I’ve been thinking about perceptions of media bias ever since my March spot as a guest on Tom Graham’s “Insight.” The topic has come up in nearly every occasion since then when I’ve been interviewed, sat on a panel or addressed an audience. Liberals want to know why conservatives regard balanced media outlets as liberal. Conservatives want to know why so many media outlets are so outrageously biased. This despite study after study demonstrating that, on the whole, nearly every major media outlet in the nation consistently presents news in a manner that is politically unbiased.
Though I’ve proven time and time again to be incapable of providing a useful response to these questions, I have heard enough good responses from fellow panelists and guests to have a sort of a working theory that explains the dichotomy.
A central element of conservatism is the idea of absolute truths. There are rights and wrongs that transcend all cultures, religions and languages. Those who do not believe this (ie, liberals) are labeled moral relativists. The idea that there are multiple perspectives that are valid, or at least worthy of consideration, is antithetical to conservatism. There can only be one truth.
A hallmark of modern media is the presentation of multiple perspectives, with the reader left to determine the merits of each viewpoint. This is perhaps best captured by National Public Radio’s array of talk shows, such as The Diane Rehm Show and Talk of the Nation. Rehm often has two guests who disagree utterly on fundamental topics (Bush’s War in Iraq, gay marriage, flag burning, etc.) and allows each of them to present their side. The listener is left to determine who presents the better argument.
To a centrist or a liberal, this is simply smart radio — the listener gets to figure things out for himself, rather than have his opinions spoon-fed to him. But to a conservative, this is simply “the liberal MSM” at work. This baffles liberals; after all, half of the time was spent on presenting an extremely conservative perspective. To conservatives, though, the other half being given equal weight makes it inherently liberal, because it’s simply not reasonable to pretend that two equal perspectives are both correct, as must be inherent in taking the time to present both of them.
This present-all-perspectives approach is at its least useful in coverage of global climate change, which often presents the claims of a lone nut as being as valid as the facts established by tens of thousands of environmental researchers. Though this approach can lead to hilarious effect — look no further than Chris Mooney’s calm-yet-savage disassembly of Tom Bethell’s anti-science loonery on last week’s “Science Friday.” (Mooney is the author of “The Republican War on Science,” and Bethell is the editor of American Spectator.)
The point of this is not to say that conservatives are wrong in their perspective. In fact, hewing closely to the approach of my media brethren, I welcome this alternate viewpoint of morality and truth, though I clearly side on the side of relativism. I do think, though, that extending this worldview to conclude that balanced journalism is therefore wildly liberal is taking things beyond the reaches of logic.
I welcome any alternate suggestions as to the origins of the conservative viewpoint that demonstrably balanced news is flamingly liberal. If Fox News’ plummeting ratings are any indicator, perhaps some conservatives are finally wising up.
I firmly believe that the conservatives who rant on and on about how liberal the media leans know very well that the most media is pretty balanced, or leans slightly towards the corporate ownership’s interests.
They also, very shrewdly, know exactly how to reach and motivate their base. One of the most effective ways is to make their base feel like victims and then sympathize by creating completely false accusations of liberal conspiracies. Hell, I wish we lefties were so well organized as to build a solid conspiracy or two…
Creating the illusion of victimization is wonderful for generating espirit de corps and getting people to work really hard at seemingly impossible tasks. What does it matter how much effort has been put into a project so long as it is seen as “fighting the good fight” and seen is the key operative here. It is an extraordinarily effective technique, but I am convinced it is ultimately doomed to failure.
The fundamental principal I operate under is that we are all fully capeable of being enlightened. None of us is a victim, not any more that we allow ourselves to be. Eventually we all wake up and see things how they really are, and we then take responsibility for our own actions. That taking responsibility thing is the key. For that is true freedom. Nothing short of being aware of your own environment and taking responsibility for your actions is real freedom.
A lot of people don’t want to be bothered with that responsibility. They are ripe for this tactic. They will easily succomb to the fear, the simpering false sympathy of the “fellow victim” and the bullying of people who cannot and will not accept open debate from opposing viewpoints. It is sad that the currently elected “conservatives” have chosen this well-proven method for drumming up support; because our own history is full of fine examples of conservatives who delighted in an open debate and listened actively to challenges from other viewpoints.
We all learn best when we are listening to something new or opposed to what we previously knew. I think most people understand that, and they are tired of the Fox phenomenon. At least for a while…. Recall that this has all been done before… the “red scare” and “yellow press” journalism. We eventually (as a nation and society) wised up and overcame those doubts and fears.
I guess this goes back to the old debate: do we want objective news, or do we want several subjective sources and allow individuals to come to our own conclusions?
I happen to be a conservative who likes NPR and reads the WaPo, moreso because I know what I believe and enjoy having those ideas challenged. It’s the only way I grow.
