Monday, September 15, 2008
Liberal Media?! I Wish!
I heard something about Sarah Palin on NPR today. You know, NPR, the go-to example of liberal media on the radio. The piece outlined how the article originally outlining Palin’s efforts to ban certain books from the Wasilla public library system was exaggerated in its original reported form. Imagine that! The most biased radio outlet in America correcting a story on the ultra-conservative VP nominee.
Have you ever wondered why the against all odds, right wing machine refers to NPR as a liberal stronghold? I would suggest that there are two reasons. First, the word ‘public’ is in their name. That can’t be good! They probably associate with and pledge to serve the public. How sincere can a non-profit be anyway? Second and most probable is the connection conservatives make to NPR and PBS to wacky liberal rhetoric like art and books. Reading – how gay!
The Republicans have been balling their droopy eyes out for most of a generation about how biased the media is against them and their cause. Of course that ‘man behind the curtain’ is the fact that they have used a complicate media to make their case with crocodile tears and mock outrage. They have done so with the self assurance that they would not often be discovered by an apathetic and easily manipulated electorate and certainly not called onto the carpet by an alarmingly lazy media.
While most agree that many mainstream anchors and reporters lean to the left, none report stories with a true and deep rooted bias – none. I defy anyone to find one example. Before my conservative readers scurry onto Google for an array of samples, understand the difference between commentary and reporting. Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity are commentators, not reporters. Tom Brokaw and Charles Gibson are news anchors, not commentators. You will not find one example of either of them or Katie Couric reporting a story with any liberal bias or conservative bias for that matter.
The angle that Republicans have played so brilliantly over the years, especially the Karl Rove years, is to paint the reporting of any story where Republicans look bad, are viewed bad or solicit gay sex in an airport bathroom as liberal bias. It’s a form of ‘shooting the messenger’. The news media – especially the American news media is obligated by the First Amendment to report the news in full. They should chase the story, they have to. They must also ask follow-up questions.
Our press is in essence asked to hold our leaders accountable in our best interest. They have for the most part done this well over the years. Neo-cons would have us believe that the press has done this with far more vigor in their coverage of Republicans. Don’t believe the hype.
We all know about Watergate, but why does the Whitewater scandal ring a bell? Why is it that Monica Lewinsky is a name recognizable to everyone? Sure, Larry Craig is an infamous Republican, but isn’t the name Ray Nagin synonymous with mayoral incompetence? How about Jeremiah Wright? Why do you know that he was Barack Obama’s pastor? Can you name Sarah Palin’s pastor? Did you know that he has said that the Iraq war is part of “God’s plan” and that the US will be held accountable by God for its acceptance of gays? If you didn’t, you should.
This is where the media is dropping the ball. They are not biased in their reporting. They are failing us by not asking good, solid follow-up questions. They are not holding politicians accountable. When they do, they are punished. When CNN’s Campbell Brown challenged a McCain advisor on Sarah Palin’s involvement and true authority over the Alaska National Guard, McCain cancelled an appearance on the network the next day. The problem is not that reporters are not asking tough questions, it is that they are not following up or demanding truth and proof. I’m sure Palin will be asked about the fact the she actually supported the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ before she withdrew her support only after Congress rejected the bill. But when she says “I did not support the bill”, will she be confronted with the reality and asked to answer for it? Probably not.
Why is Sarah Palin being sequestered? Why has she not been exposed to the media other than Charles Gibson? She is not ready for the follow-up questions – clearly. She didn’t even know what the ‘Bush Doctrine’ is. Rest assured, she does now. The McCain campaign carefully chose Gibson because of his reputation for asking softball questions and falling short of any recognizable rebuttal. I was suspicious of Gibson in advance of the interview, but must say that he carried his weight in the interview, exposing Palin’s shallow understanding of much of anything beyond Alaska.
So as the campaign moves forward keep an eye on the media. Look for examples of bias. As they ask questions of all the candidates consider what your follow-up would be. You will not find an example of a factual story that is biased toward either candidate. The media, like Joe Friday is looking for just the facts.
Have you ever wondered why the against all odds, right wing machine refers to NPR as a liberal stronghold? I would suggest that there are two reasons. First, the word ‘public’ is in their name. That can’t be good! They probably associate with and pledge to serve the public. How sincere can a non-profit be anyway? Second and most probable is the connection conservatives make to NPR and PBS to wacky liberal rhetoric like art and books. Reading – how gay!
The Republicans have been balling their droopy eyes out for most of a generation about how biased the media is against them and their cause. Of course that ‘man behind the curtain’ is the fact that they have used a complicate media to make their case with crocodile tears and mock outrage. They have done so with the self assurance that they would not often be discovered by an apathetic and easily manipulated electorate and certainly not called onto the carpet by an alarmingly lazy media.
While most agree that many mainstream anchors and reporters lean to the left, none report stories with a true and deep rooted bias – none. I defy anyone to find one example. Before my conservative readers scurry onto Google for an array of samples, understand the difference between commentary and reporting. Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity are commentators, not reporters. Tom Brokaw and Charles Gibson are news anchors, not commentators. You will not find one example of either of them or Katie Couric reporting a story with any liberal bias or conservative bias for that matter.
The angle that Republicans have played so brilliantly over the years, especially the Karl Rove years, is to paint the reporting of any story where Republicans look bad, are viewed bad or solicit gay sex in an airport bathroom as liberal bias. It’s a form of ‘shooting the messenger’. The news media – especially the American news media is obligated by the First Amendment to report the news in full. They should chase the story, they have to. They must also ask follow-up questions.
Our press is in essence asked to hold our leaders accountable in our best interest. They have for the most part done this well over the years. Neo-cons would have us believe that the press has done this with far more vigor in their coverage of Republicans. Don’t believe the hype.
We all know about Watergate, but why does the Whitewater scandal ring a bell? Why is it that Monica Lewinsky is a name recognizable to everyone? Sure, Larry Craig is an infamous Republican, but isn’t the name Ray Nagin synonymous with mayoral incompetence? How about Jeremiah Wright? Why do you know that he was Barack Obama’s pastor? Can you name Sarah Palin’s pastor? Did you know that he has said that the Iraq war is part of “God’s plan” and that the US will be held accountable by God for its acceptance of gays? If you didn’t, you should.
This is where the media is dropping the ball. They are not biased in their reporting. They are failing us by not asking good, solid follow-up questions. They are not holding politicians accountable. When they do, they are punished. When CNN’s Campbell Brown challenged a McCain advisor on Sarah Palin’s involvement and true authority over the Alaska National Guard, McCain cancelled an appearance on the network the next day. The problem is not that reporters are not asking tough questions, it is that they are not following up or demanding truth and proof. I’m sure Palin will be asked about the fact the she actually supported the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ before she withdrew her support only after Congress rejected the bill. But when she says “I did not support the bill”, will she be confronted with the reality and asked to answer for it? Probably not.
Why is Sarah Palin being sequestered? Why has she not been exposed to the media other than Charles Gibson? She is not ready for the follow-up questions – clearly. She didn’t even know what the ‘Bush Doctrine’ is. Rest assured, she does now. The McCain campaign carefully chose Gibson because of his reputation for asking softball questions and falling short of any recognizable rebuttal. I was suspicious of Gibson in advance of the interview, but must say that he carried his weight in the interview, exposing Palin’s shallow understanding of much of anything beyond Alaska.
So as the campaign moves forward keep an eye on the media. Look for examples of bias. As they ask questions of all the candidates consider what your follow-up would be. You will not find an example of a factual story that is biased toward either candidate. The media, like Joe Friday is looking for just the facts.
Posts
