| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" |
| Date: |
25 Jun 2007 08:32:08 AM |
| Object: |
New York Times Journalist Ethics Violations... |
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070621134354.aspx
A Spokane, Wash., newspaper has dropped "The Ethicist" column of New York
Times writer Randy Cohen after an MSNBC investigation reported that he had
donated money to the the liberal group MoveOn.org.
"It would by hypocritical of us to run an ethics column by a journalist in
violation of our own ethics policy," Spokesman-Review editor Steven Smith
wrote online.
Cohen was one of 144 media employees cited by MSNBC for donating money to
political groups. Nearly 90 percent of the donations were to Democrats and
other liberal organizations.
*****
But then, there's no evidence of media bias in favor of the liberal left,
right?
.
|
|
| User: "Lamont Cranston" |
|
| Title: Re: New York Times Journalist Ethics Violations... |
26 Jun 2007 10:11:42 AM |
|
|
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <wwilhelm@neonospam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:467fc3d9$0$3158$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070621134354.aspx
A Spokane, Wash., newspaper has dropped "The Ethicist" column of New
York Times writer Randy Cohen after an MSNBC investigation reported
that he had donated money to the the liberal group MoveOn.org.
"It would by hypocritical of us to run an ethics column by a
journalist in violation of our own ethics policy," Spokesman-Review
editor Steven Smith wrote online.
Cohen was one of 144 media employees cited by MSNBC for donating
money to political groups. Nearly 90 percent of the donations were
to Democrats and other liberal organizations.
*****
But then, there's no evidence of media bias in favor of the liberal
left, right?
Yes, there is a media bias and it is decidedly to the right.
www.consortiumnews.com/Print/123102a.html
consortiumnews.com
Price of the 'Liberal Media' Myth
By Robert Parry
January 1, 2003
The notion of a “liberal” national news media is one of
the most enduring and influential political myths of modern U.S.
history. Shaping the behavior of both conservatives and liberals over
the past quarter century, the myth could be said to have altered the
course of American democracy and led the nation into the dangerous
corner it now finds itself.
On one hand, the Right’s long-held conviction that the
media is the enemy helps explain the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude of
many conservatives, plus their motivation for investing billions of
dollars to build a dedicated conservative media. That well-oiled media
machine now stretches from TV networks to talk radio to newspapers to
magazines to books to the Internet – and helps set the U.S. political
agenda.
On the other hand, the endless repetition of the “liberal
media” myth has sedated liberals who have avoided a commitment to
develop a comparable media infrastructure, apparently out of a hope
that one is not needed. Indeed, if an honest history of this era is
ever written, one of the most puzzling mysteries may be why the
American liberal community – with all its wealth and expertise in
communications – sat back while conservatives turned media into a
potent weapon for dominating U.S. politics.
How did conservatives grasp the concept of the “war of
ideas” and the crucial role of media in that battle while liberals
were lulled by the dream that some pendulum would swing back and
return the news media more to the center or left?
Whatever the answer, the “liberal media” myth has proved
so useful to conservatives that they continue to promote it even after
mainstream news organizations – including the New York Times and the
Washington Post – joined in “press riots” over Bill Clinton’s
Whitewater real estate investment and Al Gore’s supposed
exaggerations, trivial issues that paved the way for Clinton’s
impeachment in 1998 and Gore’s loss of the White House in 2000,
respectively.
One view is that the durability of the “liberal media”
myth is a testament to today's conservative media power – that simple
repetition from a wide enough circle of voices will convince a
gullible portion of any population that a lie is the truth. That’s
especially the case when there are few voices arguing to the contrary.
The "liberal media" myth has survived even though at its
center sits a glaring misconception about how news organizations work.
Conservative Argument
The core of the conservative “liberal media” case is that
surveys have shown that a majority of journalists vote Democratic in
presidential elections. Therefore, conservatives argue that a
pro-Democratic bias permeates the American news media. Conservatives
then bolster this claim of liberal bias with anecdotes, such as the
alleged inflections of Dan Rather’s voice on the CBS Evening News or
the supposed overuse of the word “ultra-conservative” in news columns.
But other surveys on the views of individual journalists
suggest a more complicated picture. Journalists generally regard
themselves as centrists with more liberal views on social issues and
more conservative ones on economic issues, when compared with the
broader American public. For example, journalists might be more likely
to favor abortion rights, while less likely to worry about cuts in
Social Security and Medicare than other Americans. [See "The Myth of
the Liberal Media," Extra!, July/August 1998.]
But the larger fallacy of the “liberal media” argument is
the idea that reporters and mid-level editors set the editorial agenda
at their news organizations. In reality, most journalists have about
as much say over what is presented by newspapers and TV news programs
as factory workers and foremen have over what a factory manufactures.
That is not to say factory workers have no input in their
company’s product: they can make suggestions and ensure the product is
professionally built. But top executives have a much bigger say in
what gets produced and how. The news business is essentially the same.
News organizations are hierarchical institutions often run
by strong-willed men who insist that their editorial vision be
dominant within their news companies. Some concessions are made to the
broader professional standards of journalism, such as the principles
of objectivity and fairness.
