The Liberal Media – Myth and Reality
Eric Alterman’s new book—What Liberal Media?—has apparently begun a long-needed discussion on the role of the media in shaping, rather than just reporting, our political culture. Alterman contends that the professional press, which was never that liberal in the first place, has been systematically intimidated by conservative whining over the years, and that the corporate right-wing media now has the field to itself as a result.
Clearly, any “fair and balanced” view of the media in present-day America would reveal a distinct tilt to the right. The airwaves are jammed with rabid screaming-head talk-show hosts pushing the RNC party line; Fox “News” is an organ of the White House press office; and even mainstream media outlets are quietly deferential to the Administration while presenting Democrats as marginal, disorganized and slightly ridiculous. Nevertheless, the canard of liberal press bias persists. How could this be?
The answer lies in the basic function of the press in a democracy, which is to pose questions to those in authority, root out hidden agendas and inconsistencies, and give the people an independent source of information on which to base their opinions. An independent press that functions as anything beyond a propaganda office or marketing and PR agency must, as a matter of course, subvert authority to some extent.
And herein lies the problem. Obedience to established authority is the fundamental philosophical underpinning of conservatism, explaining, among other things, the basic inter-relationship between right-wing political movements and the most authoritarian elements of all established religions. Conservative morality descends from above – literally in the case of revealed theology, but equally true as a practical matter in most conservative political movements (including those of self-styled “progressives” like Stalin, who was, objectively, a right-wing authoritarian). Too much inquiry leads believers into heresy, and, worse, lack of discipline. Without unquestioning belief, there can be no arbitrary division of power between a traditional ruling class and the rest of society – a division which is the bedrock of conservative political ideology.
So, in a sense, conservatives have properly identified their enemy in the very institution of a free press – even when the results of independent journalism occasionally support their political objectives. Historically, this has rarely been as much of a problem as it has been in the years since the Depression. Prior to that, the American press consisted mostly of organs of specific political parties, local interests groups, immigrant communities or other narrow constituencies. People read the papers that suited their prejudices, and the news was reported, edited and slanted in a very plainly partisan way by people who shared the perspective of their readers.
The years following World War I and during the Depression in particular saw the influx of a new class of journalist, much more likely to be an educated professional than the previous generation of, essentially, literate tradesmen. Likewise, new technologies like radio and cinema created a national (and later global) market for mass media which had not existed before. The press saw that it could increase readership by broadening its perspective, and the commercial interests of the owners in a larger circulation corresponded with the more cosmopolitan and broad-minded perspectives of the new class of professional journalists. It is important to recognize that the modern idea of press objectivity arose from this particular coincidence of interests within the media, and not from some huge grass-roots demand for better reporting.
Nevertheless, the new ethic of objectivity and independence soon proved basically hostile to all political orthodoxy, left and right. Since there was never much of a true organized Left in this country, especially when compared with Europe, it was natural that the persistent demand for justification of previously-unquestioned political views particularly discomfited those on the Right. This was especially the case during the Civil Rights era, when know-nothing Southern sheriffs were made to look ridiculous in the glare of the sophisticated national media, who forced them to answer questions that they had never given a second thought about, growing up in a traditional conservative culture. Likewise, during Vietnam and Watergate, the press denied both the Johnson and Nixon administrations the atmosphere of secrecy they seemed to require to operate effectively, and revealed not only embarrassing failures of policy, but also personal qualities of both leaders that proved increasingly hard to defend as the actions of reasonable people.
The real bias in independent journalism is toward technocracy – rule according to practicality and reason. Pragmatists of the center-right and center-left generally speaking have no gripe with the press, because they are willing and able to explain their policies in the same measured, systematic language employed by educated professionals, including reporters. Ideologues who depend on their audience sharing a body of unquestioned assumptions always come off looking impulsive at best (and utterly foolish at worst). But no one comes away worse than people who, for whatever reason, use ideological principles as cover for an unspoken agenda. Hypocrisy is the worst sin in modern politics because it combines the excesses of ideology with deception, selfishness and pursuit of unearned privilege.
Since this is the modus operandi and objective of modern authoritarian political movements of the (mostly) right, it is imperative that they challenge and, if possible, discredit the notion of an independent press. Whining about slanted coverage was somewhat successful, but could not undo the fundamental ideological problem. So they stumbled on the real winning formula, which is to cloud the air with products that superficially resemble modern news reporting, but which actually consist of the partisan propaganda of the pre-modern era.
This approach serves two purposes: if it is taken as actual news, it can persuade or reinforce desired opinions, thereby supporting the authoritarian political project. Secondarily, because it fails the standards of objectivity and informativeness audiences have come to expect of a product labeled as “news,” it contributes to a pervasive cynicism about the entire institution of the press. This is almost better than propaganda, because, if people become jaded enough about any information they receive through the media, it completely removes a critical challenge to orthodoxy.
The debate over press bias is about much more than where individual reporters or media outlets stand on a range of political issues. It goes to the roots of how we get the information we need to make decisions about our community and our country. An independent press is indeed inherently liberal, just as our constitutional democracy is inherently liberal. Conservative whining about bias needs to be recognized for what it is: a basic assault on the entire enterprise of inquiry, intellectual challenge to authority, and demand for accountability from those in power.
1:43:49 PM 
|
|
