Revisiting the media elite claim
Robert Lichter’s 1986 book “The Media Elite, America’s New Powerbrokers” is still a fascinating read. You’ll either find it enlightening, or it’ll piss you off, depending on your point-of-view. And therein lies the rub, for the more people claim not to have a point-of-view — or worse, claim to ride some fence between points of view — the sillier they look in the argument over bias in “the press.”
I’ve been down this road so many times that it’s old stuff. The argument has risen anew in this political season, and it’s being fueled by people who were youngsters when Lichter’s book was published, and so they’re bringing back the same tired arguments that were made 22 years ago. What’s different today, however, is that the language is much less civil (”You’re liberal.” “No, we’re not. And screw you!”), the arguments harsher, more emotional and personal, and the stakes made out to be much higher (they’re not), as if life itself depended on this year’s choice for President.
I find the press response to labeling this year to be highly defensive and containing the same astonishment that we went through in the 80s, so for the sake of discussion, let’s go back and visit this whole matter — from my point-of-view.
Let me begin by noting that minds much greater than mine have explored this topic. One of those is Jack Shafer, who wrote a series on the subject for Slate in 2003 (part 1, part 2, part 3. I highly recommend reading all three parts. They’re highly relevant to the argument today.
Just because you can excavate a political component from any accusation of press bias doesn’t mean all press criticism is partisan or motivated by self-interest. Clearly, unadulterated bias contaminates many stories and can even infect the entire Washington press corps from time to time. But because most charges of bias are never distant from somebody’s active political agenda, no discussion about press bias—specific or general—should begin without this extended throat clearing.
Let me clear my throat and offer a few assumptions that undergird my perspective.
- I use the phrase “the press” to describe the tribe that is professional news, about which Jay Rosen writes in his wonderful blog “PressThink.” There IS such an entity, as was evidenced by its reaction when Tim Russert died earlier this year. If the press is a tribe, then he was one of its chiefs.
- My beliefs come from my experience, which was on both sides of the argument. Most of my career was in “the press,” but I worked for five years in the epicenter of the conservative media during the 80s, Pat Robertson’s 700 Club. You may not like what I say, but you have to admit that my background is atypical. It profoundly altered my perspective, because I had a genuine crossover experience working at CBN. If you’ve not had such an experience, it’s going to be difficult for you to accept my perspective.
- As the old saying goes, opinions are like assholes; everybody’s got one. My opinion is my opinion. I may be right. I may be wrong. That decision is above my pay grade, and you are free to judge it in any way you see fit, for you, too, are entitled to your opinion.
- Everyone is biased. Every. One.
- The hegemony that has governed profession journalism for the last 100 years known as “objectivity” is a farce. There is no such thing, and those who claim there is are unaware of their own bias, among other things.
I believe the press is inherently biased towards a liberal perspective, because educated people, among other things, are generally more exposed to the value of tolerance than those who are not. Chesterton wrote that “Tolerance is the virtue of people who don’t believe anything,” and that is a core component of conservative thinking. It’s not that conservatives aren’t tolerant; it’s just that it isn’t elevated to the status of core value as it is with liberals. Of course, one thing liberals don’t tolerate is people who take what liberals judge to be “ignorant” positions on issues. And then there’s Bill Maher, who finds such ignorance rampant in the South, which he uses to validate the assumption that mocking any southerner with impunity is an inalienable right.
This is all exacerbated by the act of simply covering the news day in and day out. News reporters are exposed to the have-nots of the world more regularly and in a different way than conservatives, who tout the value of the proverbial teaching “them” to fish, rather than using their resources to feed them. News reporters also cover efforts to help those less fortunate, and so get the chance to interact not only with the have-nots, but also those directly involved in helping them. The view from there of the “teach a man to fish” metaphor is cold, heartless, self-serving, and vicious. Presidents and other elected officials may visit soldier graveyards and VA hospitals for photo ops, but it is the news reporters who interact with the families of dead and are personally exposed to the varying positions of those who, for whatever reason, are opposed to war.
Conservatives ride the wind of the esoteric when it comes to certain issues, but liberals have their feet firmly planted on the ground and in the middle of those issues. In this sense, the two never talk with each other, because they’re not even in the same space.