But media owners historically have enforced their
political views and other preferences by installing senior editors
whose careers depend on delivering a news product that fits with the
owner’s prejudices. Mid-level editors and reporters who stray too far
from the prescribed path can expect to be demoted or fired. Editorial
employees intuitively understand the career risks of going beyond the
boundaries.
These limitations were true a century ago when William
Randolph Hearst famously studied every day’s paper from his publishing
empire looking for signs of leftist attitudes among his staff. And it
is still true in the days of Rupert Murdoch, Jack Welch and the Rev.
Sun Myung Moon.
The Republican and conservative bent of senior media
management also is not limited to a few “name” publishers and
executives. A survey conducted before Election 2000 by the industry
magazine, Editor & Publisher, found a strong bias in favor of George
W. Bush among top editorial decision-makers nationwide.
Newspaper editors and publishers favored Bush by a 2-to-1
margin, according to the survey of nearly 200 editors and publishers.
Publishers, who are at the pinnacle of power within news
organizations, were even more pro-Bush, favoring the then-Texas
governor by a 3-to-1 margin, E&P reported. Gazing through the rose
colors of their pro-Bush glasses, the news executives incorrectly
predicted a Bush electoral landslide in November 2000. [See E&P, Nov.
2, 2000]
Powerful Publishers
Many of these pro-Republican news executives also control
important national news properties.
Right-wing media magnate Murdoch owns the conservative
Weekly Standard, the New York Post and the national cable network Fox
News, which he’s staffed with prominent conservative journalists, such
as Brit Hume and Tony Snow, and star commentators, such as Bill O’Reilly
and Sean Hannity.
At the helm of Fox News, Murdoch put Republican political
strategist Roger Ailes, who became famous in the 1988 presidential
race for advising George H.W. Bush to use tough-on-crime rhetoric to
paint Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis as soft on violent criminals.
But Ailes has denied that the notorious Willie Horton ads -- featuring
a black murder convict who raped a white woman while on a
Massachusetts prison furlough -- were meant to nail down the Southern
white vote for Bush.
Ailes also insists that Fox News is politically
evenhanded, true to its slogan “we report, you decide.” Yet, on
Election Night 2000, Fox was the first network to call the
presidential election for George W. Bush, setting in motion other
premature calls by other networks.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Ailes returned
to his practice of giving public-relations advice to the Bush family.
Via White House political adviser Karl Rove, Ailes sent a
“back-channel message” to George W. Bush urging him to employ “the
harshest measures possible” in the terror war as a way to sustain
American public support, according to author Bob Woodward’s summary of
the memo which is described in Bush at War, a generally flattering
look inside Bush’s White House. “Support would dissipate if the public
did not see Bush acting harshly,” Woodward wrote, summarizing the
memo.
Ailes has confirmed sending the memo to the White House,
but said he “never used the word ‘harsh’ or ‘harshly’ or anything like
that.” [NYT, Nov. 19, 2002]
General Electric Co.’s Chairman Welch revealed a similar
favoritism for Bush while visiting the election desk of GE’s NBC News
subsidiary on Election Night 2000. In front of the NBC staff, Welch
rooted for a Bush victory, asking apparently in jest, "how much would
I have to pay you to call the race for Bush?" according to witnesses.
Later, after Fox News declared Bush the winner, Welch
allegedly asked the chief of the NBC election desk why NBC was not
doing the same, a choice NBC did make and then retracted. Though
premature, the pro-Bush calls colored the public impression of Bush's
entitlement to the presidency during the month-long Florida recount
battle. Welch, who has since retired, denied pressuring NBC to call
the race for Bush and defended his other behavior as a reaction to
younger NBC staffers who Welch thought were favoring Gore.
Welch and Murdoch are far from the only network chieftains
to be ardent Republicans, as columnist Joe Conason has noted. “So was
Larry Tisch when he owned CBS. So are Richard Parsons and Steve Case
of CNN (and Time Warner AOL),” Conason wrote at Salon.com. “Michael
Eisner (Disney ABC) gave to Bill Bradley and Al Gore, but he gave more
to Bush and McCain – and he supported Rick Lazio for the Senate
against Hillary Clinton.”
Rev. Moon is another media mogul whose publications have
backed Bush and Republicans while attacking Democrats, including
printing an accusation in 2000 that Gore was “delusional.” A South
Korean who regards himself as a messiah destined to bring the world’s
population under his personal dominion, Moon founded and still funds
the Washington Times, the second newspaper in the nation’s capital. He
also started Insight magazine and other publications.
In the 1990s, Moon front groups hired former President
Bush and ex-First Lady Barbara Bush to give speeches at Moon-backed
functions in the United States, Asia and South America. In a 1996
speech in Argentina launching a new Moon newspaper, former President
Bush stood before Moon and hailed him as the “man with the vision.”
[For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Hooking Bush.”]
Logical Fallacy
Another way to illustrate the fallacy of the “liberal
media” argument is to hypothesize that a survey of editorial workers
at, say, Murdoch’s New York Post would find that most editorial
employees voted Democratic – not an unreasonable assumption for
professionals living in New York City – and a minority voted
Republican.
