What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News

Rating:
Summary: Destroys the myth of the liberal media
Review: This is a very insightful, heavily footnoted, and meticulously researched piece of work. Eric Alterman completely shatters the myth of the "liberal media," which has become accepted as conventional wisdom pretty much accross the board, due to the tactics of conservative commentators and ideologues over the past three decades. Alterman effectively communicates that by constantly screaming that the media has a leftist agenda, conservatives in this country have been able to shift the public discourse to the far right. Afraid of giving validity to the right's accusations of a liberally slanted media, the mainstream media apply very different standards to liberal and conservative figures (hence their portrayal that Bush won the 2000 debates because he didn't drool on himself and didn't appear to be a complete and total idiot, while Gore "lost" because his mastery and grasp of the facts made him seem too condescending.) More recent examples include the media's assault on the liberal Howard Dean, effectively stomping his popular campaign into the gutter, and the total whitewash of Ronald Reagan's horrific and terrifying legacy. (A truly liberal media would have championed the Dean campaign as he was the most electable progressive candidate in the primaries, and and a truly liberal media also would have pointed out Reagan's policies of ignoring AIDS and of supporting deathsquad dictatorships, such as in Iraq, El Salvador and Guatemala). The most obvious examples of media subserviance to the conservative agenda have been the way the media has acted as official lapdog to the Bush administration, and their selling of the invasion of Iraq to the American public (which just two weeks ago, the New York times printed a statement buried in the middle of their paper where their editor acknowledged that their pre-war reporting was not entirely accurate or honest, as their stories played directly into the hands of Bush administration fabrications--which came a little too late as we are already embroiled in an unwinnable quagmire.) Claiming that the media has a liberal bias has been a wonderful way of limiting the press's watchdog function, silencing them into submission, and keeping them from accurately and honestly reporting on typically conservative institutions such as the military, organized religion, corporate America, and on conservative groups and leaders themselves. If you only have time to read one book this year, i highly recommend this one. If you consider this book to be a real eye opener, you should also check out Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky.

Rating:
Summary: Media is run by big people who hate small people
Review: Real Americans don't stand a chance of understanding their country until they stop thinking in terms of "liberal" verses "conservative." Evangelical Christians see the media and other institutions pushing homosexuality and abortion - they're right! Others see the media pushing corporate greed - they're right! America is run by a group of people who want everyone to be oversexed, drug-addicted (Ritalin and Prozac preferred), childless, single, poor, stupid, and irresponsible. Can anyone with half a brain deny this? Does anyone really think that an upperclass of whom Paris Hilton and George W. Bush (the drunk, chronically unemployed trustfund baby, not the media creation) are typical members and who have purposefully set the country on a course where the best non-management job'll pay a measly $35,000 a year by 2010 wants ANYTHING else? People are going to be arguing about abortion and gay rights until we're all crowded in trailer homes - and guess what, we'll just get whatever a few fat cats want on those issues anyway. Americans better get their heads out of the conservative/liberal butts and think for themselves.

Rating:
Summary: Misinformed Liberal Socialist
Review: Eric Alterman is delusional.
There is unequivocal evidence that their is a media bias in the News Papers, TV, and Magazines. Another Marxist lie to distort facts.


Rating:
Summary: What Looking Glass?
Review: This tome has received a plethora of good reviews so I was hoping for a intelligent fact filled discourse that could prove the title worthy. Instead this book is simply written for the hard left choir, readers whose main ideas of fact checking is believing that anything bad said about the center or the right is correct.

The best quote of the book starts on page XI in the preface when the author admits it is "complicated psychologically to write a book that so perfectly contradicts . . . wisdom. . ." Perhaps if Eric had studied his first sentence he would have seen perhaps it be better to be wise than to open ones mouth and prove that they are a fool.

This book starts out `un-wisely' but continues downhill from there, his many undocumented, exaggerated assertions have the flavor of self-parody rather than reasoned argument. Some examples.