Unfortunately there are some people who want to hear only the things with which they agree, liberals and conservatives (and libertarians) alike.
When and if blogs ever break out into presenting several subjective ideas on the news for public consumption (the ultimate marriage between the MSM and the blog), I’ll be interesting to see the hybrid.
Blogs, if anything, seem to make it easier to pay attention only to those sources of information that assure us that what we wish to be true is, in fact, true. Living like that is a happy way to live (I’ve done it), but it’s really unhealthy.
The old “echo chamber” effect – that’s where most blogs are today. I agree with you, Waldo. It is very unhealthy.
After reading Lakoff’s Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think I think it’s a wonder that left and right in this country can manage to keep the roads open and the lights on.
We think it’s immoral to stand by and do nothing when poor people get sick and die unnecessarily, and conservatives think it’s immoral to interfere with a poor person’s motivation to climb the “ladder of success” by providing health care.
[Digression: For Christian conservatives, do they imagine that Jesus would condone withholding food or succor from people in order that they be sufficiently motivated to get it themselves? Just wondering.]
We’d be better off if we spoke two different languages. At least then we wouldn’t labor under the misconception that what’s moral to them is what’s moral to us.
We think it’s immoral to stand by and do nothing when poor people get sick and die unnecessarily, and conservatives think it’s immoral to interfere with a poor person’s motivation to climb the “ladder of success” by providing health care.
Ouch.
Gotta love hyperbole… the eternal mark of the Ugly American.
The claim that the MSM is wildly liberal is and has been for decades just another right-wing talking point. It is designed to marginalize all thought that the Right disagrees with. It wasn’t based in truth when Spiro Agnew first raised the issue to a wide audience, and it isn’t true now.
IMHO the MSM is mostly owned and therefore controlled by people who have a lot more in common with Tom Delay than Michael Moore. With the possible exception of Faux News and certainly CBN, they do sometimes employ a balanced staff which attempts to present two or more sides to many issues. As Waldo correctly pointed out, this is something the Hard Right objects to.
And yes, Janis, I think there are some Christianists who imagine Jesus being just as you described. They have been known to call themselves Compassionate Conservatives.
Your analysis is thought provoking, but as someone with a foot in both liberal and conservative camps, I would characterize the conservative vision of truth differently. A minority of conservatives latch onto fundamentalism and an overlapping set lull themselves into the intellectual laziness to claim that “Rush is right”, despite any evidence to the contrary. Most conservatives I believe more accurately fall into a belief which states that there are manifold ways to be wrong and few to be right. Or, as the Bible instructs, the path of ruin is wide and easy while the path of righteousness is narrow and hard.
The problem is that we all like it when someone packages ideas succinctly. It feels like progress, but misunderstanding has the problem of feeling like knowledge. Personalities like Hannity, Savage and Rush thrive on this emotional hunger and promote themselves as a counter balance to a marketplace of ideas, otherwise called the liberal media.
I happen to find Diane Rehm, Garrison Keilor and most published experts to be reasonable and fair. A measured opinion is a good sign of wisdom, but ambiguity creates mental fatigue. So lets just call it what it is: what plagues much of conservatism today is plain old laziness and the vultures on the AM radio are legion to satisfy their fix.
Waldo, regarding your comment about “balance” about global warming: It might interest you to know what Mr. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, has to say about global warming and the consensus/disagreement of scientists in regard to global warming. It might surprise you to see how representative that “lone nut” is of the legitimate scientific community.
Janis, it is not our fundamentalist/conservative opinion that Jesus would let anyone starve. However, the Bible quite clearly says that he who will not work, shall not eat. Jesus fed those that were unable to feed themselves. He used his personal judgement in each case as to whether the person was able to do so. That latitude is critical in any program in which handouts are given. Unfortunately, the government inherently can’t give that latitude/judgement call in welfare. Jesus also told us that we will always have the poor with us. He realized that no matter how many riches were thrown at the poor, 100% of the poor would never be able to no longer be poor. There will always be the lazy and the unmotivated. I am not saying that there is a single person who cannot be reformed, but rather that they won’t all be reformed at once. I am also not saying that all those that are poor are lazy. Far from it! Some people are hard-working, but poor because of poor money-management skills or circumstances. However, direct handouts are never the answer; they only produce artificiality and form a habit on that artificiality and don’t teach the real skills necessary to deal with real money earned by real labor. My daddy always told me that if I earned something by working for it, I’d appreciate it more. He was right. Also, I tend to waste other people’s stuff more than stuff that I worked hard for. That’s just human nature.
Furthermore, it is not the place of the government to provide charity, but rather that of private organizations, especially the followers of Christ. We can’t send off a check and expect helpful results. Especially with the state of our government and the waste that it commits. The answer is to take our own money, go to our neighbors in need, befriend them, and help them if they need help. There needs to be that personal friendship and connection for that charity (love) to be effective. There’s a reason that the stereotypical scenario of a rich daddy lavishing expensive stuff on his kids, but not spending time with them is not considered true love.