Under the logic of using how journalists voted to
determine the bias of the company where they work, such a survey would
“prove” that the New York Post was a liberal newspaper dominated by
pro-Democratic articles. But it’s a decidedly conservative newspaper
bristling with pro-Republican commentary.
The reason is simple: the woman writing obits or the guy
doing the copy editing or the reporter covering the police beat – the
working stiffs who may have voted Democratic – have only marginal
influence over the newspaper’s slant. The content – and especially
editorial opinions – are determined in the corporate offices by top
editors and executives who report back to Murdoch.
Given the conservative bias among senior news executives,
lower-level editorial employees also understand that critical articles
about Bush and other favored Republicans carry extra risk. So smart
employees tend to do the opposite – write stories that are more likely
to get positive attention from the boss – a natural survival instinct
that helps explain why journalists, who were so eager to bash Clinton
and Gore, now would fawn over Bush. [For an example of how this
pattern worked in Central America coverage in the 1980s, see Robert
Parry's 1998 story, "In Search of the Liberal Media."]
A 'Liberal' History
When looking back historically – from the 1950s through
the mid-1970s – conservatives could make a stronger case that the
national news media reflected more “liberal” views.
In the 1950s, for example, the national press reported
critically about the segregationist policies of the South. A media
spotlight was cast on the lynching of black men, repression of civil
rights activists and violent protests by whites to keep black children
out of previously all-white schools. Indeed, the national coverage of
the civil rights movement could be viewed as the origin of the
conservative grievance against the "liberal media."
Northern reporters, for example, descended on Tallahatchie
County, Mississippi, for the trial and acquittal of two white men for
the 1955 murder of Emmett Till, a young black man who had boasted
about dating a white woman. The negative press coverage led the state’s
whites to plaster their cars with bumper stickers reading,
“Mississippi: The Most Lied About State in the Union.” [For more on
the media’s coverage of the civil rights movement, see David
Halberstam’s The Fifties. Or Taylor Branch's Parting the Waters.]
Conservatives also accurately noted that television images
of death and destruction in the Vietnam War eroded domestic support
for the war effort in the 1960s. The Right’s additional argument,
however, that the news media slanted its reporting against the war has
been countered even by the official U.S. military history on the press
and the war.
“Most of the public affairs problems that confronted the
United States in South Vietnam stemmed from the contradictions
implicit in Lyndon Johnson’s strategy for the war,” wrote U.S. Army
historian William M. Hammond in The Military and the Media: 1962-1968.
“What alienated the American public, in both the Korean and Vietnam
Wars, was not news coverage but casualties.”
Military critics of the press focused too much on isolated
reporting mistakes while ignoring “the work of the majority of
reporters, who attempted conscientiously to tell all sides of the
story,” Hammond wrote in his book published by the U.S. Army Center of
Military History. “It is undeniable … that press reports were still
often more accurate than the public statements of the administration
in portraying the situation in Vietnam.”
Then, in the 1970s, came the final straw when
conservatives blamed shaggy-haired reporters for “hounding” Richard M.
Nixon out of office over the Watergate scandal. Though subsequent
release of Nixon’s own tape recordings proved his guilt in a criminal
abuse of his presidential powers, conservatives have continued to
nurse a grudge for more than a quarter century over Nixon’s forced
resignation.
A Catalyst for Action
By the late 1970s, the cumulative impact of those three
examples of “liberal bias” – the battle against segregation, the
Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal – became the catalyst for an
extraordinary historical reaction. Conservatives, led by former
Treasury Secretary William Simon and financed by major conservative
foundations, began investing first tens of millions of dollars and
later billions of dollars in building their own media, think tanks and
attack groups. [For a brief history of the modern conservative media
machine, see Consortiumnews.com's "Democrats' Dilemma."]
Over the next quarter century, this conservative
infrastructure emerged as a potent force in American politics,
becoming effectively a firewall against the news media challenging key
conservative policies and top Republican politicians.
During the Iran-contra scandal, for instance, the
conservative media counterattacked journalists who uncovered
embarrassing evidence implicating Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush
in shipping weapons to both Iran and Iraq as well as their involvement
in an illegal scheme to arm Nicaraguan contra rebels.
The conservative attack machine, often led by Moon’s
Washington Times, later turned on Iran-contra special prosecutor
Lawrence Walsh, a former Republican judge who tried to pursue the
evidence of Reagan-Bush criminality until he was stopped by
then-President Bush’s pardoning of six Iran-contra defendants on
Christmas Eve 1992. [For details about this Iran-contra counterattack,
see Walsh’s Firewall or Robert Parry Lost History.]
From playing aggressive defense, the conservative media
machine shifted to relentless offense after Bill Clinton took office
in 1993. The right-wing media pushed story after story about Clinton’s
Whitewater real-estate investment and his private life. The Rev. Jerry
Falwell and other conservative operatives circulated spurious
allegations about Clinton’s supposed role in “mysterious deaths,”
including the suicide of White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster.
