You may have heard last week that right-wing media critics were howling about this:
“Those liberals are calling us dumb!” seemed to be the feeling on the right–a strange reaction to a piece written by conservative Andrew Sullivan.
Newsweek is back on the case this week:
The response to conservative Sullivan comes from…. conservative writer David Frum. When will the liberal media give conservatives a fair shake, I ask you?
I’m not sure when the media has been ‘liberal’. It certainly hasn’t been the last 20 plus years. I know that. But I’m tired of the right wing ‘media’ crying foul and well . . just plain crying. You’ve got Fox. So STFU. QUIT YOUR BITCHING.
Chris,
It works because the big corps that run the news don’t allow their reporters to call them on it, and Republican base is whipped up by it and rewards politicos who do it. Consider Newt’s success in SC: I would say it was directly the result of him lambasting King in the debates for daring to ask about his marital infidelity.
In any other country, King would have lashed back “A man who made his career chasing a sitting President trying to catch him in adultery simply does not get to dictate that his own behaviour on this issue is irrellevant.” End of Story. But no, King just took the abuse, then doubled down by saying he hadn’t started the story, someone else did, etc.
What a load of crap.
The belief that the corporate owned media is liberal, is a litmus test for political naivety.
The credibility of all analyses and/or arguments surrounding the phrase “liberal media” is severely impaired.
The media’s view is corporate. A commentator who denies this is like a flat earth believer speaking at a geologists convention about anything.
Everything the right does requires a straw man. When conservatives die and go to their final judgement. They will be waived straight through, because they never did anything. They never really fought for anything. They never stood for anything real. So Mr. Conservative, how did you spend your life. I saved Jesus from Santa Clause. I hated my gay neighbor. I bellyached about the welfare queens while I waited in line to cash my iffy disability check. Oh, and I was born again. Ok. No harm no foul. You really don’t matter one way or the other. Go on in.
This standard for liberal media places Gingrich and Romney (pro-corporate) as some of the most liberal politicians in the land. Words should have meaning.
“Liberalism” has always been a pro-establishment ideology. It is not surprising that modern (neo) liberalism supports the modern establishment.
Now, let’s get this straight: We progressives must tell our debating adversaries of The Right that MSNBC is not the equivalent of Fox News. MSNBC fired Olbermann and Donahue for their anti-war and anti-Obama views, respectively, and then wouldn’t put Cynk Unger on prime time because he was too anti-corporate and anti-Obama. Instead, reverend Al was moved to prime time, but only after the good reverend assured GE’s sub-corporation, NBC, that his days of criticizing President Obama were over. By contrast, Fox has staunch conservatives throughout the day and evening, with only a few moderate low -key Democrats like Alan Combs or Bob Beckel to lower the left side of the seesaw maybe two inches toward the ground. If MSNBC were truly a counterbalance to Fox, MSNBC would permit Noam Chomsky on the air, but MSNBC will not let him near a studio. Fox, on the other hand, allows unstable and hateful folks on the far right, including the likes of Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck, both of whom, along with Rush Limbaugh, have graced the covers of several different national magazines. I would say about 1/3 of the US people would agree with Chomsky if they could hear him, but the media won’t allow it. In Europe, his name recognition is over 70%, while it languishes at about 30% in his own country. Now, an openly totalitarian form of government couldn’t have done a better job of muzzling the effect of its own internationally known scholar, linguist, and political analyst. The mainstream media’s minimization of Ron Paul follows a similar patern, as his unspeakable crime against acceptable discourse is his challenge to the reflexive modes of support for all things military and all things Israel. Covering reporters and editors know their limits and that exceeding them can be career-ending. Amazing that the most powerful country in the world has such a fragile receptivity box. Radio Free America might be what we need now.
With publishing, Television and radio owned by obvious conservative capitalist folks- The calling of the media as liberal is just an outright lie.
Jerry lot of screaming about right side super pacts.But the left has their own.Unions and the media.Don’t think so?On a scale of 1 to 10 (and no you can’t say negative ten)how well do you think the press vetted Obama last time around?FOX is a counter balance.Can’t allow that can we?It was just voted number one again!That is people listening Jerry.Not being FORCED to listen.
Sure, media works with advertisers, but advertisers buy ads where they will be most visible. If more people want to watch political coverage with a liberal bias then they will give the people what they want. They’ll report the story as we want to hear it, more people will watch/listen, and they will be able to sell more ads. At the heart, yes, media is conservative. Owners most likely have conservative views. Some owners, like newscorp, inject those views into their coverage but most cater their coverage to be the most popular and gain the most viewers/listeners/subscribers. They mirror America’s views, or if not their views, what American’s want to watch and discuss, and maybe disagree with. Calling it liberal coverage or conservative coverage is missing the point.
Wow. Awesome article. [sarcasm]