Time runs a story lauding California Republican Arnold Schwarzennegger and New York City Republican Michael Bloomberg, "Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger: The New Action Heroes". Jonah Goldberg smells liberal media bias. I mean, I know the guy's a hack, but I think my alternate hypothesis -- lavish praise of moderate Republicans indicates a center-right bias in favor of the moderately conservative -- has a certain Occam's Razorish quality to it.
« Dawn of the Immigration Reform Bill | Main | The Land of Many Kims »
That Liberal Media
15 Jun 2007 09:12 am
Comments (16)
No, you misunderstand. This is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.
I don't know about anyone else, but that's first thing that comes to mind whenever Goldberg is mentioned. Well, that and chubby-guy armpit stains.
Or compensation for liberal bias given that praise of the far right is out of the question.
Gldberg says:
"In an age when Fox News is a ratings juggernaut and Katie Couric is ratings roadkill"
Doesn't Couric have about 6 million viewers a night and O'Reilly (Fox's top rated program) about 2 million? Interesting definitions of "juggernaut" and "roadkill".
1) I predict we will see a lot of upcoming attacks on Arnold by the Murdoch empire.
Murdoch has decided to support Hillary's election -- because, as some have noted, he's pretty much run the Republicans into the ground and now needs to protect his empire from backlash.
2) So Rupert's business buddy Haim Saban bought the major Spanish language Television network, Univision-- the fifth largest TV network in the USA. Haim was so anxious to get Hillary the swing votes in California, Texas and Florida that he paid retail. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-univision17may17,1,1302805.story?track=rss
(Haim explained why Hillary will be good for Israel --i.e., will deal with nuclear Iran -- in the recent Haaretz interview that Matthew posted a week or so ago)
3) So now Governor Arnold comes out this morning and tells his Hispanic constituents that they should "turn off Spanish TV" !in order to more quickly learn English -- see http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-14-schwarzenegger-immigration_N.htm?csp=34
4) Ha ha ha ha. I haven't laughed so hard since Fox News broadcast that tape of Bill Clinton's face when Paula Jones' lawyer asked Bill if he knew a nice Jewish girl named Monica Lewinsky.
5) PS It was Rupert who made Haim rich by giving him a $Billion+ for several guys dressed up in Tights whose acting ability tailed off at saying "Red Power!" "Blue Power!" "White Power!" It probably came across better in the original Japanese but I don't think Haim had the rights to the Super Sentai series from which Power Rangers was ..er.. "inspired."
How often does one here the term "moderate Democrat"? - Fred
Very rarely, that's for sure. But it's because the media calls moderate Democrats "liberal" since all Democrats are liberal, nu? Last night I heard Nina Totenberg give the range of people writing on behalf of Libbey -- Dershowitz was labeled as the liberal end of that range. It may be true (nobody more liberal than he wrote on behalf of Scooter, maybe), but what does a construction like "from the conservative Bork to the liberal Dershowitz" say about the range of acceptable opinion according to the media? Hmmmm?
I personally think in their heart of hearts, the people making the actual word choices think they are liberal. Certainly, unlike the prole reporters of yesteryear, today's elite journalists are better educated and better off than most 'Murkins and hence are biased by their preppiness.
And these biases often do show. But they also seek to define themselves as the left edge of acceptible discourse. Moreover, they are often effete wankers and preppy snots as well as the only exposure many people have to liberals -- thus, people tend to think all liberals are effete wankers or preppy snots.
Additionally, since they are self-proclaimed liberals they often figure they are presenting the liberal "side" and have a conservative spin-meister on for "balance". Except even while this admission of liberality casts doubt on the objectivity of the reporter (benefiting conservatives: if that reporter ends up having to report something bad about some conservative, it'll be dismissed as biased), even if the reporter is a bona fide liberal, she's a journalist first and not a spin-meister ... so the conservative side gets better represented than the liberal side which is being represented by someone who is an amateur at representing only one side (as opposed to being "objective" at which is what journalists are supposed to be the pros) and not a pro.
Also -- do not forget the importance of editorial decisions made by those with a vested interest in the neo-liberal/neo-conservative status quo. As well as the effects of GOP working the refs.
Thus, while individual reporters are more often than not self-proclaimed liberals, the net effect of media bias is to send a message that all liberals are effete wankers, out of touch with middle 'Murka ... and that Faux News liberal types represent the left edge of acceptable discourse.
Now who benefits from that bias? Not us liberals!
It escapes me also why media praise of liberal Republicans like Arnie and Bloomberg would indicate a bias in favor of moderate conservatives. My Occam's Razor says that it indicates a bias in favor of ... liberal Republicans.
