Monday night brought a bumper crop harvest of media bias. No sooner had noticed the O'Reilly Passion flap then I also stumbled into this rather stunning admission of bias posted on ABCNews.com's "The Note", their "ABC News Political Unit."
Well, nice of ABC News to warn us their political coverage will be biased.
Content
(All emphases mine...)
[L]et us tell you again what we tried to say yesterday.
Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.
They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions."
They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories.
More systematically, the press believes that fluid narratives in coverage are better than static storylines; that new things are more interesting than old things; that close races are preferable to loose ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow.
The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war -- in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies.
It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending.
It remains fixated on the unemployment rate.
It believes President Bush is "walking a fine line" with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between "tolerance" and his "right-wing base."
It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him -- and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base.
Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard stories play right to the press's scandal bias -- not to mention the bias towards process stories (grand juries produce ENDLESS process!).
And the threat:
The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race.
That means the President's communications advisers have a choice:
Try to change the storyline and the press' attitude, or try to win this election without changing them.
Analysis
Shocking.
Not a lightly veiled threat, either.
Bush: Get with the program, support policies which use the government to conform society to a liberal worldview concerning guns, homosexuality, and religious freedom. Or we will bury you in bad publicity. Good luck winning the election then.
Note that the economic theory underlying this coup d'etat is obviously wrong in ways a child could detect:
[M]ore taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth
(Of course: increased social spending and discouraging investment "doesn't have a negative effect" on growth! No, of course not: CEOs will invest the same regardless of their rate of return. Money for "social spending" grows on trees; it isn't harvested from the economy.)
Note also how the author promises that he and his peers will not let hard facts speak for themselves, but will instead sell their particular spin to the public using emotion-based storylines fed to them from left-leaning special interest groups:
[We believe that] emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories.
And note that there is a threat to label and depict conservative positions, even when shared by the mainstream (like gay marriage) as "conservative positions" while presenting liberal positions as though they was common sense and everyone agreed, without similarly labelling them as "liberal":
[We have] a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions."
And, as if the message weren't already crystal clear, the author follows the previous threats with this crowing assertion and reminder of the raw power of the press:
On the strength of all the negative coverage of the President and all his own positive coverage, Sen. Kerry heads into today's twin primaries on a roll.
Translation: See what we can do? Remember that AWOL thing? And the way we didn't cover the similarly-credible Kerry-affair rumors? Capiche?
Wake up folks. There's a huge filter through which much of our information is passed called "big media," and it has a definite bias and a definite agenda for changing society, and no economic common sense.
Wake up.
Ah, so anyone who misunderstands an article like that is... a moron? I don't think so, but let's see how you stack up, by your own judgements.
First, you apparently didn't even bother to read the article about which you are opining so authoratively. Had you done so, you would have noticed the opening remark:
The first version published of yesterday's Note included what was intended as a SATIRICAL report of a fictional ABC News/Washington Post poll. No such poll was conducted. The questions and results listed were not from a real poll.... on this day, let us tell you again what we tried to say yesterday.
So what was this 'satirical' poll the previous day? It was a fake-but-accurate poll (see here) making the point that the Washington press corps (a) didn't buy the idea tax cuts would help the economy, and (b) didn't buy into the President's stated rationale for Iraq.
According to you, the authors of the note were UNHAPPY with the idea other reporters thought this way. Really? So the reporters who wrote this were a bunch of CONSERVATIVES who were unhappy with biased coverage in the media?
Really: What starship did you just step off?
Look at the list of authors. #1 on the list: Mark Halprin. The same Mark Halprin who wrote this memo to his staff, essentially instructing them to use their position to help Kerry any way they could:
Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.
We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.
I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.
It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.
Or was that too subtle for you to comprehend, also? That Kerry's distortions are not "essential" but Bush's supposedly are? Kerry lies, but that's not a real problem? That we don't need to hold both sides "equally" accountable for such lies? (Note the quotes around the idea of fair coverage and access -- because of course, we know which side is on the side of truth and which side are nothing but liars, so to treat them the same would be, you know, unequal. (You may agree, but it's still a bias.)) That you, my staff, need to "step up to the plate" and use our powers of journalism, our "skill" and "strength" to "help voters" and know how to think about each candidate?
Yeah, sounds like he's really complaining about bias in the media doesn't it? Yup, a real stalwart conservative, that Mark Halprin. He sure is saying the media should just report the story, not tell the listeners what to think, right?
Suuuuure he is!
And then, of course, there's the tone. If I said, to an old storekeeper: "My cousin Guido's gonna beat you up until you pay him protection money! So what's it gonna be??!" would you think I was "complaining" about my cousin Guido?
Of course not! For one, complaints about my cousin Guido would be directed at -- well, Guido. Or perhaps the police. Or someone else who could reign him in. Or the public at large.
So this complaint about media bias is directed at... ??? The Bush administration. The would-be victims, not someone who could do something about it, like ABC itself, the FCC, the FEC, or the public.
And the tone is identical to the example I used:
So we ask again: What's it going to be, Ken, Karen, Mary, Terry, Nicole, and Dan? [Bush's advisers.]
That's quite a headline in the Los Angeles Times: "Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas." (Link)
And the Washington Post story filled with quotes from Republican-leaning business people who have politically soured on the President is quite striking. (Link)
As is the Wall Street Journal piece despoiling the Medicare reform law before it event takes effect.
On the strength of all the negative coverage of the President and all his own positive coverage, Sen. Kerry heads into today's twin primaries on a roll.
"That's quite a disaster over at your neighbor's house there. He didn't pay the protection money either. At look up the street at old Mrs. Smith, in the wheelchair. Can be awful tough without someone to protect you, eh?"
Yeah, to you, that's a complaint about the awfulness of the mob. To the rest of us, it's extortion, plain and simple.
So I doubt I've convinced you that you've completely misintrepted the article, and thus, by your own judgement, are a moron. No doubt, in your own mind, you're still finding some way to see this as Mark Halprin complaining bitterly about how the media has been treating Bush unfairly, and how he dearly wants that changed. In your mind, Halprin's probably a die-hard Republican and Bush supporter, or at least a fair-minded journalist who thinks it would be horrible if a journalist tries to shape the news reporting for political ends.
Liberals will to go any extreme, you see, to keep from noticing the obvious when it's right in front of them. Aaron, I don't think you're a moron. I think you're a liberal. A moron can't help it. A liberal knows better, but chooses deliberate blindness -- often for moral/pychological reasons -- which gives the moron a distinct advantage: The moron can always learn. But no one is as blind as he who simply will not see.
So, um, now you can forgive yourself for being a moron (by your standards), and say you were wrong for calling yourself that. Because I don't think it's worth insulting someone just because they can't read very closely.
Perhaps that's a lesson you'll learn some day.
wowsa, thanks for throwing up this 'red flag.' I've always been under the impression that news media is vastly liberal, and has no qualms about broadcasting/printing biased and jaded news. But this really gets me - I've always heard that "the news conglomerates are government propaganda puppets & are sooooooooo conservative!" It's good to actually point out a 'confession' of sorts that this is not the case ... rather, they are liberal, only not liberal enough. Hence the frothing and gnashing of teeth.
You've got a great blog here, T.
Posted by: ploon on February 20, 2004 11:59 AM