In Chp. 2 Eric admits that most journalists are liberal. "The vast majority are pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-separation of church and state, pro-feminism, pro-affirmative action, and supportive of gay rights." (21)

But in the lefts orwellian doublespeak he has no problem contradicting himself by denying that journalists are liberal just TWO paragraphs later. "Nevertheless the overall pattern is undeniably consistent, and it is not `liberal'". (21)

The next 4 chapters (75 pages) of the books talks about opinion writers, Eric calls them the punditocracy. This is the main point that he hopes to cement home that guess what people; there are right wing pundits out there. Everybody let out a huge collective gasp.

What Eric and the rest of the SCLM (Socialist Communistic Loving Media) doesn't get is that when the center complains about liberal bias they don't mean the nattering nabobs of the opinion page or talk radio, they mean the news anchors and the page one writers. Since Eric chose not to address the TRUE problem, he simply creates a strawman argument, easily seen by the intelligent, but missed by the choir.

Chp 8 is about the treatment that Free Trade and Enron has received by the media. Free trade is championed by the socialistic left and paradoxically by the neo-cons. The left views it as a way of transferring wealth to the poorer nations making everybody more equal. This mantra of egalitarianism has been taken up by the media to help promote this nefarious idea. Eric nevertheless uses this example of true conservatives (who are against free trade) being in control of the media!

Enron, who was the biggest supporter of Clinton, had its officers spent more nights in the Clinton white house than any other group, had all of its accounting irregularities happen on Clinton's watch, yet Eric doesn't seem to know any of this. Perhaps the most damning piece of factual evidence is who broke open the story about Enron, It was the WSJ and the Economist, both highly conservative publications. Immediately following was Forbes, fortune and Fox News. The liberal media was scarred silly, the biggest boondoggle in liberal corporate America had just happened and it was with one of Clinton's supporters. How in the world will the SCLM report this one, they spin it and blame the conservatives!

Chp 9 is the shortest in the book and for good reason, it is about the media's treatment of Clinton. Most independent observers would grant that the Clinton team caught every break in the world from the American Media. If any one of the multitude of scandals had happened during a Republican presidents term the media would have been relentless in its coverage instead we had most issues barely mentioned. There were no Pulitzer prizes awarded for in-depth investigations, instead we had the biggest cover-up aided and abetted by the SCLM.

Contrast this coverage to that Clinton received in Europe, while the media their loved him as a man they hated his corruptness. The media in Europe excoriated him because of the scandals and did more in depth reporting than any American-I-voted-for-him,-I-love-him,-I-won't-say-a-bad-thing-about-him-reporter.

Chp 10 is a strange chapter about the 2000 election the only thing that it proves is that Nancy Reagan was right. Eric you should have just said NO, because the drugs have done strange things to your brain. Regardless of who you voted for, I voted for neither of them, one thing was imminently clear. Al Gore had been the media's darling since he was picked to be Bill Clinton's running mate 8+ years earlier. The media had crowned Prince Gore while showing universal hostility to Bush (no real surprise here).

Chp 11 speaking about the debacle in Florida can only be graciously said that Mr. Alterman is a supreme liar. The verifiable facts are as follows:

GW won all 4 state recounts

GW won 8 out of 9 NORC recounts. (This was the SCLM attempt to prove that Al Gore Won using their own money - it didn't work either.)

Al Gore filed the first lawsuit in the state to ban the counting of overseas military personal ballots.

The election was called for Gore 2 hours before the polls closed in Florida. This has been estimated by Democratic sources of disenfranchising 15,000 voters in the panhandle region. This region, btw, is the most conservative in Florida.

Al Gore only wanted liberal counties recounted, the state rules said that a whole state recount had to be done. This was what the supreme court fight was about.

The supreme courts first decision was 9-0 (Eric describes this as partisan???)

The supreme courts second decision was 7-2, meaning 3 liberal judges agreed that you can't change the rules after the election.

The demonstration in Miami was because the liberal media and the democrats took all the Dade County ballots and was going to do an official recount in private. Not one center or conservative person was allowed to participate.

As Stalin once said "He who casts the vote decides nothing. He who counts the vote decides everything."


