
To each his own, I guess. You obviously see the Washington Times as leaning very much to the Right ... probably just as much as the average Republican (and their own ombudsman) sees the Leftward tilt of the New York Times.
The real issue, though, is whether or not the Washington Times get their facts wrong any more than the New York Times does. But that's not the case.
Just like it is with the Telegraph and Guardian in the United Kingdom (which both tend to get the basic facts correct), the major difference is in the stories (or narratives) told by each respective newspaper using those same facts.
But if you think the reason why so many people believe that the Times is a credible news agency is because of bias, well I don't think there is much we can discuss about them.
Now I know you didn't mean to put words in my mouth. So it's all good.
The New York Times is considered a credible news agency because it has a pedigree; it's an old newspaper, and that carries some weight. Second is that the stories reported (which is different from the facts)# on its pages usually unerringly find their way into the evening news.
You think the RNC would be jumping for joy if James Carville took over Fox?
I think you may have gotten a glimpse of my argument there. Why would any party be so alarmed at a partisan for the other side getting control of a news media organization?
Do you honestly believe that Roger Ailes being made chairman of General Electric (for example) would lead to the exact same amounts of complaints from the DNC as Ailes being given control of a news division in any of the major networks?
For all the talk about media bias it doesn't seem to have much effect on elections.
That's your opinion. If what people see and hear doesn't have anything to do with their electoral choices then why was the establishment of newspaper networks among the very first things the nation's very first parties did?
Information is power in a democracy. If you don't agree ... "well I don't think there is much we can discuss about then."
This is exactly why Roger Ailes getting control of ABC's news division, for example, would give the DNC palpitations in a way that Dick Armey being made chairman of Lockheed simply would not.
Conservatives talk about the Media's anti-American anti-military bias. Liberals talk of the Media's pro-corporate anti-worker PRO-military bias. Ho hum.
Old and tired cliche. I've once or twice been told that I'm not "conservative enough" ... do you really think that makes me neutral between Right and Left?
The Labour Party historically regularly complained about The Guardian's coverage just about as much as the Tories in the United Kingdom. But you would be looked at like a mad man if you used that as evidence that The Guardian does not lean Left.
# NOTE - Think of a Venn diagram.
Facts: What? When? Where? How? Why?
Story: How? Why?
Chiming in on your NOTE. As you pointed out elsewhere, in addition to those obvious breakdowns of facts and story, the framing language of the story can also extend over the facts thereby coloring the what, where, and when in ways that can influence people's thinking at subconscious levels.
For example, the effect of using fetus for baby, or private accounts versus personal accounts, or domestic spying versus international terrorist surveillance. I believe you (Martin) gave a number of other examples of this effect, where the language adopted by the prevalent media becomes the public currency and is one aspect by which the media sets the popular tone and tenor of events and issues.
Flyerhawk, I know people that consciously recognize and correct for these effects but I know people that do not. At earlier times in my life, when I paid much less attention to politics, I did not. I trusted Walter Cronkite because I didn't have the time to do all the investigation that he was doing. I heard no bias in NPR then like I do now.
The MSM is not neutral on the choice of framing language. NPR for example specifically states that it has policies (based on appropriate values) on many language choices. At any rate, a press that votes D over 90% of the time is going to naturally tend to adopt D-style framing language and the evidence bears this out. Giving as much weight to the insights in your argument as I possibly can, I just cannot fathom how you can maintain that this has no significant effect on public opinion.
I could relate for you the story my much younger brother-in-law told me during the Christmas holidays, about how he decided he was no longer a liberal. An influence from the media is the center point of his story just as much as Haiti is the center point of yours. The media may not have touched you on your course to forming political opinion, but there is too much in my experience left unaccounted for if I exclude its influence.
John E.
For example, the effect of using fetus for baby, or private accounts versus personal accounts, or domestic spying versus international terrorist surveillance. I believe you (Martin) gave a number of other examples of this effect, where the language adopted by the prevalent media becomes the public currency and is one aspect by which the media sets the popular tone and tenor of events and issues.
