History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
How does it go? One is an isolated incident, two is a coincidence, and three is a trend? Or did I just make something up?
Why is it that those who spew the"liberal media" nonsense (we're talking about folks who apparently aren't good with numbers, because for all of the handwringing, the Wall Street Journal has about the same circulation as the New York Times and Washington Post COMBINED) and who have elevated the alleged sins of Dan Rather beyond all proportion of the alleged crime aren't talking about this? Oh, I bet I know why -- because the administration secretly paying journalists to push their agenda while pretending to be objective does not fit their thesis.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- the idea that"the" media is either liberal or conservative, that a plural ("media") has one identity and one agenda flies in the face of all facts and reason. It might be useful to follow all claims of"liberal media" or" conservative media" with the following: (By which I mean the stuff I do not like. I know there is lots of media out there that is liberal/conservative, but I'd rather pay the '"deck is stacked against me card" by repeating demonstrably false idiocies than deal with complex truths.) If news organizations have an agenda, it is less related to ideology than to profits and self-interest.
(Oh, by the way: I am available to the highest bidder.)
Richard --
I agree -- people who talk about "the conservative media" (the publishers are all conservative! The advertisers are all conservative!) are lying too. Both assertions are lies. They are simplistic answers that are absolutely useless and absolutely untrue.
dc
Richard Henry Morgan -
1/28/2005
Interestingly, I nowhere offered those links as evidence of anything more than examples of people who toss around assertions about conservative media, but are in fact idiots themselves.
Derek Charles Catsam -
1/28/2005
Right, but we disagree about something that is demonstrably probvable in some way -- that i can show as much conservatism in the media shows that the idea that "the media' is liberal is simply wrong. The Wall Street Journal is part of the media. More to the point, according to studies rthat hava analyzed endorsements, more newspapers are conservative than liberal. And since most people trust their local media more than national media, it is simply a fact that newspapers are more conmservative than liberal. But there are so many liberal papers that it wouild be a lie to say that newspapers are on the whole conservative. talk radio -- overwhelmingly conservative. But radio is not a conservative form of media. television? well, look at the number of local stations owned by a conservative force that clearly imposed its will in the 2004 election.
You can claim that we simpy, disagree, but we disagree about something in which you are probvably wrong. And I would never say something as stupid as "the conservative military" for the same reason. If you claim that the media is liberal, you are wrong. If you claim that the media is conservative, you are wrong. period.
the links you sahow do not prove otr disprove squat. they are nopise, nothing more, since they do not prove anything beyond their being cases of media bias, not a preponderance of it. you show plenty of examples of idiocy, none of which have anything to do with what I argued in the post about which we are commenting.
I'll repeat: "the media" is neither conservative nor liberal. To say otherwise is a lie. Not a matter iof interpratation -- when someone can show that there are huge numbers of conservative media outlets, unless you are saying those outlets do not exist, then to say that the media is liberal is to willfully say something when you know the facts show otherwise. It's nice and PC to say that all points are valid. Factually wrong points are not valid no matter how many isolated examples you point to that do nothing to disprove the larger point.
dc
Richard Henry Morgan -
1/28/2005
We disagree. If an academic says the conservative military, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he intends that every single person in the military is conservative, but that conservative fits the military in general (despite the definite article "the). Or the liberal academia -- yes, there are conservative academics. I don't think anybody who uses the expression "the liberal media" is under the misconseption that the Washington Times and The American Rifleman are liberal publications.
When I say it isn't provable, I mean that people wouldn't agree on operational or stipulative definitions, because the terms are so loose. In such cases, there is no proof that both sides would be compelled by evidence to accept.
I could spend a few years detailing the dumb trope as spread by the media but hey, I aspire to a life. I'll leave it to others to decide if they remember that being spread by media.
BTW, here are few examples of strange goings on. Enjoy.
Question. If I find some false proposition that LA Times readers believe more than readers of another media outlet, would that suffice for demonstrating that the LA Times doesn't engage in journalism, but is merely a propagandist? That is, after all, the standard used by Carroll.
Here's a nice one of Kalb tossing around the conservative label, without the kind of evidence demanded when an overall liberal bias is claimed. Note the date. He's praising Rather for attacking the critics of the Bush Memo report as partisan political ideologues. Funny how the evidentiary standard shifts with the thesis. Shame on Kalb for backing Rather's political attack in his unprincipled defense of a fabricated story.
Richard --
Anyone who says "The Liberal Media" is saying that there is one media, effectively. That is what "the" means. "The" refers to a singular. If people are that sloppy, that is their fault, not a fault of my argument. Again, I can find 1000, hell, 10,000 "The Liberal Media" references by conservatives. They are referring to "the" (singular) media, not me. It is their sloppy argumentation, not mine.
Are we really going to get into a "X broke story Y" silliness? Are you going to tell me that CBS has never broken a story that would be critical of liberals/Democrats or supportive of a conservative or republican.
