home | art & architecture | books & cds | dance | destinations | film | opera | television | theater | archives
Are the media biased? Well, it depends on how you
look at it. Fox News Channel, for example, is a right-wing propaganda outlet, but everyone
knows that, and no one goes there expecting objectivity. In What Liberal Media?, Nation
and MSNBC.com columnist Eric Alterman argues that all the yelling conservatives have done,
since the 1960s, about the "liberal media," has been the equivalent of
"working the refs." As a consequence, major news outlets and commentators have
shifted mainstream political debate inexorably to the right. At this point, truly liberal
voices are almost entirely absent from public discussion of major issues. At the same
time, though, the wails about "liberal bias" in the media persist in
best-selling books by Bernard
OReilly and Ann
The rightward shift isnt limited to rhetoric; its mirrored in concrete changes in American political reality. This is one of the most important points Alterman makes:
Any discussion of bias is riddled with definitional problems, owing to the considerable degree of conservative success in moving the fifty-yard line deep into what not long ago was already their own territory. Richard Nixon was a conservative in his day but the positions he took in 1968 were well to the left of those taken by Al Gore in the 2000 election.
and Loathing On The Campaign Trail 72, Hunter S. Thompson quoted a
Republican convention delegate saying, "This countrys going to move so far to
the right you wont even recognize it." That statement, which started out as
(likely drunken) hyperbole, has become a disturbing truth. What passes for radical
left-wing opinion in America today would fit comfortably into the platform of any
center-right party in Europe.
Alterman goes beyond statistics and citations (though hes got plenty of those, and plenty of damning quotes, too) and writes about the background issues that lead journalists to represent the views of the powerful rather than the powerless. He discusses the speaking fees with which pundits and news commentators augment their salaries, and suggests that such activity shifts their attitudes in ways that impact later work:
Journalists are not being paid tens of thousands to give a single speech by public school children, welfare mothers, individual investors, health-care consumers, or even (in most cases) unions. They are taking it from banks, insurance companies, investment houses, and all manner of unindicted CEOs. If they want to continue to be invited, they had better not write anything that might offend these people.
Its also worth remembering, and Alterman
reminds the reader, that the major Washington journalists travel in the same social
circles as the politicians they cover. In many ways, this makes political coverage in
America the equivalent of a society column, in which the rich and powerful report on their
friends and neighbors, employing the genteelly flattering tones of courtiers.
While Altermans arguments are persuasive, theres a feeling of futility that builds as the book goes on. Part of this comes from his account of the fundamental changes that have been wrought on political debate in the internet age:
Not unlike the way in which the irresponsible right-wing talk-show network forms its own self-referential information circuit, news on the Net is passed along from one site to another with little concern for its credibility. Also like radio, this tactic of combining the unverifiable with a metaphorical microphone has been perfected by the far right to create a doubly deceitful dynamic of ideological extremism, false information, and accusation against which truthand liberalismhave little chance to compete. Rush Limbaugh, meet Matt Drudge.
Theres an unexamined assumption herethat liberal internet
commentators and talk-radio hosts would be more likely to broadcast "truth" than
conservatives have beenbut beyond that, the reader is left wondering whether the
battle hasnt already been lost.
While its demonstrably true that left-wing voices are primarily absent from mainstream political debate, a book like this isnt necessarily a solution. Alterman describes a shift in tone, from civilized discussion to cable-TV loudmouths hurling sound bites and baseless accusations at each other, but in general he refuses to move with the tide and employ these tactics himself. What Liberal Media? is an organized, rational and persuasive book which refuses to demonize those who disagree. For this reason, its somewhat unlikely to reach readers whose minds actually need changing about the issue of media bias. This seems to be a problem endemic to the moderate left. The insistence on appealing to the better angels of peoples natures appears increasingly starry-eyed and na´ve in an age where the other side is sending out commentators like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, who often seem to find the idea of backing up their frothing assertions with facts laughable. Perhaps if Alterman was a little more willing to get blood on his hands, this book would have a chance of taking bestseller-list space away from idea-free ideologues of the right like Bill OReilly and Sean Hannity. As it is, its likely to reach the already converted, and a few others, a fact which, given the importance of its ideas, is somewhat disheartening.