Let's deconstruct here. Why should the media use baby? Fetus is the CORRECT term to use. You would like them to use baby to change the context of the discussion but it is an incorrect use of the word.
Explain to me the qualitative difference between semantics of private and personal accounts? I really have no idea how one appears better than the other.
Domestic spying versus international terrorist surveillance? The latter is a subset of the former. And if our government really knew who was and wasn't a terrorist inside the country why haven't they rounded up these people?
The MSM is not neutral on the choice of framing language. NPR for example specifically states that it has policies (based on appropriate values) on many language choices. At any rate, a press that votes D over 90% of the time is going to naturally tend to adopt D-style framing language and the evidence bears this out. Giving as much weight to the insights in your argument as I possibly can, I just cannot fathom how you can maintain that this has no significant effect on public opinion.
Whether they are neutral or not you seem to think that because they don't use your PREFERRED language that means they are actively biased toward liberal beliefs. I don't mean that in a snide way because I think that is how virtually everyone sees the media. When the media uses terms they find acceptable they read on without even noticing. When they use terms that a person finds objectionable then they start making accusations of bias.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Yes, my bias is showing. Guilty as charged. I can give a counter-argument to each of yours. Will that advance us toward a resolution on the controversy at hand? It will, if and only if you think you can prove that in all these cases the MSM actually has chosen the unbiased terminology consistent with an objective point of view and that my preference is always biased and subjective. I did not expect you to take that position since you already admitted that everyone, including journalists, has a bias. and that the bulk of the MSM slants left.
And it is clear that the choice of terms strongly correlates with party and/or ideological persuasion. Do you see no irony in that the prevailing choice of framing language in the MSM mostly matches that which is mostly preferred by Democrats and objected to by Republicans, and that you believe it to be the appropriate and objective choice? Employ your fine sense of sympathy to that by imagining the effect of a 90% R-stroking press on the choice of terms and you will taste our gall.
BTW, their voting record shows me that they are actively biased toward liberal beliefs. I bring the framing issue up because it is an effect of that bias which impacts the unwary news consumer. So I think you make a mistake here. We are talking about impact, right? We have already agreed that the bias exists so you should recognize that I am not trying to reprove an established fact and I am not expecting you to renege on this point either. I am just trying to keep the argument on track and moving forward.
John E.
OK. But I do know that it bothers Howard Dean and other big dogs (Governors, Congressmen and even Presidents) in the Democrat Party, and the rest of the Fourth Estate. But if you say it don't bother you ... alright.
Well sure. They are professional politicians. Any perceived or potential political threat must be handled.
To each his own, I guess. You obviously see the Washington Times as leaning very much to the Right ... probably just as much as the average Republican (and their own ombudsman) sees the Leftward tilt of the New York Times.
Well I must admit that I rarely read the Washington Times and the relatively rare times I do is usually when they are writing one of their more provocative articles so that probably biases my views towards them. I also will willingly concede that the New York Times has a liberal tilt.
Why would any party be so alarmed at a partisan for the other side getting control of a news media organization?
Well herein lies the rub. The problem isn't so much that a news organization has a bias. Everyone has a bias. The problem would be someone seizing a news outlet SOLELY to advocate for a specific political agenda. While you may believe that the New York Times or CBS News does that, I do not. I believe that the New York Times has a leftward bias because of the views of their staff.
That's your opinion. If what people see and hear doesn't have anything to do with their electoral choices then why was the establishment of newspaper networks among the very first things the nation's very first parties did?
A pretty different world back in the day. Political discourse occurred PRIMARILY through newspapers and most of them were clearly partisan. The Federalist Papers were anonymously published in a Federalist partisan newspaper in New York. That was how politicians got their message out.
Old and tired cliche. I've once or twice been told that I'm not "conservative enough" ... do you really think that makes me neutral between Right and Left?
The Labour Party historically regularly complained about The Guardian's coverage just about as much as the Tories in the United Kingdom. But you would be looked at like a mad man if you used that as evidence that The Guardian does not lean Left.