During the Clinton administration, coverage by the
mainstream media effectively merged with that of the conservative
media, as mainstream reporters found they could advance their careers
by picking up many of the conservative allegations against Clinton.
Though the Whitewater case was complicated and seemingly
inconsequential, the national press corps went wild over the story.
With the appointment of conservative special prosecutor Kenneth Starr,
the stage was set for an unprecedented investigation into the personal
life of a sitting president.
Election 2000
The media momentum against Clinton carried over to a press
assault on Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore, when he ran for
president in 2000.
In near perfect harmony now, the mainstream press and the
conservative media struck the same chords about Gore as a “serial
exaggerator” and a phony who would “do or say anything to win.” By
contrast, George W. Bush was perhaps a bit inarticulate but a
charismatic leader who knew his own mind, wasn’t afraid to delegate
authority to seasoned counselors, and would “put the adults back in
charge.” [For details on the disparity in coverage, see
Consortiumnews.com's "Protecting Bush-Cheney."]
The media’s anti-Gore bias carried over to the Florida
recount battle, where Bush was treated as the legitimate winner
although he had lost the popular vote by more than a half million
ballots and fought furiously against a full recount of Florida votes.
Again, the conservative media – especially Fox News – set the
parameters of the debate and the mainstream press followed.
Ironically, the Bush campaign had been geared up, prior to
the election, for the potential of an opposite result, with Bush
winning the popular vote and trailing in the Electoral College. In
that case, Bush aides planned to activate the conservative media,
especially talk radio, to challenge Gore’s legitimacy and demand that
Bush be accepted as the people’s president. [For details, see
Consortiumnews.com's "The GOP's Popular-Vote Hypocrisy."]
When the tables flipped, so did the media strategy. Though
the story of the Bush plan to use his conservative-media assets had
been reported before the election, it slid into a memory hole
afterwards.
During the Florida battle, Gore was the interloper, the
“Sore Loserman” of the printed-up conservative signs. Little attention
was given to the systematic exclusion of thousands of African-American
voters whom Gov. Jeb Bush’s administration had scrubbed from the
voting rolls under false allegations that they were felons.
Instead, Gore was blamed for an effort to exclude military
absentee ballots, though months later it was disclosed that the Bush
forces had engineered a two-tier approach, letting questionable
military absentee ballots be counted in predominately Republican
counties and excluding them in heavily Democratic counties, where many
black voters resided. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com "The Media
Is the Mess."]
With Bush installed in the White House, after five
Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court stopped a state-court-ordered
recount, the national media rallied around him again, apparently out
of concern that his fragile claim to legitimacy might undermine
American prestige in the world. In marked contrast to the harsh
reporting that confronted Clinton even before he was sworn in, the
national news media treated Bush with kid gloves.
Sept. 11 Fallout
That deference deepened after the Sept. 11 terror attacks,
eight months into his presidency. The media held off on any searing
examination of Bush’s failure to recognize the growing danger from al
Qaeda terrorists despite warnings that his incoming administration had
received from Clinton’s national security aides. As the dangers had
mounted and missed signals accumulated in summer 2001, Bush retreated
to his Texas ranch for a month-long vacation.
Rather than meting out tough criticism, the national media
couldn't get enough of Bush's decisive leadership and his skill as a
wartime president. Again, the press corps seemed worried that critical
coverage would undermine the U.S. government at a time of crisis and
might open the press corps to the old charge of "liberal bias."
In this post-Sept. 11 climate, leading news organizations
chose to play down the most dramatic finding of their own recount of
Florida’s ballots – that Al Gore won Florida regardless of what
standard of chad was used, whether dimpled, perforated or fully
punched through.
Instead of leading with the finding of a Gore victory
based on legally cast votes in Florida, the media companies
arbitrarily and incorrectly decided that so-called “over-votes” –
ballots in which voters both marked and wrote in their choice – would
not have been counted in the statewide recount. By doing so, the news
outlets headlined their stories with Bush still winning a narrow
“victory” in the unofficial tally.
That impression was allowed to stand even after later
disclosures that the Florida judge in charge of the recount was moving
to include the “over-votes,” which would have secured Florida and thus
the White House for Gore. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “So
Bush Did Steal the White House.”]
Democratic Complaints
Belatedly, Gore, Clinton and other leading Democrats have
begun to address this media imbalance, though so far their words have
not translated into much action. In an interview with the New York
Observer, Gore noted that the current national news media presented a
serious challenge to the ability of the Democratic Party to get out
its message.
“The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and
there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully
speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party,” Gore said. “Fox
News Network, the Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh – there’s a bunch of
them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative
billionaires who make political deals with Republican
administrations. …
“Most of the media [has] been slow to recognize the
pervasive impact of this fifth column in their ranks – that is, day
after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the
definition of what’s objective as stated by the news media as a
whole,” Gore said.