Rating:
Summary: Highly Recommended !
Review: Constructing a cohesive, logical argument to refute the often-repeated claim that the media has a liberal bias requires careful planning and airtight evidence. Yet author Eric Alterman makes a strong case that, if anything, the media is dominated by conservatives who promote the findings of well-funded partisan think tanks, help book publishers who produce poorly researched ideological books, support incendiary TV and radio pundits, and abet editorialists who push the conservative line. Their goal, Alterman alleges, is to quash intelligent political debate and reduce complex arguments to simplistic black and white alternatives - all in support of a right-leaning political agenda. The book is thoroughly researched and documented, if sometimes so absorbed in its own point of view and so esoteric that only the most dedicated reader will follow it. We recommend this book to everyone interested in fostering more balanced political discussion.

Rating:
Summary: At least read the intro
Review: Alterman's study of the ways that the "so called liberal media" have handled the issues of our day is insightful well organized, and replete with examples.

He describes the way that news coverage has changed, and places special emphasis on the way that the growing attention paid to pundits has skewed the way news is delivered. By describing the coverage of Bill Clinton and the 2000 election, he proves that the complaints about media bias are unfounded.

I admit that the book is most appealing if you're one of those "fact-based liberals" trying to win an argument the next time you go to the local bar to watch your favorite team. Alterman's writing style is academic, and there were times when I felt like I was working hard just to keep up with him. In my opinion, it's well worth it. But for those of you who are worried that you don't have time to slog through dozens of examples, at least read his introduction. In essence, Alterman describes exactly why this myth of liberal bias in media gets traction in society, and he debunks it quickly and cleanly with a few well-placed arguments.

If you're one of those "fact-based conservatives", you'll find the constant name-dropping confusing, since a number of people that Alterman considers conservative might be labeled "moderate" in your lexicon. However, I'm sure that the author's larger point will stand up to scrutiny.

For those of you who teach about mass media (as I do), this is must reading, especially if you're planning to read anything by Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or Ann Coulter. This book is a nice compliment to "Outfoxed", but in many ways it's more thoughtful and moderate. I'd love to see a conservative response, if there is one.

Here's an example that will hopefully illustrate what I love about this book. Alterman talks about the media coverage of the California energy crisis:

"[Ken] Lay...explained on Nightline, 'Every time there's a shortage or a little bit of a price spike, it's always collusion or conspiracy or something. I mean, it always makes people feel better that way.'

"Many media conservatives took the same line....Meanwhile, as the columnist Joe Conason noted, internal documents revealed these strategies, and company nicknames like "Fat Boy", "Death Star," and "Get Shorty" revealed that Enron was gaming the system to 'launder electricity and falsify congestion on the power grid, in order to rob tens of billions of dollars from Californian consumers and businesses.'"

It's this kind of bias--pro-industry, pro-wealth, etc., that is truly alarming, and it's Alterman's book that makes the most persuasive case for thinking critically about what we consume in newspapers and on TV. Media activists, do your reading!

Rating:
Summary: What a book!
Review: This book took me quite a while to read...about two weeks. It covered a staggering amount of information and sources and had an extensive bibliography, most of which was accessible via internet. The case was made calmy and with no outlandish rhetoric like that found on Fox News.

The majority of our media may be liberal, but the ones shouting and spouting their ideas are the conservatives.

One thing that always amazes me is the public's response of the Dan Rather incident. Many claim to be horrified that a supposed impartial reporter did not and could not ascertain the authenticity of documents he presented on the nightly news.
Why should they be so horrified? I would reserve my contempt for the CIA, our foremost Intelligence agency, who itself failed to identify the false documents that served as the impetus for the very war we are fighting.





Rating:
Summary: The Strange Charge of Bias...
Review: Alterman's book is a wonderful and timely piece on the sad state of US media in general, ideologically biased or not. Just compare our CNN, MSNBC or other broadcasts to those of the CBC or BBC and you get a cold dose of the reality of the US media's rapid decline.

But in any case, the bias charge of this book can be summed up with a simple observation: in order to believe that the media is liberlally biased, you have to also believe that the conservative billionaires who own the media are so STUPID that they would let their (on average) liberal reporters control the content of the news and undermine the very system that keeps them in power.

Now considering that most conservatives believe that those on top got there because:
1) The market is rational and creates just outcomes and 2) therefore those at the top of the pile are the "cream of the crop"-- this observation is very strange indeed, even from a conservative viewpoint!

Alterman is right on the money in this book, but that is par for the course for his reporting.