I have no idea why it is cliche. Can you explain that? Do you disagree that Leftists bemoan the rightward media bias of American media? There are entire books on it.
Once again the question isn't whether The New York Times or Washington Post leans left. The questions are whether they do so intentionally and what impact it has.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Well herein lies the rub. The problem isn't so much that a news organization has a bias. Everyone has a bias.
Agreed.
The problem would be someone seizing a news outlet SOLELY to advocate for a specific political agenda.
I don't remember ever saying anyone has done so or that Ailes would do so if he were ever to head the news division of one of the Big Three networks.
Besides, why would that be a "problem"? After all, you say it would not have any effect whatsoever, anyway.
While you may believe that the New York Times or CBS News does that, I do not.
No. I don't believe that.
Read this.
I believe that the New York Times has a leftward bias because of the views of their staff.
Agreed. Just like ABC, NBC, CBS, the Washington Post, CNN, TIME Magazine, Newsweek, etc.
Political discourse occurred PRIMARILY through newspapers and most of them were clearly partisan ... That was how politicians got their message out.
OK. But I was under the impression that political discourse still occurs through newspapers ... and television news programs as well.
Either way, how do you think a Democratic-Republican would have fared trying to get his message out through a Federalist aligned newspaper?
What's the difference between a newspaper or news broadcast outlet that is overtly Republican and one that is 90% composed of Republicans? I submit; not much. A Democrat would have a very hard time to get his message out unfiltered and unspun through such a medium.
Do you disagree that Leftists bemoan the rightward media bias of American media?
No. Where'd you get the idea that I did?
Heck, I even concede that they may be correct; if you compare the New York Times to Pravda, or any of the many overtly socialist newspapers in Europe, the New York Times does lean Right.
Once again the question isn't whether The New York Times or Washington Post leans left. The questions are whether they do so intentionally and what impact it has.
No.
Quite frankly I could not possibly care less about their intentions - that's your straw man.
But the issue of impact does concern me.
PS: Do you honestly believe that a headline saying that the President engages in "Domestic Spying" and another saying that he had started a "International Terrorist Surveillance Program" are both politically neutral?
Look, when it comes right down to it, flyerhawk, I doubt that either of us are going to end up convincing each other. John E. above has expressed my thoughts on this perfectly ... I don't think I could have done it any better than he did.
If there is one thing I can say about you, it's that you're tenacious. It's an admirable trait (usually) even when it's frustrating. Once you dig in your heels, you would use any and all tactics to avoid conceding an argument; non-sequiturs, straw men, changing the subject, etc. And you're very good at it without you actually being insincere or dishonest.
You're perhaps one of the few people I've ever met (on and offline) who can agree that;
2 * 4 = 8
2 / 1 = 2
23 = 8
... and then argue at the same time that 2 + 2 != 4.
But I like you and I honestly believe this site would be the poorer without you as a participant.
Either way, while I am well aware that the plural of anecdote is not data, I am not arguing that the narratives and stories told by the Fourth Estate have a profound effect on the electoral choices of the American people based on just a theory.
In my line of work, I tend to meet people of various backgrounds and political orientations, the most common being those the pundits like to label as "the middle." In reality, most really do not really do not care about politics or pay much attention, and this includes the vast majority of those folks who are actually registered with a party.
I'm probably the most wired in on politics. Most do not know who their Congressmen are (including their Senators) while I can instantly recall the names and partisan affiliation of the Senators and Governors of every single state in the union.
Understand that these are, by and large, extremely smart men and women. But they simply are not interested in politics.
So when they see a report on CBS evening news uncritically repeating the allegation that General Eric Shinseki was "fired" for disagreeing with Donald Rumsfeld, they don't go on to the net and find out that Shinseki served out his term as Army Chief of Staff and retired with all due honors, having announced his retirement long before the testimony that supposedly doomed his career.
