When I was working on my first M.A. (in Mass Comm, unfinished), and rooming with Sam, I still believed in the the conservative bogeyman of the "Liberal Media". I really had no choice in the matter: I was a former military dependent, former ROTC cadet, and had voted for George H. W. Bush. My upbringing dicated that I believe the doctrine.
For years after, I moved into the belief that the major media were basically moderate, although I heartily believed that journalists, editors, publishers, etc... harbored their own distinct biases despite their claims to be "objective".
That started to change in about 1998 as I watched the gathering conservative attacks on President Clinton over morals and ethics issues, which the media dutifully reported while studiously ignoring the mis-deeds of Republicans (Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's extramarital affair, for one).
Lately I have become increasingly convinced that major media providers are not only conservative in nature, but are kept carefully in the President's hip-pocket. Want confirmation? Check today's Daily Outrage on The Nation's web site.
The issue? Comcast Cable, Fox, CNN, and CBS refused last year to run any advertising critical of a potential war in Iraq during the State of the Union or Super Bowl, and this year are refusing to run advertising critical of the President during the same time periods. The White House, of course, is free to buy all the time they want.
This is why we desperately need campaign reform. All of the major networks last night ran the President's opening salvo in his re-election campaign gratis because it was disguised as the State of the Union address, the only rebuttal was the pathetic attempts by Daschle and Pelosi, who were in empty rooms for their rebuttals. The President's programs are reported every night on the news, although the failures and alternatives are not.
This is why we used to have a Federal requirement that the broadcast new media provide equal time and access to the various candidates for office. It ensured that the people would have a chance to hear both sides of the issues. However, an industry-friendly FCC removed that rule in the 1980s, with predictable results.
If the major media truly were "liberal" this would be an equally important issue for conservatives, who also deserve to be heard. However, a "liberal" media would be pushing the alternatives to the current administration all the time, would not allow us to think that because unemployment claims are down that people are finding jobs, or that things are going at all well in Iraq. With a "liberal" media we would have had issue ads last night, for the Super Bowl, and last year at the same time.
So much for the "liberal media"
Posted by Chris at January 21, 2004 11:31 AM