I also remember a wonderful article about the impossibility of managing reporters, because they are, by nature, resistant to authority. Conservatives, on the other hand, are all about authority. To conservatives, the press seems wildly chaotic, and to the press, conservatives seem overly accepting of hierarchy.
So I think these aspects of news people automatically tilt them towards a liberal point-of-view. I’m not talking necessarily about the support of liberal political issues; I’m talking about what makes up the general character of “the press.”
CBN News was birthed when I was in Virginia Beach. We called it “TV News With A Different Spirit,” and it didn’t claim to be objective. I recall watching CBS Sunday Morning with Charles Kuralt once during the early ’80s, when media critic Ron Powers spoke of one of our reports. In a classic line, he said it was “so slanted that it was vertical.” Of course it was slanted, Ron. It never claimed to be otherwise!
For the record, my personal spiritual beliefs put me outside the camp of the conservative right. And one of the reasons I enjoyed success as Producer of The 700 Club was that Pat knew he would get MY opinion, not just the up and down head movements of many of his lieutenants. While I worked there, I was always observing. One day, I’ll write a book.
I like conservative people. They are not the dogmatic idiots they are portrayed to be through the demonization process of the left. Oh I’ve encountered some real jerks on the right, but most don’t deserved to be painted with the same brush. Unfortunately, when you’re trying to justify your position, demonizing — or better yet, dehumanizing — the other side can be a useful tool. Some Christians do it to some Muslims, and some Muslims do it to some Christians. It’s a part of life. But the broad base of conservatism is just people trying to do the best they can with what they know.
One issue I do see is that because conservatives are predisposed to law-abiding and put faith in hierarchy, they are more open to direction from the top. In that sense, the qualities and character of the person at the top are critical.
I like liberal people. They’re not the rebellious demons out to destroy culture that the demonization process of the right suggests. I’ve encountered some real jerks on the left, but most don’t deserve what you hear from the right. What I like most about people on the left is that they are among the earth’s most creative people. Since I believe the source of all creativity to be Life/God, it’s pretty hard for me to dismiss them as heretics or devils. Heck, what were the prophets of old, if not counterculture liberal hippy pinkos? The broad base of liberals is just people trying to do the best they can with what they know.
The problem is that zealotry is zealotry, regardless of its point of origin. And zealotry must demonize its dissenters, which requires pointing out the most extreme edges of those who dissent. What’s left is a large “middle” that looks both ways with cynicism and distrust. Absent crossover experiences for everybody, what I expect is that we’ll continue to go through this season of zealotry defining point-of-view, and point-of-view defining the press. In order for this to end, the press is going to have to drop the false mantle of objectivity and let transparency-through-argument lead them to a place of balance. The press simply has to find a way to define itself, because as long as it insists that it rides an artificial fence, it will forever be defined by others, including those who get mileage out of the definitions.
One of the most disturbing aspects of all of this to me is the disdain with which “the press” holds Fox News. This is a perfect illustration of the above, for the Fox News position is obvious and supported by its daily editorial choices. What most miss, however, is that Fox News speaks to that disgruntled middle, and attempts to demonize the network by its association with the right go in one ear and out the other, dismissed as the edge talking about the edge. I’ll be criticized for this, I’m sure, but I don’t think you can really understand the issues of the day without both MSNBC and Fox. If there is a more centrist television news network, it would be CNN, but they are still a part of the institutional press, and therefore have to tilt to the left, despite real attempts to provide balance.
But back to the Lichter book, because I want to make a few comments about its subtitle, America’s New Powerbrokers. This is scoffed at by those in media, but I can tell you from my own experience that the press is most definitely a big powerbroker. The “power of the press” isn’t a happenchance statement, and when reporters, anchors and editors hobnob with those about whom they report, they’ve arrived at a cultural level that cannot be “average.”
I have two specific experiences to share.
In 1969, I was an NCO with the U.S. Coast Guard in Ludington, Michigan. Our group was responsible for all of the bases on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan. One day, I got a phone call from a reporter with The Detroit Free Press about the height of the grass inside the fence at one of our lighthouses. This fellow was the “action reporter” for the paper, and a resident had written to complain, because he and his family had a nearby cottage. The reporter proceeded to threaten me in every way possible, if we didn’t cut the grass. We investigated, determined that the contractor had bailed on us, and hired somebody else. I carried those threats, some of which were very personal, with me as I drifted into the news business.