For all that I've personally witnessed more than a few of them expressing consternation at how wrong journalists get it on subjects in which they have some expertise or interest, they tend to absorb what they see and hear from the urbane and knowledgable looking people they see every evening on their television screens and add it to their knowledge base. The same goes for the broadsheet headlines and ledes they skim through as they buy coffee in the morning.
I know more than person who believes that the Federal Government was many days late in getting into New Orleans after Katrina hit when Coast Guard helicopters were flying in behind the hurricane two hours later. I have heard more than one confidently say that the total number of people rescued in New Orleans was just about a thousand or two when that number is closer to 50,000. I know more than a few who still believe that Bush could have just sent the National Guard into New Orleans but he did not to do so because he was too busy enjoying his holiday in Crawford.
I have heard more than a few arguing seriously that the President was well aware that Saddam Hussein had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction during the Clinton era but that he lied to Congress so he could take the country to war. And of course, when a brave "diplomat" exposed his "lies", his Administration revealed his CIA agent wife's undercover identity, which put her life in jeopardy. And, yes, Joe Wilson can be trusted because he is a Republican.
I have overheard one of my colleagues telling another that Bush had secretly ordered the NSA to eavesdrop on American citizens, in particular, leading Democrats and war opponents. If not, why did he sign it in secret and only tell his fellow Republicans in Congress about it?
I know one guy who believes that the Administration has abandoned the Geneva Conventions in their entirety. This would be so that American troops and Intelligence agents can pull out toe nails, smash hammers on toes and attach electric cables to genitals during interrogations. Abu Ghraib was no more than soldiers getting caught while carrying out orders from above. And of course, this is what is actually happening in Gitmo.
I distinctly remember around June of last year, one of the ladies I work with, who had actually just gotten a raise at the time, loudly complaining about the country's "messed up" economy. Lots of people were in agreement with her, complaining about the high unemployment, falling stock market, growing deficit, high inflation, falling wages, etc. all supposedly caused by tax cuts and Bush's economic policies.
I have learned that the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps have not been able to meet their recruitment and retention numbers for three years (since the Iraq War began) and that they are supposedly at approximately 75% of their strength since Clinton left the White House - I actually heard a guy say it with a sickly worried look on his face. Another guy chimed in with the story of how Rumsfeld told a soldier to sit down and shut up when he asked for better armor.
Where did they get this "information" from? They "picked it up" from the TV last night. From the newspaper downstairs. From the magazine on the rack in the cafetaria. And what is strange about all this is that these men and women are really not political at all and we hardly ever talk politics in the office. I admit that a large number still don't really care much, but of those who have taken more of an interest in politics - enough to make me certain that they would vote in 2006, the majority of them are those who believe the stuff above.
As a sidenote, I believe Katrina was the turning point. Once the story became settled, thanks to constant repetition by the nation's major newspapers and network news, that the President dithered while New Orleans drowned, what they had once dismissed as crazy e.g. any variant of BushLied™, suddenly became easier to believe.
The thing is that I know that some of the folks I am talking about above voted for Bush in 2000 and even in 2004 - this is just some of what I remember being discussed from 2004 till date. Most are still not truly political. But considering what they believe to be true today, how many of them do you think voted Republican in 2006?
I can still remember when, in the late 1980's, the press came out and concluded that the correct and unbiased terms in the abortion debate were pro-choice and anti-abortion. I happened to be watching ABC and learned this from Peter Jennings.
That dispute settled once and for all, the media went on with their "unbiased" reporting.
How did the Repubs do so well in 2002 and 2004 if 90% of the media is so bias toward the other side? My answer....the media isn't as powerful as you make it out to be. The public's poor opinion of the war in Iraq and the Federal response to Katrina has more to do with what is happening in Iraq or what happened in LA than with how it is/was reported by the MSM.
You think that constantly lying about Katrina and the GWOT helped shape discussion of the issue in a positive manner?
The public's poor opinion of the war in Iraq and the Federal response to Katrina has more to do with what is happening in Iraq or what happened in LA than with how it is/was reported by the MSM.