Could someone please define "liberal Republican"?
As the term was used from just after the civil war until about 40 some years ago, I think it would describe, in today's political sphere, Hillary Clinton and ... well, Hillary Clinton.
"Doesn't Couric have about 6 million viewers a night and O'Reilly (Fox's top rated program) about 2 million? Interesting definitions of "juggernaut" and "roadkill"."
Goldberg was comparing broadcast and cable/satellite, which is like comparing apples and oranges. A better comparison would be Fox News Channel versus a left-of-center cable news channel such as CNN or MSNBC; or Katie Couric versus a conservative broadcast news show (if there were such a thing).
A better comparison would be Fox News Channel versus a left-of-center cable news channel such as CNN or MSNBC...
This, my friends, is why it's best not to bother with Fred. He's clearly writing to us from parallel Earth.
DAS,
1) "nu" doesn't mean "no". I know this after checking a Yiddish-English dictionary online after reading Chabon's latest novel that was peppered with nus.
2) I rarely hear any Democrats called "liberal Democrats" by the mainstream media. Since the overwhelming majority of Washington correspondents are Dems, the MSM typically presents Democrats as the rational default party, i.e.: unless you have a funny accent from some benighted part of the South or you wear a monocle, of course you're a Democrat (after all everyone I know is one). The phrase "moderate Republican" is essentially code for the handful of legislators we can rope in from the crazy party to pass legislation that everyone with any compassion knows is the right policy.
3) As far as liberals being poorly represented on "faux news", Fox actually has some smart, articulate Democrats on as regular commentators (e.g., Susan Estrich, Bob Beckel). Maybe you wouldn't know that if your only knowledge of what's on Fox comes from "Outfoxed" or other lefty sources.
As far as liberals being poorly represented on "faux news", Fox actually has some smart, articulate Democrats on as regular commentators
Talk about apples and oranges. "Democrats" does not always equal "liberals", and there are few better cases in point than the Dems Fox puts on.
"nu" doesn't mean "no" - Fred
Of course it doesn't; I know that. It's more of a question particle. Although some translate it as "no?" ... or "eh?" ... or "yes?". Anybody who speaks even a shred of Yiddish will of course, pepper their speech with 'nu's, nu?
Since the overwhelming majority of Washington correspondents are Dems, the MSM typically presents Democrats as the rational default party
Not quite. The assumption by the press corps, which in reality has a bias that is more "neo-liberal" than actually liberal or progressive (class issues are important here) is "we are Democrats, everyone to the left of us is an unhinged moonbat, real Americans -- which we realize we are not as we are smarter and more secular than they -- are conservative, and Republicans have the manliness we wish we had".
The net effect of this bias is to present to those "real Americans" a view of liberalism that both misrepresents liberal ideas but also misrepresents liberals as effete snobs.
Susan Estrich, Bob Beckel
Who used to be articulate, wonderful liberal speakers, but when I hear them on Faux news (I occassionally am exposed to this network) I wanna pull my hair out the degree to which they let themselves be used as foils for the furtherance of GOP talking points.
Not that I would turn down an offer from Faux to sell out and be a Faux News liberal -- who among us couldn't use that kind of regular cash flow? So maybe I have bit of envy that I've not been discovered? ;)
"Talk about apples and oranges. "Democrats" does not always equal "liberals"
I deliberately used "Democrat" instead of "liberal", because I figured the reflexive response on here would be to say that any Democrat I named wasn't "liberal" enough. I do think "liberal" is a fair characterization of Estrich and Beckel though.
There's a lot of stealth liberal bias out there. My dad (a liberal) thinks that the LA Times runs Jonah Goldberg's column in order to discredit conservatism. I'm not as sanguine about the effects of said columns, but he has a point (quote: "his columns never make any sense").
Joel,
Your father's not the only one. I have a conservative friend who figures that the media attention given to the likes of Ann Coulter is a way of discrediting conservatives. And he assumes the media are liberals -- but he figures fair is fair here ... after all, under that assumption, the presumed liberals in the media are doing just as much to descredit liberalism as Ann Coulter, et. al. do to descredit conservatism.
It all ends up being about preserving the ascendency of High Broderism, eh?
Comments closed June 29, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
If you consider that Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger are actually liberal Republicans, than Goldberg's sense of smell seems more accurate.
That the media uses the term "moderate Republican" to mean "Republicans we don't think are completely insane" should be another data point for you. How often does one here the term "moderate Democrat"?
Posted by Fred | June 15, 2007 9:23 AM