What Liberal Media?: The Truth about Bias and the News

Eric Alterman has set himself the unenviable task of being the guy with the shovel walking behind the elephants in the circus parade. The "elephants" in this case are right-wing writers such as Bernard Goldberg and Ann Coulter, both of whom have made names for themselves (and bestsellers) decrying what they claim is the leftist bias in what they like to call the "mainstream media."Having worked in the "mainstream media" myself, I'm in a position to know that this position is ridiculous, and Alterman makes a strong case that the reverse is true -- that a well-funded and hysterical right-wing cabal have so terrorized the media that they display a conservative, rather than a liberal bias. Whether it's the contempt that they showed to Al Gore during the 2000 campaign (as opposed to the fawning coverage that Bush received from Frank Bruni in, of all places, The New York Times) or the non-coverage of Bush's financial misdeeds as opposed to the massive coverage of Clinton's non-existent "crimes" concerning Whitewater, the press has chosen to cravenly cave in to the Republican line."Unbeknownst to millions of Americans," writes Alterman near the end of this book, "who continue to believe that the media are genuinely liberal -- or that conservatives and liberals are engaged in a fair fight of relative equality -- liberals are fighting a near-hopeless battle in which they are enormously outmatched by most measures." If you've been watching Fox's "fair and balanced" coverage you might not believe this at first, but Alterman makes a strong and convincing case.This is an important book that needs to be read. Because it's long and takes the time to thoroughly make its case (and in small type, yet), I doubt that one person will read this book for every ten who read Ann Coulter's imbecilic "Slander." But people need to read Alterman -- as they need also to read Joe Conason and Paul Krugman and Al Franken. As opposed to the flamethrowing rhetoric on the right, these people have the facts on their side. It's time you knew the facts.

Talented political journalist Eric Alterman has undertaken a correction operation that has been badly needed for some time. He substitutes factual analysis for the shrill hyperbole and uncontrollable screed unleashed by Coulter. It should be noted that it was George W. Bush's cousin, John Ellis, who launched the wave of network projections toward his relative in the early morning following election day in November 2000. This gave Bush the presumed look of a winner, undermining any election challenge on the part of Vice-President Gore. This important fact, sadly, has been reported all too infrequently. Coulter laments that it has been mentioned at all, adding this to her foolish list of left wing media preferential treatment.Alterman has plenty of ammunition, and it is appropriately aimed at Coulter along with Fox Television, which absurdly promotes the claim of objectivity. In addition to being owned by strongly rightward leaning Rupert Murdoch, Fox's news director is former Republican campaign point man for Nixon, Reagan and Bush I, Roger Ailes. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly run an adjunct of the Bush Communications room which is every bit as partisan as that run by White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. O'Reilly rules as sole arbiter of the truth. Confront him with a fact he cannot answer and you are promptly booted off the air, as evidenced by the treatment accorded articulate liberals such as Bob Fertik and Bill Hartung. Interestingly, both Fertik and Hartung have challenged O'Reilly to debate anywhere but his own program. There has been no response from O'Reilly, who, like Rush Limbaugh, pulls a fast plug when the going gets tough.On the subject of Limbaugh, how much air time has he been provided to launch a never ending procession of half truths? His distortions have been productively exposed by Al Franken and others. Meanwhile he marches on and on, with nobody of a liberal stripe receiving that kind of air time to launch little more than vitriolic attacks. Is this an example of left wing media domination?Alterman's point was amply proven in the recent Iraqi War, in which, on both CNN and Fox, the emphasis was shown on restoring order while failing to focus the deadly tragedies occurring amid much uncertainty regarding the future. The subject of civilian deaths and casualties was not addressed in the American media in the way that it was in Britain with the brilliant reportage on BBC, which informed Americans tuned to in order to find out what was really happening.As Alterman concludes, the Coulter-Goldberg-O'Reilly-Hannity axis is no more than a phony ruse to con Americans into believing an absurdity while, at the same time, an effort to intimidate the media out of providing the kind of reporting that is sorely lacking, and which media forces fear will prompt a backlash of accusations claiming liberal media bias.

One of the silliest myths endlessly promulgated by the right wing is that the "mainstream media" (nowadays that means mostly TV and radio) has a liberal bias. This book blows that myth out of the water better than any other.The ONLY clearly liberal program I find in the mainstream media is Bill Moyer's NOW once a week on PBS. Talk radio is clearly dominated by right wing extremists. TV news seems mostly interested in maintaining ratings and so broadcasts what they think will bring in the most viewers (e.g. programs on missing children).Mainstream media in the U.S. is now, unfortunately, dominated by a few large corporations, and the situation is getting worse by the day. The people who run these corporations are not liberals. Indeed, some of them have a clearly right-wing agenda (e.g. Rupert Murdoch). The people who write stories for these corporations are not eager to offend their bosses.The blame lies clearly with the public, as the book points out: "Because most members of the public know and care relatively little about government, they neither seek nor understand high-quality political reporting and analysis. With limited demand for first-rate journalism, most news organizations cannot afford to supply it, and because they do not supply it, most Americans have no practical source of the information necessary to become politically sophisticated. Yet it would take an informed and interested citizenry to create enough demand to support top-flight journalism...."

Alterman's book is, essentially, a catalog of lies that elements of the right have told in the last decade or so. The right (not to be confused with principled conservatives) has successfully developed a host of "think tanks", institutes, and other organizations to push their agenda. Part of this agenda includes discrediting what they call "liberals" by constant name calling and unsupported assertions. It is continually amazing how the right attributes everything that is bad in America and the world to "liberals." In the view of the right, any Democrat is a "liberal" even though that is simply not true. "Liberals" are in turn equated with all the fringe nut cases that espouse culturally marginal causes such as animal rights or with Jane Fonda's traitorous activities during the Vietnam era. Alterman hits the nail on the head when he talks about how the right became obsessed with Clinton's private sexcapades while completely ignoring the use of government POWER in illegal ways that end up killing people, such as Iran-Contra or Reagan's support for death squads in El Salvador. Much of our TV media is now turning to representatives of the right as "expert" commentators in order to fend off the accusation that they are "liberal." Of course, the accusations continue. In the end, Alterman makes a powerful case that the media does not, in fact, have a liberal bias. This would seem to be somewhat obvious if one remembers the mud Clinton was drug through all 8 years of his presidency and during his 1992 campaign. Remember Gennifer Flowers? Draft Dodging? Troopergate? Whitewater? Clinton created his own problems in the sexual arena, but he was cleared of all other charges. That doesn't make him a good president, but let us at least be honest about what he did and did not do. By way of contrast, why has George W. Bush been given such a free ride by the media? There are many unanswered questions about the President, but the press seems to have no hunger to address them. Liberal bias, indeed!

This book is reasonable, well-presented and filled with detailed, footnoted facts that, together, demolish the myth of the liberal media. Alterman's takes on on the likes of Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Goldberg and the rest of the right-wing victim class are on target and devastating. Of course, since -- as laid out neatly by Alterman -- the media is deeply in the pockets of multi-national coporations to whom liberalism is anathema, expect this book to be attacked mercilessly. No matter -- the truth wins out. Required reading.