How does the public know anything about either of those things except for through the media? Most people cannot develop first-hand knowledge of such things. Claiming the public is actually making informed decisions based upon the "facts" assumes that everything they are being told is a) accurate and b) not slanted.
So, if someone believes such absurdities as Bush was somehow responsible for Katrina, or that FEMA was somehow responsible for Katrina, or that there were rapes in the Superdome, how did they come to such idiotic beliefs? Obviously, I should think, through media reporting.
Claiming that there is no bias because that people are just reacting to the "facts" is circular reasoning. How do the people get the "facts"? Who decides which "facts" to report?
100% of the human population of the planet Earth is bias. That doesn't mean they are wrong. You can certainly think that the Federal response to Katrina was adequate but to claim that most of the country doesn't agree with you because the MSM lied to them seems more like a conspiracy theory than a valid argument.
They lied (or should I say sensationalized) the story early and often.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
At this point FEMA and Bush get the blame for how money disbursement from the feds is moving forward. The media isn't really reporting that the feds allocate the money, but the state makes the plan for how it is spent and disperses it (can't remember now the bill that provided the funds, but apparantly the board set up by the Louisianna democratically run government hasn't been running the program very well).
And it is this kind of shoddy reporting that is a problem. Even if it doesn't neccessarily swing a vote, it can create a more negative perception, especially on things like approval/dissaproval polls.
and their motive was to hurt Bush. They did.
What they did was worse than lying. They printed rumor that they fronted as fact, like the dead people in the freezer in the dome, etc., and worked very hard to exonerate both Nagin and Blanco when the problems were, in fact, caused by their uselessness.
When the facts came out they either ignored them or printed "yeah but" stories.
Katrina was every bit as bad as Iraq. It's agenda journalism at it's worst.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Now they may not have actively thought "hey let's tell a bunch of lies about Bush" but more their were predisposed to believe the lies, and didn't bother with much fact checking.
When the lies were revealed to be lies, then rather than do a complete me culpa, they buried the correction, or made excuses.
I don't always think this kind of bias is deliberately calculated, but the bias itself leads them to see what they want. Other times there is a deliberate calculations-Rathergate being a good example, and that episode makes me wonder if the media was caught out with Rathergate, how many times did they do similar and get away with it.
"The media got some things wrong but that isn't the same thing as lying about it."
are you familiar with the phrase
"Bush Lied, People Died"
I believe there is a double standard at work here.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
but the media's liberal bias has been a given since, at least, the days of Alger Hiss and the Holywood Ten when fellow travelers (like Drew Pearson) and outright spies (like I. F. Stone) felt sorry for their pals in the CP.
Was this unknown to the Bush administration before they launched the invasion of Iraq? Did they not factor this reality into their plans? The poor, slanted coverage of our military's efforts to which you refer should not have been a surprise to any cognizant human being who has lived in this country over the past sixty years.
It is too late, IMO, to call out the reporters and force them to disclose their biases, a la the proposal laid out by Agnew and Safire (although it could also have been Pat Buchanan). The president's approval ratings are far too low; the MSM (which now includes the likes of Jon Stewart) smell blood. Direct challenges of them (by GWB or Tony Snow, assunming he has the stomach for such a brawl) simply will not work at this late stage.
The WH's media strategy (which has been an integral part of presidential leadership since, at least, FDR) has been a disaster. Blaming the liberal media now -- no matter how accurate the assertion -- will not fix that problem.
... but we're of one mind here.
Most of Bush's problems with the polls and support for his policies lie with his abysmal communications operation.
See my Letter to Josh Bolten and my rant against the GOP's communications problem.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
I wouldn't mind a direct challenge strategy. It is similar to reasoning that we shouldn't attack Al Qaeda in fear of retaliation and stirring them up. However, doing nothing will just allow them to grow undeterred. Actually Bush's last 2 years would be a fine time to set that in motion. Bush cannot do much more "damage" w/ regard to the MSM. I think a concerted effort to directly challenge the MSM like Snow did would do wonders for Bush's legacy. It'd just take 15-20 yrs for the rest of us to acknowledge it (similar to Reagan).
