by Roland X

Discuss this in our online forums

Over the last few weeks, I have been thinking a lot about a common liberal joke -- the SCLM, short for "So-Called Liberal Media."

Yes, that's the whole joke. The major television broadcasters are owned by giant corporations: Westinghouse owns CBS, General Electric owns NBC, Disney owns ABC, and News Corporation Ltd. (Rupert Murdoch) owns Fox. The consolidation of newspapers and radio is, if possible, even worse. As of July, the infamous Clear Channel Corporation owns 1,225 radio stations (about one out of ten) in America alone. Worse, for those of you who missed it, the FCC (on a party-line vote) moved to relax the anti-monopoly rules, allowing companies to own up to 45% of all media outlets in any given market. This was so egregious that it inspired a now-rare spate of bipartisanship, uniting Democrats and Republicans in both Houses to work on rolling back this expansion of corporate media power.

Exactly how is it in the best interest of these mega-corporations to support liberal views?

Naturally, we can discount Fox from the equation immediately, given their blatant partisanship. True, they occasionally indulge in smirking, "balanced" debates between tame centrists with liberal labels and red-meat partisanship from favorite conservative attack-pundits, but the rest of the time they distort, we deride.

In all seriousness, though, who would seriously expect companies like Westinghouse and GE to support some "liberal" agenda? To their credit, Disney is fairly progressive in its hiring and benefits policies, but turn the debate to copyright issues or corporate power and watch how quickly the mouse becomes a lion.

All of this begs the question of where the "liberal media" meme came from in the first place. Conservatives have been harping about this for decades, so they must have gotten the idea from somewhere -- but how? Could there have been some truth to the accusation? My theory is that while there has not been a "liberal bias" since at least the era of FDR, there is a kernel of truth to right-wing fear -- based on the very principles of honest journalism.

Having taken some courses on journalism and written a few articles of my own, it is my understanding that a reporter's job is to present the facts of a story such that the reader/viewer is as fully informed as time and space allow for an article -- and if appropriate, can make up his or her own mind about the subject. Unsurprisingly, this isn't always (or even usually) how it works, but the idea that deliberate distortion of the news is acceptable is a new one.

So, until recently, we have this ethic of providing the facts in as (pardon the phrase) fair and balanced a manner as possible. Conservatives see a liberal bias. It would seem to me that the logical conclusion is that the facts tend to support progressive viewpoints.

The cause of the continuing breakdown of modern discourse easily follows. As political and corporate pressure to give reactionary ideas "equal time" grew, the drive to present the facts for what they are decreased. Accuracy, rather than being of value to news services, increasingly became a liability to readership or viewership. Mendacity came to be given equal time -- and consideration -- as veracity.

In other words, it's okay to support distortions, evasions, and outright lies, as long as it's done for provide "balance" or "equal time." The problem is, there is nothing balanced about suggesting that a deception in the service of greed is deserving of the same regard as facts stated in the service of justice. When a lie is told and a journalist knows that it is a lie, it is that reporter's duty to present the damning facts for contrast. Instead, what we have today is an ever-growing reliance on "official sources" (read: talking points) from those who have obvious, vested interests in controlling the perspective of the public.

Certainly, the drive for ratings, and resulting wave of sensationalism, have also played a major role in the deterioration of broadcast news. Many critics have noted that aside from the wave of reactionary conservative outlets and a few openly progressive voices, the only "real" bias most news agencies have is for stories that will bring in viewers. Once, that draw came from accuracy and honesty. Unfortunately, times have changed. However, this ethic of money over ethics began in the Reagan era. Worse, some of that sensationalism comes from conservative "shock" media, and it plays better to base instincts than the reasoned arguments of both classic conservatives and the thoughtful core of the progressive movement.

It is my conclusion that this breakdown of the most fundamental ethic of journalism in mainstream America media -- the search for facts, evidence, and verification -- is the reason that so many Americans are turning to foreign sources...and the Internet.

A brief reminder: this column is opinion, not journalism. Hopefully, there is still time to clarify the distinction before it is lost. It will be a tough battle, but one worth fighting. Unless we reclaim this basic ideal, "freedom of the press" will ring ever more hollow.

(/) Roland X

http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=RolandX

A Reader Comments:

In the article, "Lies, Damned Lies....." Roland X wrote, "All of this begs the question of where the 'liberal media' meme came from in the first place. Conservatives have been harping about this for decades..."

This can be traced back further than dacades, try centuries....
Governor Winthrop of the Mass Bay Colony wrote that "If we should change from [an] aristocracy to a mere democracy, we should have no warrant in scripture for it... a Democracy is, amongst most civil nations, accounted the meanest and worst of all forms of government."

John Cotton wrote, "Democracy, I do not conceive that God ever did ordain as a fit government either for church or commonwealth. If the people be governors, who shall be the governed?" This political bias against the word ‘democracy,’ just like the bias against the word ‘liberal,’ has lasted into the 20th century.

E. Chandler, Maine