Boring Political Lecture

[c9]

Today's topic: the Liberal Media. In the USA, liberal is a bad word, like calling somebody a thief or a liar. In Canada, liberal (note the small L) just means you're sort of centre or leftish. One thing that you'll see quite often in the North American opinion-space (yes, in Canada too) is the idea that the mainstream media (MSM) are biased, often quite heavily, to the left side of things. It's not presented as a claim, nor as something to be proven, but simply as fact. And unfortunately, most people just accept it. Here are some USA-centric examples that miket61 inspired me to research.

US Presidential Campaign 2000:

"There were exactly 704 stories in the campaign about this flap of Gore inventing the Internet. There were only 13 stories about Bush failing to show up for his National Guard duty for a year. There were well over 1,000 stories -- Nexus stopped at 1,000 -- about Gore and the Buddhist temple. Only 12 about Bush being accused of insider trading at Harken Energy. There were 347 about Al Gore wearing earth tones, but only 10 about the fact that Dick Cheney did business with Iran and Iraq and Libya…" -- CNN Crossfire, the most RIGHT-skewed (in my opinion; and since cancelled) show on CNN.

...or how about outside the campaign, on the major US broadcasters?

"A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001 shows that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican." http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1865

More Specifics:

“[T]here was a discrepancy in the frequency of labeling, but not in the way [Bernard] Goldberg [author of Bias] -- or for that matter, I -- assumed. On the contrary, the average liberal legislator has a better than 30 percent greater likelihood of being given a political label than the average conservative does. The press describes [Barney] Frank as a liberal two-and-a-half times as frequently as it describes [Dick] Armey as a conservative. It labels [Barbara] Boxer almost twice as often as it labels [Trent] Lott, and labels [Paul] Wellstone more often than [Jesse] Helms. And the proportions of labeling of liberals and conservatives are virtually unchanged when you exclude opinions and letters to the editor. What's more, the discrepancy is almost as high even if you restrict the search to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, those pillars of the "liberal press."” http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/8/nunberg-g.html

 

I don't deny that some media sources are less right-wing than others, and I don't deny that reporters often (on all sides) skew their reporting to match preconceived notions (like the respective intelligence levels of GWB and Kerry, neither of whom is terribly bright). But the idea of a prowling, menacing liberal media is only a strategic catch phrase used to redefine the terms of debate, and has actually been admitted as such by Republican party chair Rich Bond (1992), Bill Kristol (conservative commentator, 1995), and even Pat Buchanan, who many consider to be a very conservative commentator (and former USA Presidential candidate).

All that being said, I have no sympathy for the Democratic Party, which has merely shuffled right whenever anyone anywhere suggested it might be an option. I also have little sympathy for a voting public who willfully disregard facts while voting, and often vote against their own best interests (for example, the poorest in the US overwhelmingly support Bush, who has overwhelmingly reduced benefits and support for them, while utterly favouring tax cuts and legislative changes which favour the upper class.

 

Basically, my point is this: if you hear the phrase liberal media, take it with a grain of salt.

Comments

[jdhorner.livejournal.com]

I also have little sympathy for a voting public who willfully disregard facts while voting, and often vote against their own best interests (for example, the poorest in the US overwhelmingly support Bush, who has overwhelmingly reduced benefits and support for them, while utterly favouring tax cuts and legislative changes which favour the upper class.

careful there.

a lot more here than perhaps _you_ realize. though the poorest in the states often support bush, it's because they are usually not instilled with the independent notion of self-education on the background and other aspects of the "political issues" at hand. they take politicians' words at face value, and leave it at that. they hear "tax cut" and thus ignore "military scandal". etc...

the other downfall, here, is that most of these people don't even go out to vote anyway. it's hard to say that those who support democrats, or any party for that matter (if they even care, at ALL) are making bad decisions and "voting against their best interests" when they don't actually _Vote_.

in a country where less than 30% of the _eligible_ population casts their ballots, it's hard to say that _anyone_ is fairly represented... and it shows. the people in power rarely change, regardless of the more well-known figure heads. everyone either just keeps on farming, keeps on commuting, or keeps on paying taxes, and they think to themselves, "oh christ. it's been 4 years already and here are those damned political commercials. :: change channel ::"

then they all hop into their cars, drive .5 miles down the road, and eat mcdonald's and dairy queen.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Good points. I agree that many who vote may not be fully informed, and that far too many do not vote at all.

The commercials drive me nuts in the USA -- I can't get over the "everybody gets elected" system, with judges and sheriffs and everybody else shilling on TV. It's weird to this Canuck. :)

[jdhorner.livejournal.com]

judges at the highest levels are appointed.

it's the local municipality judges, sheriffs, etc... that are elected. and even then, what's weirder, is that most people are more concerned about their LOCAL elections and who is going to be mayor of their piddly little town instead of their president.

and let's not talk about weird political systems. ;-)

[c9.livejournal.com]

LOL - hear hear!

Did you know Canada is the only country on the planet that calls political districts "ridings" ? Useless trivia for the day.

[jdhorner.livejournal.com]

yes, strangely enough, i DID know that.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Damn! Must find more trivia...

[jamincan.livejournal.com]

Here's some help:
Being elected by acclaim is a uniquely Canadian political term to mean that one automatically elected without any opposition.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Fun!

[bonoboboy.livejournal.com]

I did know that they called them "ridings," but I didn't know that Canada was the only country in the world to do it!

[jdhorner.livejournal.com]

true. i was, indeed, referring not to state supreme courts, but those of the federal level.

and yes, they are appointed, and when they are for life, it IS a little scary. but that's NOT scary if the system worked as it should. e.g. as long as most of the country is voting, and it breaks down properly, the president doing the appointing and the congress doing the approving should "technically" be approved by the people anyway.

but like i said... if the system is working. ;-)

[jdhorner.livejournal.com]

agree and agree.

(you realize i AM american, yes?)

[jdhorner.livejournal.com]

well, born and raised in southern NJ. but my family is all from outside of north carolina. :: shrug ::

i CAN say that i am NOT a yankees fan.

[jamincan.livejournal.com]

It is also important to consider that in order for a court to be fair and balanced, it relies on the stability that permanently appointed judges have to offer. If the Supreme Court were a part of the electoral process, its cases would become politicized and the public would no longer be able to rely on it to interpret the law or the Constitution with the impartiality that is required. It certainly isn't perfect at removing partisan opinion from the court, but I tremble to imagine what it would be like if it was elected.

On a side note, that is one of the reasons that it is so important that a minority party in the Senate can use filibusters to block judicial appointments. It is one of the checks and balances that prevents judges with extreme views or bad records from being pushed through the Senate.