Doing nothing about obvious media bias gives the message to the public that the media is indeed legitimate. Even though WE know it was brave, Tony Snow apologizing to gregory (small g small mind) showed a sign of weakness and legitimized gregory in much of the publics' mind. Most of the public does not view the MSM w/ the skepticism and questioning as posters on this forum.
The options aren't necessarily either launch an overt war on the media or do nothing, but do a better job killin em w/ kindness and facts meanwhile bypassing them.
Conservative administrations need to communicate directly to the people and bypass the press corp regurgitation w/ a spin.
Bush needs to be on the air weekly on TV and radio much more often.
The internet can reach new younger audiences. Posting video and audio direct from the source online will alow more people to get the communication first hand w/out the bias introduced when reading excerpts in an article in a paper or online.
Conservatives cannot let the media continue on its course. The media has to be challenged as well as bypassed with more direct communication. Continuously having to paddle upstream gets old.
I am sick and tired of the elitist journalists trying to tell me the meaning of what was just said w/ their own spin and interpretation. Seeing the original speech then reading an MSM article or dumbing down debriefing on the same speech often makes me wonder, did we even see the same speech? Or MSM making excuses for their own liberal buffoons screwing up "He was very clear. What he really meant was.." ala Jon Kary. If he was very clear why do we need you to translate, spin and dumb it down for us?
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
There is no question that perception has a great deal to do with "reality". Did anyone doubt after the Foley story broke that he had been having sex with minors and that many high ranking republicans not only knew about it but knew it and kept it quiet? Well there were doubters but we were stupid. Hell it's still called a sex scandel, but alas there was no sex and there is no doubt that Foley impacted quite a few races.
Oh yes and let's all remember the thousands of bodies floating around New Orleans left to rot with no one to care about them. So the reporters were off a few thousand, obviously there were no "news" reports about that, they were BS heresay and THAT is the substance of much of todays "reporting", hard to call it news reporting.
It's like the ingredients to popular snack foods, picking an ingredient and increasing it's content by 1,000,000 times and killing mice with it to show it's unsafe.
Or like Mike Ross on Dateline during an investigative report to show how dangerous a vehicle can be but leaving out the bit that they planted the explosives. No reporter would do something like that now would they? It sure looked like that GM truck blew up during a low speed impact but let's ask Mike Ross who was holding the remote for the explosives, in all honesty it probably wasn't him BUT he sure knew about it and after GM sued Mike was looking for a new job.
But the perception was planted and GM faced countless lawsuits over fuel tanks following the report.
Reporters try to drive perception and that's seemingly what they are good at and work towards.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
After reading this post, "The GOP & The Press [2] - Establishing New Ground Rules," I got to thinking. If Spiro Agnew were to give his famous "Television News Coverage " speech, delivered 13 November 1969, Des Moines, IA, after president Bush addresses the nation about his new Iraq strategy-what would he say?
These are edited excerpts from that 1969 speech. Forgive me for taking the liberty in editing it to fit current events. The bold words have been edited to better represent our time in history.
This is to be read in the context that a week ago Monday, the president gave his speech on his new Iraq strategy. You can read the original speech, unedited, in its entirety by going to AmericanRehtoric.com. This is lengthy, but it rings so true even today.
Ladies and Gentleman, Vice President Spiro Theodore Agnew:
I think it's obvious from the cameras here that I didn't come to discuss illegal immigration or ethics reform. I have a subject which I think it of great importance to the American people. Tonight I want to discuss the importance of the television, internet and print news medium to the American people. No nation depends more on the intelligent judgment of its citizens. No medium has a more profound influence over public opinion. Nowhere in our system are there fewer checks on vast power. So, nowhere should there be more conscientious responsibility exercised than by the MSM. The question is, "Are we demanding enough of our news presentations?" "And are the men and women of this medium demanding enough of themselves?"
