Liberal Media?

One of the strengths of conservatives is the ability to make themselves and their supporters victims, even when they are in charge. There are numerous ways that this is accomplished. Among these is the ways that gays, blacks, feminists, illegal immigrants, Muslims, liberals and, of course, the media are working to destroy their lives and America itself. This discourse works well because America loves a victim who they can then bitterly rant out against as one of the forces working to undermine their faith, hard work and patriotism. Conservatives rarely focus on the actual source of so many Americans discontent (and diminishing quality of life), their corporate angels. One critique that is used relatively constantly is the charge that the media is liberal and thus constantly working against conservative hegemony. 

I have often written on this topic over the years, but wanted to delve into it against here after the media finally starting paying attention to the Wall Street protests that have now spread across the country. The same can be said of the protests in Wisconsin, the anti-war protests in 2003 (the New York Times actually wrote a story after the first huge DC protest claiming the organizers were upset with the turnout, until those organizers came forward and said they never spoke with that reporter) and the Seattle protests of 1999. So is it true that the media is liberal? I think there was certainly a time when one could make that argument, thinking back to the days of the muckrakers or the time when the Washington Post took down a President. But what of today? Since the 80s, the media has been moving decidedly to the center and even right. Certainly there is a long tradition of arguments against a liberal media bias (Manufacturing Consent being an obvious one), but the charges have become much easier to support in recent years. Beyond the fact that there are now five giant media conglomerates that rule over 90% of what we see, read and hear, is the reality that the media is not comprised of the kind of reporters that once challenged power. The reporters, news chiefs, anchors, editors and pundits are part of the elite now, and thus don't have a real stake in challenging a power system they are a part of.

In fact, the media now fits smugly into that "new managerial class" that scholars starting writing about in the 70s and 80s. At the time, it comprised professors, teachers, government workers, scientists and the like, who were middle class but essentially served the interests of the power elites. That group has grown in power and stature, while it may have actually strunk in size. And the media stands at the forefront today, as the in locus parenti for not only our children but large swaths of the overall population, who are often more interested in who wins American Idol than who their Congressman or even the President is. In fact, it is true that by the late 90s the media was actually to the right of the general public on two key issues: economics and foreign policy; while being to the left of the masses on social and environmental issues (according to a large survey by the Pew Research Institute). This reality actually serves the conservative rhetorical machine perfectly.

The media maintains the perception that they are to the left of center by reporting on stories about social issues and the environment in ways conservatives can attack, while actually supporting wars, the war on terror, tax cuts and the like. In fact, it is really hard to make the argument that the media is liberal at all after 2000, when they offered a completely unsubstantiated argument that the people just wanted a decision in Florida when poll after poll showed the opposite. Lest us forget that three years later, it was the "liberal" New York Times that largely supported the war in Iraq and their own Judith Miller who fooled so many Americans into believing we found Weapons of Mass Destruction. Or consider the specific case of the Saddam Hussein statue being pulled down and how it was covered by CNN in the U.S. versus CNN live. The former just reported the story as symbolic of American victory in Iraq and how much the people their supported our efforts while the latter juxtaposed these images with the actual costs of war -- including children in hospitals with missing limbs, dead bodies and the like. How is this explained? Why would the liberal "CNN" treat Americans differently than the rest of the world? Why were the two best sources for accurate information during the buildup and subsequent period BBC and Al Jazeera? 

The reality is that reality is just an inconvenient truth that can easily be combed over these days. Conservatives are much better at this than liberals and thus the "liberal" media in fact too often supports conservatives in their daily effort to spread anger, fear and victimization to the masses. Liberal media? Only in their grappling with the truth ...