Rating:
Summary: A Pretty Convincing Argument
Review: Eric Alterman takes on the conventional wisdom and makes a convincing case that media actually has a conservative Republican bias, and not the liberal bias that so many suppose that it does. This is because the conservative media and intellectual groups dominate the debate in America, using a well-funded apparatus to bully and push the political discourse to the right, and because conservative's "play the refs," making enough noise about an alleged liberal bias in the media that journalists overcompensate. As proof, Alterman cites the media's favorable coverage of economic issues like NAFTA, the dominance of conservative pundits, the press's brutal coverage of Al Gore in the 2000 election, and the press's coverage of Clinton's scandals.

Alterman concedes that on social issues the media may have a legitimate socially liberally bias, but unfortunately he fails to address the rising prominence of social issues in terms of political discussions and decisions in recent years, and so tends to brush off this admission without realizing what a monumental admission it actually is. Nevertheless, he makes plain that the mainstream media are responsive to claims of bias and do labor with great effort to avoid it, including changing editorial policies when bias is brought to their attention. But certainly he is no fan of the media. He points out their laziness, incompetence, and conflicts of interest with ease.

Most readers with open minds will come away from this book, if not convinced that the media has a bias in favor of conservative economics and a pro-Republican tilt in political coverage, at least willing to rethink some of their beliefs concerning the issue. Of course there are a large number of people with closed minds on the topic, and they'll be able to find some silly point to disagree with as an excuse to ignore the broader points made in the book. Ideology closes minds. But an open mind, with sufficient interest in the subject, will find much to like here. Also, I don't think I could help myself from pointing out that Alterman doesn't seem to have any idea what an externality is as economists use the term. He also, refers at one point to Michael Eisner as the owner of Disney, which would be kind of stupid if he actually thought that, but it was probably just an oversight. He makes other similarly weird statements, but they don't detract from the persuasiveness of this thought-provoking read.


Rating:
Summary: Then and Now...reporting evolving into propaganda
Review: As someone who remembers 'Huntley and Brinkley' and Walter Cronkite and others of that generation, it is almost overwhelming to turn on "TV NEWS" any station, any announcer and see what drivel we're being fed today.
"Liberal Media" or "East Coast Thinking" are mantras that are repeated over and over, an unrelenting and overpowering dirge that has somehow swallowed the real world and regurgitated a quasi reality where Liberals,Homosexuals, Socialists and Atheists all are actively plotting to destroy the "American way of life".
So now the Neocons have basically won. For thirty years they have plotted and planned behind the scenes while loudly proclaiming any questioning of their agenda(s) as 'Ungodly' and "Unpatriotic" ...From 'Fox' to 'Heritage' to 'Right to Life' they spend and deny, smear and despise,all the time wrapping themselves sanctimoniously in god and country to hide their dirty little tricks...'vast right wing conspiracy' doesn't seem so wrong a description this very minute does it?
Mr Alterman covers our sad recent history from the balanced objective reporting of yesteryear (at least it seems that way now)to the present quagmire of posturing talk heads feeding a steady diet of shrill meaningless rhetoric that blames instead of explains, that demonizes 'them'- anybody not on their side with many a sneer and snide comment.
Is the book objective? Or can any book be truly considered as objective in these polarized times? Or do we, as a nation, even want 'objectivity' in News anymore? Can a rational dialogue even exist when rationality itself is scorned? Is it truly a debate if there is only one side aired? Are we better as a nation or as a people when 'moral values' become the 'moral value'.
This book made me think, made me ponder, and finally made me afraid. Because the trend is both obvious and frightening. There are agendas out there, dark and deep, and they are at work. And the few opposing (or even questioning) voices are rapidly being drowned out.
We, the United States, the land of the free now have 'camps' euphemistically called 'detention' - think 'concentration' and Gizmo rhymes so easily with Gulag. And there is no questioning no probing nobody asking Why? or How come?. We are now engaged in a "Premptive" war with Iraq with reasons just as valid and true as Hitler's reasons for the "Premptive" invasion of Poland in 1939. 'WMDs', 'ties with terrorists' a steady drumbeat of lies discarded as threadbare mirages and Nobody asks 'WHY?' Read this book, but don't plan on sleeping well afterwards.