My argument stands -- anyone who argues about "the liberl" media or "the conservative" media IS demonstrabnly wrong, and that they can not use articles properly just seals the deal.
If what you are talking about is "nprovable" does it not prove my point that there is no single liberal or conservative media? Yours is an odd argumentative style -- utilize picayune examples that do nothing to refute the larger point that I have made -- that there is no useful liberal or conservative media argument that holds water. Curious.
Oh -- and forgive me if I do not think that a standardized exam does not prove to me intelligence. i think Kerry scored higher on the SAT's. So what? the Bush is dumb trope is not one that the major media has perpetrated, so bringing it up seems irrelevent. But hey -- that's a good straw man. I mean in addition to your previous one.
dc
Richard Henry Morgan -
1/28/2005
You refute the thesis that the media have one identity and one agenda. I would venture that is a rare position -- in fact, I have trouble finding anyone who said that, though I submit you can probably find somebody somewhere who has -- there is the Flat Earth Society afterall.
But What is fascinating is your claim that FOX is more demonstrably conservative than CBS is liberal. I've heard similar remarks from Carrol of the LA Times, and Kalb of Harvard, both of whom, like you, reject any thesis that their institutions are biased, while at the same time absolving themselves of adducing evidence that FOX is conservative. In Carrol's case, it came only months after he took on his own paper for bias in reporting the politics of abortion.
I don't think the kind of things we're talking about are uncontroversially demonstrable. They may indeed therefore be false. Many things we know in our bones are false. There is no shortage of people who swore up and down that Kerry was smart and Bush an idiot -- right up until the Times (of all papers) reported that Bush had outscored Kerry on the military entry intelligence exam. I would hesitate to adduce this as proof positive of the Times' lack fo bias, for then I'd have to cite the fact that FOX (of all the major networks) broke the Bush DWI story. We're not taliking about categorical claims capable of falsification by single counterinstances. We're talking about matters of degree, something very close to unprovable -- from either side.
Derek Charles Catsam -
1/28/2005
Tom -- it would be inaccurate to say that no one is talking about it, but listening to the rather blather, heads were supposed to roll. the administration was directly involved in this attempt to lie to the readers of these allaged journalists. Where is the comparable outcry that heads should roll? Why does accountability mean that at the Times publishers are supposed to resign, at CBS there should be a widespread purging, but when the administration is directly involved no one is suggesting that there be responsibility at the highest levels of culpability?
dc
Rich Holmes -
1/28/2005
Fox is conservative? But Bill O'Reilly touts himself as an independent, and I have to believe the word of a man who isn't afraid of using the loofah in the shower.
Derek Charles Catsam -
1/28/2005
Except that CBS as not as demonstrably liberal as Fox is conservative. But ok, let's say it is. And who says that the NYT "sets the agenda" because it is liberal, as opposed to because it is good? In other words, the presupposition that it is ideology that is the problem is one in which you carry the burden of proof. Does it set the ideological agenda, or the agenda for what is news? (Oh -- and the WSJ is as conservative in its regular news coverage as the Times is liberal in its news coverage).
But the larger point: I am not building up a straw man. if you think so, take this bet: I will bet you a hundred, no, a thousand, dollars: I can do a google search and get more than a thousand hits in which conservatives use the term "liberal media." A straw man is an argument that people do not actually make. People make the argument that I am refuting all the time. ergo by definition, NOT a straw man. Or do you want to take me up on the bet? If it is a straw man -- that is, if i am arguing against something that no one actually says -- you'll take the bet. the only straw man here is your use of the term straw man. I'm not sure if that is irony, except in an Alanis Morrisette sort of way, but it is interesting.
dc
Tom Bruscino -
1/28/2005
We have argued out the media bias thing before, so let's not go there, but it's not accurate to say that conservatives aren't talking about the payoffs to Williams, Gallagher, and McManus. (Incidental to nothing, but what a waste of money. Those three have to be some of the least effective conservative voices out there.) I did a quick check and found quite a few commentaries on the issue. Of course conservatives are going to put their perspective on the affairs, but Michelle Malkin in particular has been tracking the scandals and the commentary. Here are a few urls:
I think the thesis you've slain, the idea that media have one agenda, looks a lot like a straw man. You can find any number of people in the major television networks, and major local papers, who have gone on the record to say that the NY Times sets their agenda. And the only demonstrably conservative part of the WSJ is its editorial page.
I'm just as amused by those who demand an incredible level of evidence for the thesis that major media, on average, have a liberal bias, while proclaiming out the other side of their mouthes, that FOX has a conservative bias so obvious they're absolved of the responsibility of adducing evidence. Hell, I admit FOX is conservative. God forbid, though, that you'll ever see the great majority admit that CBS is liberal.
BTW, I haven't followed the link, but I did a link claiming that Gallagher took money from the Clinton Administration too. Just for the record.