When I retired from television news in 1998, I was trying to decide what to do with my life and phoned the mayor of the community, who had always been approachable and friendly. I just wanted to talk, but she wouldn’t take my call. I realized then that she respected my position, not me personally, and that was eye-opening as it relates to the power of the press.
I’ve also been around too long and participated in too many “I’ll scratch your back, if you’ll scratch mine” conversations to be naive about the way the press uses its power. Then there’s the famous story about William Randolph Hearst hearing a sermon by Billy Graham and sending a note to his editors to “Puff Graham.” It launched Graham’s storied career.
Powerbrokers? You bet.
One look at Gallup numbers about trust in the press over the last 30 years reveals that there is certainly a huge disconnect between the public and the press. Is it because the press is an “Elite?” I’ll leave that for others to judge, but the disconnect is something we must do something about. Otherwise, we won’t have a voice at all in what evolves in the future.
This entry was posted on Sunday, September 7th, 2008 at 11:54 am and is filed under Journalism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
“…the Fox News position is obvious and supported by its daily editorial choices….”
Yes, but that position is DENIED by its own promotions and writing. That’s what drives the mainstream press so crazy — a clearly conservative network continues to claim, with a straight face, that it’s “fair and balanced.”
It’s not, any more than Air America or Rush Limbaugh is fair and balanced. CBN is transparent about the perspective from which it covers the news. Fox News is as opaque as they come, and every time they pretend to be unbiased, they’re lying to their audience.
The criticism of the network would go away if Roger Ailes just rebranded the network as “America’s conservative home for news.”
(And MSNBC, to their credit, still gives Joe Scarborough a high profile spot, and its on-air talent proudly declare their bias.)
September 7th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Great piece, Terry. You’ve given my own biases a good shake. Much obliged.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Terry… I invite you to use this link to blunt the invective when it is abused by either stripe:
http://snurl.com/evilsheep
Also, check your email… you might be interested…
September 8th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Oh… and I neglected to touch the main theme of bias.
Media bias exists. It is not a conspiracy, it is not a product of “liberal indoctrination” in J-schools. It’s not a product of liberals being “smarter” or “exposed to more diversity.”
The major mainstream agenda-setters are housed in New York and DC, two of the most liberal cities in the United States. The reporters that work there live in bubbles, where they are exposed to more reinforcing opinion and behavior from their neighbors and peers. The nation they see reflected back at them is further to the left than the nation that exists outside that bubble. Charges of Elitism only become valid to the extent that those inside the bubble believe they are somehow superior to those is Flyover Country.
Terry… I’ve worked with many highly competent journalists and storytellers (for those of you outside of teevee news, that last noun is a compliment, not an indictment) who for one reason or another turned down a chance to move to a top-5 market. Yes, there is more money to be made in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco — but not everyone wants to live there. If journalists with a conservative bias are self-selecting by NOT pursuing work in the urban centers, then you have a feedback loop.
Just my pair o’ pennies…
September 10th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
You wrote:
Chesterton wrote that “Tolerance is the virtue of people who don’t believe anything”…
Sorry, Chesterton was wrong. Tolerance is the virtue of seeking to understand and live together peacefully. Tolerance is the virtue of respecting other people, and desiring fairness and justice.
Fox News doesn’t “speak to the disgruntled middle” — they want to CREATE a disgruntled middle. They want to muddy the waters, so those currently in power can keep making money, keep in power.
A “liberal” journalist is likely someone who wants to go where the story leads, and report it fully, one who seeks truth.
A “conservative” journalist is more likely to be a propagandist, who seeks to report the truth about those they oppose, but underplays or distorts the truth about their comrades.
But all this is fairly irrelevant, because it’s who controls the newsroom, not who the journalist is, that matters. It’s the corporate marketplace that makes the call, not the individual journalist, right or left.
We know this from many documentaries from journalists who have worked for Fox, for example, who reported the truth and weren’t happy seeing their stories killed or corrupted, and who were fired or left. There are a lot of those people out there, the ones who exposed getting “talking points” from Fox editors each day, and trying to slant their stories or repeat the talking points in their story.