“Something will start at the Republican National
Committee, inside the building, and it will explode the next day on
the right-wing talk-show network and on Fox News and in the newspapers
that play this game, the Washington Times and the others. And then
they’ll create a little echo chamber, and pretty soon they’ll start
baiting the mainstream media for allegedly ignoring the story they’ve
pushed into the zeitgeist. And then pretty soon the mainstream media
goes out and disingenuously takes a so-called objective sampling, and
lo and behold , these RNC talking points are woven into the fabric of
the zeitgeist.” [New York Observer, posted on Nov. 27, 2002]
Gore’s comments correctly summarized how the media
sometimes followed RNC wording during Campaign 2000, putting Gore’s
statements and background into the most unfavorable light. For
instance, Republican operatives invented the bogus Gore quote in which
he allegedly claimed to have “invented the Internet.” Before long, the
made-up quote was routinely attributed to Gore, though he had never
said it.
Similarly, the RNC refined another Gore misquote about the
Love Canal toxic waste cleanup. The New York Times and the Washington
Post started that confusion by misquoting Gore as saying “I was the
one that started it all.” An RNC release fixed the grammar in further
distorting Gore’s comment to become “I was the one who started it
all,” which was then picked up in derivative press reporting.
Gore had actually been referring to a Tennessee toxic site
when he said “that was the one that started it all.” By the time, the
Post and Times grudgingly filed corrections, the misquote had spread
far and wide, contributing to the Washington Times’ assessment that
Gore was “delusional.” [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Al Gore
v. the Media.”]
As Bob Somerby’s Daily Howler has noted, Gore’s latest
comments about the RNC's talking points provoked a new round of
anti-Gore ridicule from media commentators who said they found Gore’s
comments baffling and fresh evidence that he had lost grasp of
reality. "Well, now this is nutty," declared Fox News commentator Fred
Barnes. "I mean, this is conspiratorial stuff." [For details, see
Somerby's Daily Howler.]
Anti-Gore Bias
After Gore announced that he would not seek the Democratic
nomination, some media executives began acknowledging the obvious:
that the national press corps had operated with a deep-seated bias
against Gore.
“Somewhere along the line,” said Mark Halperin, ABC’s
political director, “the dominant political reporters for most
dominant news organizations decided they didn’t like him, and they
thought the story line on any given day was about his being a phony or
a liar or a waffler. Within the subculture of political reporting,
there was almost peer pressure not to say something neutral, let alone
nice, about his ideas, his political skills, his motivations.”
[Washington Post, Dec. 23, 2002]
The open hostility toward Gore and Clinton – often over
manufactured or exaggerated offenses – was only possible within the
context of mainstream journalists trying to disprove the "liberal
media" accusation. To do so, reporters either followed the lead of the
conservative media or struck out on their own to get ahead of the
curve in bashing leading Democrats.
In the framework of this media dynamic, it made every bit
of sense for journalists to adopt a pugnacious anti-liberal ‘tude. For
their careers, it was all upside and no downside. They protected
themselves from potent conservative media "watchdog" groups, while
opening up potentially lucrative career opportunities from top-level
news executives who already disliked Clinton and Gore.
For Democrats and liberals, however, the political message
should be clear: only by countering the powerful conservative media
machine can they hope to change this dynamic. There is no reason to
believe that simply complaining about the situation will do much to
alter the behavior of the national press corps.
On the other hand, for Republicans and conservatives, the
secret to their continued success will be, in part, to keep the “myth
of the liberal media” alive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New York Times Journalist Ethics Violations... |
26 Jun 2007 12:24:26 PM |
|
|
On Jun 26, 11:11 am, "Lamont Cranston"
<Lamont.Crans...@NeoConEvilFighter.com> wrote:
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <wwilh...@neonospam.rr.com> wrote in messagenews:467fc=
3d9$0$3158$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070621134354.aspx
A Spokane, Wash., newspaper has dropped "The Ethicist" column of New
York Times writer Randy Cohen after an MSNBC investigation reported
that he had donated money to the the liberal group MoveOn.org.
"It would by hypocritical of us to run an ethics column by a
journalist in violation of our own ethics policy," Spokesman-Review
editor Steven Smith wrote online.
Cohen was one of 144 media employees cited by MSNBC for donating
money to political groups. Nearly 90 percent of the donations were
to Democrats and other liberal organizations.
*****
But then, there's no evidence of media bias in favor of the liberal
left, right?
Yes, there is a media bias and it is decidedly to the right.
www.consortiumnews.com/Print/123102a.html
consortiumnews.com
Price of the 'Liberal Media' Myth
By Robert Parry
January 1, 2003
The notion of a "liberal" national news media is one of
the most enduring and influential political myths of modern U.S.
history. Shaping the behavior of both conservatives and liberals over
the past quarter century, the myth could be said to have altered the
course of American democracy and led the nation into the dangerous
corner it now finds itself.
On one hand, the Right's long-held conviction that the
media is the enemy helps explain the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude of
many conservatives, plus their motivation for investing billions of
dollars to build a dedicated conservative media. That well-oiled media
machine now stretches from TV networks to talk radio to newspapers to
magazines to books to the Internet - and helps set the U.S. political
agenda.