Monday night a week ago, President Bush delivered the most important address of his Administration, one of the most important of our generation. His subject was Iraq. My hope, as his at that time, was to rally the American people to see the conflict through to a lasting and just peace in the Middle East. For 32 minutes, he reasoned with a nation that has suffered almost 20,000 killed or wounded in the most difficult war in its history.
When the President completed his address -- an address, incidentally, that he spent weeks in the preparation of -- his words and policies were subjected to instant analysis and querulous criticism. The audience of 70 million Americans gathered to hear the President of the United States was inherited by a small band of network and cable television commentators and self-appointed analysts, the majority of whom expressed in one way or another their hostility to what he had to say.
It was obvious that their minds were made up in advance. Those who recall the fumbling and groping that followed President Clinton's dramatic disclosure of his intentional lie about having sex with Monica Lewinski have seen these men and women in a genuine state of nonpreparedness. This was not it.
One commentator twice contradicted the President’s statement about the exchange of correspondence with Iran and Syria. Another challenged the President’s abilities as a politician. A third asserted that the President was following a Neocon line. Others, by the expressions on their faces, the tone of their questions, and the sarcasm of their responses, made clear their sharp disapproval.
To guarantee in advance that the President’s plea for national unity would be challenged, one network trotted out Representative John Murtha (D - PA) for the occasion. Throughout the President's address, he waited in the wings. When the President concluded, Rep. Murtha recited perfectly. He attacked the Iraq Government as unrepresentative; he criticized the President’s speech for various deficiencies; he twice issued a call to the House and the Senate to debate Iraqonce again; he stated his belief that the Terrorists or Al Qaeda did not really want Islamic revolution take-over of Iraq; and he told a little anecdote about a “very, very responsible” fellow he had met in the Iranian delegation.
All in all, Rep. Murtha offered a broad range of gratuitous advice challenging and contradicting the policies outlined by the President of the United States. Where the President had issued a call for unity, Rep. Murtha was encouraging the country not to listen to him.
A word about Mr. Murtha. Few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator." Like Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner, Mr. Murtha seems to be under some heavy compulsion to justify his failures to anyone who will listen. And the MSM have shown themselves willing to give him all the air time he desires.
Now every American has a right to disagree with the President of the United States and to express publicly that disagreement. But the President of the United States has a right to communicate directly with the people who elected him, and the people of this country have the right to make up their own minds and form their own opinions about a Presidential address without having a President’s words and thoughts characterized through the prejudices of hostile critics before they can even be digested.
When Winston Churchill rallied public opinion to stay the course against Hitler’s Germany, he didn’t have to contend with a gaggle of commentators raising doubts about whether he was reading public opinion right, or whether Britain had the stamina to see the war through. When President Kennedy rallied the nation in the Cuban missile crisis, his address to the people was not chewed over by a roundtable of critics who disparaged the course of action he’d asked America to follow.
The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men and women who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every Presidential address, but, more importantly, wield a free hand in selecting, presenting, and interpreting the great issues in our nation. First, let’s define that power.
At least 40 million Americans every night, it’s estimated, watch the network and, or cable news. Seven million of them view A.B.C., the remainder being divided between N.B.C., CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and C.B.S. According to Harris polls and other studies, for millions of Americans these outlets are the sole source of national and world news. In Will Roger’s observation, what you knew was what you read in the newspaper. Today for growing millions of Americans, it’s what they see, hear and read from the MSM.
Now how is this MSM news determined? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen anchormen, commentators, and executive producers, settle upon the 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that’s to reach the public. This selection is made from the 90 to 180 minutes that may be available. Their powers of choice are broad.
They decide what 40 to 50 million Americans will learn of the day’s events in the nation and in the world. We cannot measure this power and influence by the traditional democratic standards, for these men can create national issues overnight. They can make or break by their coverage and commentary a moratorium on the war in Iraq. They can elevate men from obscurity to national prominence within a week.[See Valerie Plame or Joe Wilson] They can reward some politicians with national exposure and ignore others.
For millions of Americans the MSM reporter who covers a continuing issue -- like the GWOT or "Global Warming" -- becomes, in effect, the presiding judge in a national trial by jury.