Sorry, I can’t agree with most anything you say here. I get the feeling this is written by someone with a good heart who seeks to justify having worked for some truly awful people — Pat Robertson. This is the guy who, for example, called for someone to assassinate Chavez, he agreed with Fallwell that 9/11 was God’s retribution for “abortionists, paganists, feminists and People for the American Way,” that fires in Florida were divine punishment for “gay days” at Disneyland, yoga is evil…and the rest.
Sorry, my friend, that’s not journalism, it’s a bit of insanity. Journalism would be if you went and interviewed God to ask whether he sent these cataclysms for the reasons Robertson and Fallwell asserted. Working for those guys did not make you a journalist. A writer, maybe. A propagandist, perhaps. A word-twister like the guy who writes speeches for Sarah Palin, but not a journalist.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Geez, Jeff, you kinda just made my point.
Your absolutism is no better than those you criticize, but you’re right, so it doesn’t matter. Besides, you don’t know me well enough to make such shallow statements about my work.
I feel sorry for you.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Testing…
September 10th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Terry — I wrote a perfect response, hit Submit Comment, and it said my math was bad, and wouldn’t post. And of course I lost the post! Maybe the system here agrees with you — that my ideas just don’t add up! I will come back later when I have time again to engage.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Jeff, most real journalists are bad at math anyway. But I am not here to chide you for that.
Your value system is completely out of whack.
A GOOD journalist can have opinions, but will follow the story where it leads. A BAD journalist will let personal biases cloud his judgment, and will skew his reportage accordingly. It has absolutely nothing to do with “liberal” or “conservative.” (and to use the classical definitions of those terms, divorced from modern political connotations, a “conservative” journalist would be more inclined to employ Occam’s Razor and not add unnecessary details, while a “liberal” would be inclined to add personal perspectives and subjectivity.)
Your example of Fox News is laughable in its self-referential humor. By your own definitions, you are a “liberal” in your own eyes by calling it as you see it, yet your very words define you as a “conservative” for bringing one-sided propaganda into the debate while haughtily minimizing any counter-examples on the other side.
In fact, if I were teaching a class in rhetoric, your comment would be a prime example of failure at launch as it strangles itself with a tight noose of logic.
The fact that you followed it up with an ad hominem attack on Terry, who merely worked for a network that WAS transparent in its agenda, is gutter argumentation. You assert that Terry ceased to be a “journalist” when he ran the newsroom at CBN, as though the mere act of drawing your paycheck from a particular institution gave one his bona fides. (Jayson Blair and Janet Cooke come to mind, so maybe there is more to this “journalism” thing that is tied to existential activity and less to your theory of pursestrings and ideology.)
Far be it for me to dress you down without advocating what a real journalist does: a real journalist gathers relevant, timely facts and communicates them to an audience. A real journalist is interested in preserving a sense of neutrality (as best they can reckon, those who live in the bubble), for reasons of self-preservation. You rely on sources of information, and those dry up when they see you carrying an axe to grind.
Jeff, here’s the thing: I used to buy into the “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted” line, but then I grew up. I realized that people can differ on key core values which lead them on very different paths — both can be internally consistent in their logic, and both can want the very best for everyone. Even if they disagree about the best path to arrive at that result.
I broke a lot of stories as a journalist — many people liked working with me. And it wasn’t because I kissed ass or played soft. My last news director would periodically get calls from both sides of a contentious issue, and each would thank me for sticking it to the other side! That blows out the notion that fairness means “pissing off both sides equally.” Good journalism results when journalists treat people like people, and respect them enough to attempt to communicate their respective sides as honestly as possible.
Good journalism does not presuppose a particular outlook or ideology. And in an age of disruption and disintermediation, those who attempt to wield a biased cudgel will find either a marginal niche audience or none at all. Good journalism will survive the shakeup while mediocre (and underfunded) journalism withers away. I certainly hope, Jeff, if indeed you are in the industry, that you understand the dynamics tearing journalism apart before you consider your next career.
And if you are not in journalism, then may I congratulate you on your successful career in partisan spin. You certainly have the aptitude to match the attitude.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Why don’t you just yell at everyone Terry…
Just freak out in front of everyone and call them names while you are pitching a $200,000 deal?