On the other hand, the endless repetition of the "liberal
media" myth has sedated liberals who have avoided a commitment to
develop a comparable media infrastructure, apparently out of a hope
that one is not needed. Indeed, if an honest history of this era is
ever written, one of the most puzzling mysteries may be why the
American liberal community - with all its wealth and expertise in
communications - sat back while conservatives turned media into a
potent weapon for dominating U.S. politics.
How did conservatives grasp the concept of the "war of
ideas" and the crucial role of media in that battle while liberals
were lulled by the dream that some pendulum would swing back and
return the news media more to the center or left?
Whatever the answer, the "liberal media" myth has proved
so useful to conservatives that they continue to promote it even after
mainstream news organizations - including the New York Times and the
Washington Post - joined in "press riots" over Bill Clinton's
Whitewater real estate investment and Al Gore's supposed
exaggerations, trivial issues that paved the way for Clinton's
impeachment in 1998 and Gore's loss of the White House in 2000,
respectively.
One view is that the durability of the "liberal media"
myth is a testament to today's conservative media power - that simple
repetition from a wide enough circle of voices will convince a
gullible portion of any population that a lie is the truth. That's
especially the case when there are few voices arguing to the contrary.
The "liberal media" myth has survived even though at its
center sits a glaring misconception about how news organizations work.
Conservative Argument
The core of the conservative "liberal media" case is that
surveys have shown that a majority of journalists vote Democratic in
presidential elections. Therefore, conservatives argue that a
pro-Democratic bias permeates the American news media. Conservatives
then bolster this claim of liberal bias with anecdotes, such as the
alleged inflections of Dan Rather's voice on the CBS Evening News or
the supposed overuse of the word "ultra-conservative" in news columns.
But other surveys on the views of individual journalists
suggest a more complicated picture. Journalists generally regard
themselves as centrists with more liberal views on social issues and
more conservative ones on economic issues, when compared with the
broader American public. For example, journalists might be more likely
to favor abortion rights, while less likely to worry about cuts in
Social Security and Medicare than other Americans. [See "The Myth of
the Liberal Media," Extra!, July/August 1998.]
But the larger fallacy of the "liberal media" argument is
the idea that reporters and mid-level editors set the editorial agenda
at their news organizations. In reality, most journalists have about
as much say over what is presented by newspapers and TV news programs
as factory workers and foremen have over what a factory manufactures.
That is not to say factory workers have no input in their
company's product: they can make suggestions and ensure the product is
professionally built. But top executives have a much bigger say in
what gets produced and how. The news business is essentially the same.
News organizations are hierarchical institutions often run
by strong-willed men who insist that their editorial vision be
dominant within their news companies. Some concessions are made to the
broader professional standards of journalism, such as the principles
of objectivity and fairness.
But media owners historically have enforced their
political views and other preferences by installing senior editors
whose careers depend on delivering a news product that fits with the
owner's prejudices. Mid-level editors and reporters who stray too far
from the prescribed path can expect to be demoted or fired. Editorial
employees intuitively understand the career risks of going beyond the
boundaries.
These limitations were true a century ago when William
Randolph Hearst famously studied every day's paper from his publishing
empire looking for signs of leftist attitudes among his staff. And it
is still true in the days of Rupert Murdoch, Jack Welch and the Rev.
Sun Myung Moon.
The Republican and conservative bent of senior media
management also is not limited to a few "name" publishers and
executives. A survey conducted before Election 2000 by the industry
magazine, Editor & Publisher, found a strong bias in favor of George
W. Bush among top editorial decision-makers nationwide.
Newspaper editors and publishers favored Bush by a 2-to-1
margin, according to the survey of nearly 200 editors and publishers.
Publishers, who are at the pinnacle of power within news
organizations, were even more pro-Bush, favoring the then-Texas
governor by a 3-to-1 margin, E&P reported. Gazing through the rose
colors of their pro-Bush glasses, the news executives incorrectly
predicted a Bush electoral landslide in November 2000. [See E&P, Nov.
2, 2000]
Powerful Publishers
Many of these pro-Republican news executives also control
important national news properties.
Right-wing media magnate Murdoch owns the conservative
Weekly Standard, the New York Post and the national cable network Fox
News, which he's staffed with prominent conservative journalists, such
as Brit Hume and Tony Snow, and star commentators, such as Bill O'Reilly
and Sean Hannity.
At the helm of Fox News, Murdoch put Republican political
strategist Roger Ailes, who became famous in the 1988 presidential
race for advising George H.W. Bush to use tough-on-crime rhetoric to
paint Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis as soft on violent criminals.
But Ailes has denied that the notorious Willie Horton ads -- featuring
a black murder convict who raped a white woman while on a
Massachusetts prison furlough -- were meant to nail down the Southern
white vote for Bush.
Ailes also insists that Fox News is politically
evenhanded, true to its slogan "we report, you decide." Yet, on
Election Night 2000, Fox was the first network to call the
presidential election for George W. Bush, setting in motion other
premature calls by other networks.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Ailes returned
to his practice of giving public-relations advice to the Bush family.
Via White House political adviser Karl Rove, Ailes sent a
"back-channel message" to George W. Bush urging him to employ "the
harshest measures possible" in the terror war as a way to sustain
American public support, according to author Bob Woodward's summary of
the memo which is described in Bush at War, a generally flattering
look inside Bush's White House. "Support would dissipate if the public
did not see Bush acting harshly," Woodward wrote, summarizing the
memo.