“Jesus fed those that were unable to feed themselves. He used his personal judgement in each case as to whether the person was able to do so. That latitude is critical in any program in which handouts are given.”
Ah, so in his personal judgement, each and every one of the people whom he fed with the fish and loaves he had individually pre-screened as someone who couldn’t feed themselves?
I love Biblical exegesis: you just make stuff up off the top of your head and pretend its the deep meaning of the text that any idiot can see… as long as they hold their Bible at the right angle and squint in precisely the right way…
Hey, if we misspell the Hebrew word for lion so that it says “gouged,” then take “gouged” to mean “pierced” and then pretend that the passage isn’t David talking about himself and has nothing to do with the messiah, by golly, we have a prophecy about the crucifixtion! It’s fun an easy!
“I am also not saying that all those that are poor are lazy. Far from it! Some people are hard-working, but poor because of poor money-management skills or circumstances.”
:rolleyes:
Regarding that Wall Street Journal article that Hans refers to: I googled Prof. Lindzen’s name and discovered an interesting article from a 1995 issue of Harper’s Magazine. (“THE HEAT IS ON: The warming of the world’s climate sparks a blaze of denial” by Ross Gelbspan)
The fact that Lindzen has been paid by oil companies (and OPEC) to disseminate his anti-global-warming opinion is something to keep in mind while reading his latest opinion piece.
Here’s an excerpt from that 1995 article:
“But while the skeptics portray themselves as besieged truth-seekers fending off irresponsible environmental doomsayers, their testimony in St. Paul and elsewhere revealed the source and scope of their funding for the first time.
Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels.
Over the last six years, either alone or with colleagues, Balling has received more than $200,000 from coal and oil interests in Great Britain, Germany, and elsewhere. Balling (along with Sherwood Idso) has also taken money from Cyprus Minerals, a mining company that has been a major funder of People for the West—a militantly anti-environmental “Wise Use” group.
Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled “Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,” was underwritten by OPEC.
Singer, who last winter proposed a $95,000 publicity project to “stem the tide towards ever more onerous controls on energy use,” has received consulting fees from Exxon, Shell, Unocal, ARCO, and Sun Oil, and has warned them that they face the same threat as the chemical firms that produced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a class of chemicals found to be depleting atmospheric ozone. “It took only five years to go from… a simple freeze of production [of CFCs],” Singer has written, “. . . to the 1992 decision of a complete production phase-out—all on the basis of quite insubstantial science.”
The skeptics assert flatly that their science is untainted by funding. Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-funded campaign of denial they have become interchangeable ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation.
Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion through the media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world’s scientific establishment are marginalized.
By keeping the discussion focused on whether there is a problem in the first place, they have effectively silenced the debate over what to do about it.”
The problem with Lindzen isn’t ultimately who pays for his opinions. It’s that his opinions are swamped with contrary data and facts that refute his apologia.
Hans,
It is the place of government to do the will of the people. A significant majority of Americans want the government to engage in a certain amount of charity. We often disagree on how that charity should be divided and on whom should receive it, but there is a firm consensus in this country that programs like WIC and state-sponsored foster care for orphaned children are absolutely what our government should be doing.
Therefore, it *is* the place of government to provide charity. To suggest otherwise would be in opposition to the very notion of democracy. Perhaps what you really mean is that you don’t like the fact that the government engages in charity. Well, I don’t like the fact that the government is still embroiled in a war in Iraq or the fact that it keeps raiding social security to cover the GOP’s defecits. But I would never suggest that it is not the place of government to go to war or to fiddle with the federal budget. It is the government’s place to do these things. I just don’t like the fact that it’s been making the decisions that it has. There’s a difference.
As for whether state-sponsored charity is a good idea, I do suggest that you take a good look at what the world was like before governments got into the charity business. Hell, read something by Charles Dickens. Even in America, children really did starve to death. There were plenty of charities. They were just never able to do enough. Infant mortality was many, many times higher before our government started providing food and health care to children and mothers with no resources of their own. You say that handouts never work? If a government program provides medicine for a nursing mother and keeps her child from starving to death then guess what? It just worked. Handouts of the kind that you so casually dismiss have saved, conservatively, hundreds of thousands of innocent lives over the last 65 years or so. If you think that moving closer to some conservative utopian dreamworld of idealogical purity is more important than saving children’s lives, then I guess that’s your right just like it’s a Marxist’s right to press for irrational policies in order to get closer to *his* crackpot utopian dreamworld of ideological purity. At the end of the day, it doesn’t much matter because the vast majority of Americans want a pragmatical government that does what they want it to do without much regard to purity of ideology, be it left or right. That includes the odd handout.