That would of course make sure you get your point across… lord help anyone who does not agree 100 percent with you.
And, I love your replies where you just say that you “feel sorry” for people.
What if we “feel sorry” for you?
September 11th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Terry — the only thing I know about you is what you put in the article. If someone said they wrote releases/speeches for Dick Cheney and the White House, a lot of people would say, “Crap! That’s not journalism, that’s propaganda!” And then the person might respond that “you don’t know me well enough to make such shallow statements about my work.” And a lot of people (other than Ike) would say, “Hey, it’s Dick Cheney!”
Yes, you do stop being a journalist when you work for CBN.
I am not commenting on the work you said you’ve done for “the press” — I can’t evaluate but presume it was actual journalism rather than Pat Robertson fare. (And sure, I realize everyone has to earn a buck, and whether it’s Pat Robertson or Fox News, we have to pay bills.)
The other thing is — this is the internet, not some academic round table debate. Expect flames from strangers!
Sorry but to me your piece makes you look like an apologist. And it’s a sort of mental masturbation. If a journalist is liberal or conservative, it’s much less important than what the values are of the corporation that puts the news out.
Let me give you an example from MSNBC a couple days ago. Here’s a viewer poll they ran:
What do you feel McCain’s speech accomplished the most?
A. Inspired the nation
B. Explained what motivated his presidential run
C. Outlined his policy priorities if elected
D. Positioned himself as the tough maverick for change
Notice anything missing? Like the answer: “E. Further confirmed himself to be deceitful, corrupt, unfit to lead?”
But that’s not an option offered by MSNBC, and it has nothing to do with whether their newsroom has more “liberal” or “conservative” journalists. The problem with what’s left of journalism in the US is that for every Keith Olbermann, there are 9 Glen Becks, and that’s how Time-Warner, Disney, and Rupert Murdoch, Bertelsmann and Viacom want it. (General Electric doesn’t have the same reach.)
An exception that proves the rule, a conservative journalist who, in a piece mixed heavily with opinion, actually nails some important facts the corporate media shies from: http://www.truthout.org/article/mccains-integrity
Are conservative writers nice guys? Sure, I would expect so. Would I enjoy having a beer with Sarah Palin’s speechwriter? Well I *have* hung out with Matt Scully, and found him weird and not a warm person, not someone I’d like to hang with again, missing something human (which is maybe why he writes books about animals, he can’t relate to people, but wants to do *some*thing to atone for helping war criminals).
But I expect you, Terry, are a great guy to throw back some Miller Lites, and I’m sure there are a lot of nice conservative folks who have sweet kids and cute pets.
But the real issue when it comes to the press today is that it’s controlled by five of corporations with a vested interest in what news gets out and how. And so regardless of how “liberal” or “conservative” a particular journalist in the newsroom is, he’s ultimately going to deliver the narrative that Pat Robertson — or the media corporation — wants. That’s why there’s very little reliable news from the US media anymore.
*to Ike*:
You said my “value system is completely out of whack.” What is my value system? That I believe in democracy, fairness, justice, peace?
In the GOP world, that *is* a value system that’s out of whack.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:58 am
By the way, it wouldn’t let me post an image in my last post, this image:
http://www.corporations.org/media/media-ownership.gif
September 11th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Jeff, I appreciate your perspective and empathize with the uncooperative capcha. You have a very 20th century view of journalism, and that’s fine. No problem with me. I would urge you, however, to step above that and examine not only its roots, but the type of “journalism” that led to the First Amendment. And regarding your feelings about five companies owning it all, I think this is one of the explanations for the rise of the blogosphere. As long as journalists have breath, they will be accountable to themselves and their beliefs (paycheck exception noted), and I think that’s the way it should be. Go in peace, but come back every once in while. We all need contrarian viewpoints. Terry
September 11th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Jeff, forgive my 2am ramblings…
Your values, in and of themselves, are not out of whack. Your insistence that one who is Liberal is always correct, and one who is Conservative is always evil — well, that is laughable.
I say this as a lowercase-L libertarian, and a student of political theory.
http://betterdiscourse.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/4-modern-arguments-that-suck/