It must be recognized that the MSM have made important contributions to the national knowledge -- through news, documentaries, and specials. They have often used their power constructively and creatively to awaken the public conscience to critical problems. The networks made healthcare and social security national issues overnight. The MSM have done what no other medium could have done in terms of dramatizing the horrors of war. The networks have tackled our most difficult social problems with a directness and an immediacy that’s the gift of their medium. They focus the nation’s attention on its environmental abuses -- on pollution in the Great Lakes and the threatened ecology of the Everglades. But it was also the networks that elevated Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson from obscurity to national prominence.
Nor is their power confined to the substantive. A raised eyebrow, an inflection of the voice, a caustic remark dropped in the middle of a broadcast can raise doubts in a million minds about the veracity of a public official or the wisdom of a Government policy. One Federal Communications Commissioner considers the powers of the networks equal to that of local, state, and Federal Governments all combined. Certainly it represents a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history...
Read on www.AmericanRehtoric.com
but we can know in advance that this speech would (and will) be exactly accurate, even though none of it has happened yet.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
The Non-Coverage of Sandy Berger's theft and deliberate coverup of his theft of classified NA documents is another textbook example of how the media in this country simply doesn't cover stories when the bad actor is a Democrat.
Let's compare and contrast the amount of coverage that Berger's actual larceny received in comparison to the coverage or Plamegate.
The common ground that liberal and conservative should be able to agree on are contained in our Constitution's preamble: "...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...". In other words, the noble goals under our mutual agreement are universal prosperity and maximum freedom.
A key disagreement between the two sides is the proper role of Government as a vehicle in achieving these goals.
Conservatives (like me) argue that Government, through its primary agent Bureaucracy, has no conscience and no common sense. Its quest for "fairness" leaves no room for individuality. It is a slave to the Lowest Common Denominator. When Government needs a scalpel, its only tool is a meat ax. To top it all off, every Bureaucracy's #1 goal is not to serve the People, but to serve itself, and grow.
Liberals generally argue in favor of expanding Government's role. Government is an agent for good and constructive change. Government is fair. Government treats everyone equally. Government buys in quantity, and is therefore efficient. Capitalists can't be trusted to protect the People's interest. The marketplace is way too chaotic and risky to be entrusted with the People's welfare.
I've tried two or three different times to write a diary on the political impact of the Steinbeck novel (and John Ford movie) Grapes of Wrath. The story was powerful propaganda (which is not to take a position on its accuracy). It clearly advocates for Government as protector of the People from the predation of capital and landowners. Its politics influenced the beliefs of a generation, maybe two.
Ultimately, Liberalism won the day. Government ascended to the role of Protector of the Little Man, keeping the bankers and the corporations at bay, while guaranteeing a dignified and prosperous retirement to all.
Somewhere in the 70 years since the New Deal, though, something went wrong. There are still kids who won't be educated; the problem is not that we haven't spent enough money. There is still a persistent, hardened underclass, 40 years after the Great Society. We're not sure how we're going to make good on our commitments all the entitlement programs we've initiated. Year after year, Government grows, our freedoms erode, and few problems are solved.
Each side of the debate spends too much time and energy demonizing the other as Bad People, questioning the fundamental goals and motives of the Other Side. Yes, there are irreconcilable philosophical differences between the two sides, and perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree about those. But fundamentally, we need to keep faith in the essential goodness of (most) people, and work together toward more pragmatic, results-oriented progress.
It is time, in particular, to put to rest the blood libel on the American people that they are cowards who no longer have the stomach to wage war. Given the information most voters received, the only wonder about November's results is that the Dems' margins are so tiny. You are exactly right. People vote with the information they have, and politics interest only a narrow slice of the public. Given that reality, 24/7 propaganda had a real impact, particularly with regard to the Iraq War, and voters responded accordingly.
In a few years, alternative outlets will start to balance out the MSM. That still remains an election cycle or two away, so we have to work harder to get out accurate information than the other side in the meantime.