Ailes has confirmed sending the memo to the White House,
but said he "never used the word 'harsh' or 'harshly' or anything like
that." [NYT, Nov. 19, 2002]
General Electric Co.'s Chairman Welch revealed a similar
favoritism for Bush while visiting the election desk of GE's NBC News
subsidiary on Election Night 2000.
Well, that is automatic, though, just like a dishwasher, and
a flag officer assignment.
Since the only thing the morons at GE know
about science, engineering, medicine, math,
politics, war, or energy is Ronny Reagen and morons at
Westinghouse.
In front of the NBC staff, Welch
rooted for a Bush victory, asking apparently in jest, "how much would
I have to pay you to call the race for Bush?" according to witnesses.
Later, after Fox News declared Bush the winner, Welch
allegedly asked the chief of the NBC election desk why NBC was not
doing the same, a choice NBC did make and then retracted. Though
premature, the pro-Bush calls colored the public impression of Bush's
entitlement to the presidency during the month-long Florida recount
battle. Welch, who has since retired, denied pressuring ...
read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: New York Times Journalist Ethics Violations... |
25 Jun 2007 06:37:29 PM |
|
|
"Wayne H. Wilhelm" <wwilhelm@neonospam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:467fc3d9$0$3158$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070621134354.aspx
A Spokane, Wash., newspaper has dropped "The Ethicist" column of New York
Times writer Randy Cohen after an MSNBC investigation reported that he had
donated money to the the liberal group MoveOn.org.
"It would by hypocritical of us to run an ethics column by a journalist in
violation of our own ethics policy," Spokesman-Review editor Steven Smith
wrote online.
The COLUMNIST "violated" the policy of a paper HE DOESN'T WORK FOR!
Cohen was one of 144 media employees cited by MSNBC for donating money to
political groups. Nearly 90 percent of the donations were to Democrats and
other liberal organizations.
*****
But then, there's no evidence of media bias in favor of the liberal left,
right?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New York Times Journalist Ethics Violations... |
26 Jun 2007 03:13:36 AM |
|
|
On Jun 25, 9:32 am, "Wayne H. Wilhelm" <wwilh...@neonospam.rr.com>
wrote:
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070621134354.aspx
A Spokane, Wash., newspaper has dropped "The Ethicist" column of New York
Times writer Randy Cohen after an MSNBC investigation reported that he had
donated money to the the liberal group MoveOn.org.
But the ethicists columns were invented only after it
was discovered that NBC are fascist morons.
So the only people it really matters to is Microsoft.
Since the only thing the morons know about
Journalism or Computers is Quantum Morons and IBM.
"It would by hypocritical of us to run an ethics column by a journalist in
violation of our own ethics policy," Spokesman-Review editor Steven Smith
wrote online.
Cohen was one of 144 media employees cited by MSNBC for donating money to
political groups. Nearly 90 percent of the donations were to Democrats and
other liberal organizations.
*****
But then, there's no evidence of media bias in favor of the liberal left,
right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New York Times Journalist Ethics Violations... |
26 Jun 2007 06:40:23 AM |
|
|
On Jun 26, 4:13 am, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Jun 25, 9:32 am, "Wayne H. Wilhelm" <wwilh...@neonospam.rr.com>
wrote:
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070621134354.aspx
A Spokane, Wash., newspaper has dropped "The Ethicist" column of New York
Times writer Randy Cohen after an MSNBC investigation reported that he had
donated money to the the liberal group MoveOn.org.
But the ethicists columns were invented only after it
was discovered that NBC are fascist morons.
So the only people it really matters to is Microsoft.
Since the only thing the morons know about
Journalism or Computers is Quantum Morons and IBM.
Or the clowns at Microsoft are not JUST engineers,
they make ABSTRACTORS, rather than just CAPACITORS.
"It would by hypocritical of us to run an ethics column by a journalist in
violation of our own ethics policy," Spokesman-Review editor Steven Smith
wrote online.
Cohen was one of 144 media employees cited by MSNBC for donating money to
political groups. Nearly 90 percent of the donations were to Democrats and
other liberal organizations.
*****
But then, there's no evidence of media bias in favor of the liberal left,
right?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New York Times Journalist Ethics Violations... |
26 Jun 2007 08:19:56 AM |
|
|
On Jun 26, 7:40 am, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Jun 26, 4:13 am, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Jun 25, 9:32 am, "Wayne H. Wilhelm" <wwilh...@neonospam.rr.com>
wrote:
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070621134354.aspx
A Spokane, Wash., newspaper has dropped "The Ethicist" column of New York
Times writer Randy Cohen after an MSNBC investigation reported that he had
donated money to the the liberal group MoveOn.org.
But the ethicists columns were invented only after it
was discovered that NBC are fascist morons.
So the only people it really matters to is Microsoft.
Since the only thing the morons know about
Journalism or Computers is Quantum Morons and IBM.
