SubscribeJesus, this statement is so ... distastefully, pompously elitist. I don't know which is worse, the implication that someone who's a high school dropout can never really make something of himself, or the implication that someone who didn't go to J-school should never be considered a real journalist, no matter how much on-the-job training he may undertake.
Yes, PJ is a high school dropout. Yes, he's a liberal. But anyone who questions his journalistic credentials doesn't have a clue what journalistic credentials are. After a disastrous stint as "boy anchorman" for ABC back in the 60s, he realized he didn't have what it takes, and then spent the next couple of decades busting his ass off to make sure that he did.
Former head of CNN Rick Kaplan has also admitted...
Though ljr didn't mention it, Kaplan is also a Friend of Bill, and several times during his tenure as CNN prez he personally ordered that news which portrayed Bill Clinton in a negative light be kept off the air.
in fact, as has been shown, corporations control the TV stations...
True, but then I don't recall anyone ever questioning this.
...and thus tilt heavily to the Right.
Untrue, as there are exceedingly few examples of corporations directly interfering in the actions of journalists under their employ. The few examples that do exist almost always have something to do with stories about the company itself, and in such cases the story always ends up getting reported by outlets belonging to the companies' competitors anyway.
Other than Geraldo, how many examples of left of center voices are really present?
Well, herein lies the rub. If your own personal politics are somewhere over in Socialist Workers Party territory, then yes, everything you see and read in American mainstream journalism is probably going to be "right-wing" by your standards. But by the standards of mainstream American opinion, 90% of the reporters personally identify themselves as left-of-center, and that comes out in their reporting ... without any interference from their corporate ownership.
Also recently, Newsweek managing editor Evan Thomas admitted the national press is liberal:
We launder our views through, quote, ‘objective critics.’ And certainly the press is pretty green, the press is pretty pro-environment and I don’t think there’s any question that they, as a body, feel that Bush is wrong on the environment ... I’m excluding the conservative press — the Weekly Standard and so forth — but generally the press is pretty green and they’re going to use the Europeans to take the Bushies to task."
First, the quote as it appears on MRC's site- they selectively misquoted him- suggests that the Newsweek editor acknowledges the press' general 'green' slant- a slant shared by a significant majority of the country it might be noted. Also note MRC's extremely biased diction in framing those excerpted quotes (shaggy-haired enviro-wackos, et al). However, even if Thomas is saying what MRC wants you to think he's saying, being personally slanted on one issue does not a liberal bias make. But as for what Evan Thomas actually said: the general topic of discussion this quote was taken from was the European media. Howard Kurtz, a moderator of the discussion (and IMO biased right-ward and Bush-friendly) on CNN's Reliable Sources made a digression to ask Evan Thomas of Newsweek if the US media was using their coverage of European coverage to take Bush to task on the environment. Evan Thomas appears to conced that as opposed to the US media directly criticizing the president themselves, they've opted to use coverage of European press reactions as a sort of shield to indirectly criticize the president. Now, to my reading, this hardly argues as bias but rather argues that the press has become too fearful of directly confronting or challenging those who occupy the corridors of power- a detriment to democracy no matter who's particular agenda benefits. Oh, but don't take my word for it, or MRC's- just read the transcript here.
And just what is the "Media Research Center", and what drew Aaron to visit that site for the link he provided?
Opposes any traces of liberalism on TV or in films. Chairman L. Brent Bozell III [William Buckley's nephew- Hal] publishes the newsletter TV, ETC., with an advisory board that includes Elliot Abrams, Mona Charen, Pete DuPont, and Rush Limbaugh.Source: Media Transparency
Also, check out the sources of funding for MRC- a veritable Who's Who of the purse string holders for the right-wing "think"-tank conglomerate, such as the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Olin Foundation, and the Bradley foundation, which also fund such pillars of unbiased agenda-less "research" and "activism" as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. Not to mention the Scaife Foundation's involvement with the Arkansas Project at the American Spectator... hmmm... could it be a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy at work? :)
posted by hincandenza at 1:34 AM on July 8, 2001
Besides that, 3 critical points need to be made:
1) There is a big distinction between bias and belief- belief is a personal creed, while bias is the acting on that creed. For example, a particular ER doctor might think gang members are the scum of society, but if one gets shot and ends up in that doctor's ER, he will treat the patient impartially and with the best of his or her ability- it's his Hippocratic oath. So while that doctor holds personal "beliefs" about the person in question and the choices they may have made, they aren't "biased" against the patient. Journalists can and do follow the same principle- so simply showing evidence of who they voted for or what they personally believe doesn't prove or demonstrate that they are actually biased- that their news coverage consistently betrays their personal slant.
2) Also, when talking about "journalists", we need to distinguish between the punditocracy/ talking head crowd- those who generate great personal wealth from their fame, who command the ear of the inside-the-beltway crowd- and the cadre of plebeian journalists diligently working hard without much recognition in countless large and small newspapers around the country. While these many journalists may tend to the left, they represent the vast serfdom of journalism; meanwhile, the opulent minority of big-money "journalists" (who tend heavily rightward) are far fewer in number but exert great power in determine the stories that are even covered- these pompous folk hardly represent typical journalistic beliefs.
3) Oh yeah, and lastly, the Roper Center of the study mentioned above received $214,000 from the right-wing Bradley Foundation in the years 1996-1997. You know where to look...
posted by hincandenza at 3:32 PM on July 8, 2001
« Older When animals do what comes naturally... | Demented baby bent on world do... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
ABC? Hardly a bastion of middle of the orad and/or left leaning...in fact, as has been shown, corporations control the TV stations and thus tilt heavily to the Right, as also happens pretty much with other media. Other than Geraldo, how many examples of left of center voices are really present?
posted by Postroad at 3:14 PM on July 7, 2001