Or the clowns at Microsoft are not JUST engineers,
they make ABSTRACTORS, rather than just CAPACITORS.
Or, to be more specfic. Mail for made for engineers.
Back-of-The-Envelope calculations were made for
Physicists, Chemists, Mathematicians, Philosophers,
The Army, and GE morons.
"It would by hypocritical of us to run an ethics column by a journalist in
violation of our own ethics policy," Spokesman-Review editor Steven Smith
wrote online.
Cohen was one of 144 media employees cited by MSNBC for donating money to
political groups. Nearly 90 percent of the donations were to Democrats and
other liberal organizations.
*****
But then, there's no evidence of media bias in favor of the liberal left,
right?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New York Times Journalist Ethics Violations... |
25 Jun 2007 08:42:07 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:32:08 -0400, "Wayne H. Wilhelm"
<wwilhelm@neonospam.rr.com> wrote:
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070621134354.aspx
A Spokane, Wash., newspaper has dropped "The Ethicist" column of New York
Times writer Randy Cohen after an MSNBC investigation reported that he had
donated money to the the liberal group MoveOn.org.
"It would by hypocritical of us to run an ethics column by a journalist in
violation of our own ethics policy," Spokesman-Review editor Steven Smith
wrote online.
Cohen was one of 144 media employees cited by MSNBC for donating money to
political groups. Nearly 90 percent of the donations were to Democrats and
other liberal organizations.
Howsomever, .......100% of Roger Ailes/Murdoch papers,
who front for the GOP, 100% of the Moonie reporters who
promote Korean religious nut Rev Moon, and the two
dozen or so Scaife funded "news" outlets, thinktanks,
and various media don't bother you at all?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne H. Wilhelm" |
|
| Title: Re: New York Times Journalist Ethics Violations... |
26 Jun 2007 02:58:17 AM |
|
|
<Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
news:fdhv73lcq0deqh4l6o0j9ms1uqed6qisqj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:32:08 -0400, "Wayne H. Wilhelm"
<wwilhelm@neonospam.rr.com> wrote:
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070621134354.aspx
A Spokane, Wash., newspaper has dropped "The Ethicist" column of New York
Times writer Randy Cohen after an MSNBC investigation reported that he had
donated money to the the liberal group MoveOn.org.
"It would by hypocritical of us to run an ethics column by a journalist in
violation of our own ethics policy," Spokesman-Review editor Steven Smith
wrote online.
Cohen was one of 144 media employees cited by MSNBC for donating money to
political groups. Nearly 90 percent of the donations were to Democrats and
other liberal organizations.
Howsomever, .......100% of Roger Ailes/Murdoch papers,
who front for the GOP, 100% of the Moonie reporters who
promote Korean religious nut Rev Moon, and the two
dozen or so Scaife funded "news" outlets, thinktanks,
and various media don't bother you at all?
Hardly. 100%? You haven't been paying attention, or you've been paying too
much attention to George Soros and his affiliates. As to Roger Ailes, I
believe it was in Italy where his influence was the cause for Italy to
finally have bipartisan news for the first time in decades. While Roger
Ailes may be overly involved with the GOP, his companies have a tendency to
present both sides of the issues, something you won't find in George Soros
affiliations which are 100% biased.
Fox shows both sides of the issues. The complaints from Democrats and their
supporters is because of that fact, that Fox dares to promote questions
liberals don't want answered. I've watched it. I've seen it happen on
frequent occasions. That's why Fox is in the lead nationally, and globally.
When Fox quits asking questions liberals don't want to answer, and when Fox
quits presenting numerous interviews with supporters of both sides of the
issues, that's when I'll be concerned.
You should be concerned because of the libearl left's refusal to allow
themselves to be presented with questions which really do matter. Instead,
you figure so long as they don't allow the questions to be asked, they can
still get elected.
You probably believe something like this:
http://www.attytood.com/2007/03/this_is_not_the_onion_fox_news_1.html
I've read Al Franken's book, "Lies And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them", "A
Fair and Balanced Look at the Right". Anyone who takes that book as a
presentation of reality needs to go back to elementary school.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
New York Post: JUDGE FINDS OSAMA-SADDAM LINK
New York calls for investigation into Bush EPA 9/11 cover-up.
New York federal judge boots anti-choice butt on late-term abortion.
60 Mins: Blonde kid new "Sergeant York"
New York demonstrators demand: Prosecute cop who killed Black youth!
Re: How Chalabi played the New York Times for a sucker
New York City police and firefighters join protestors
New York Times circulation FLAT! Liberals being REJECTED!
| Rush Beats Air America Radio in New York
Re: new york times .............today The New York Times Company
Re: Bush Killed Patrick Adams, 60, New York, N.Y. on 9/11
Re: Bush Killed David Scott Agnes, 46, New York, N.Y. on 9/11
Re: Bush Killed Richard Lanard Allen, 30, New York, N.Y. on 9/11
Re: Bush Killed Michael J. Armstrong, 34, New York, N.Y. on 9/11
Re: Bush Killed Thomas J. Ashton, 21, New York, N.Y. on 9/11
|
|
|
