Chris Matthews dismisses the real significance of a major media that is almost entirely “liberal”
By Dave Andrusko
Chris Matthews
No, if Matthews merely concedes the obvious: “Study after study has shown that the mainstream media leans left, and that, as economists Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo have written, ‘an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal.’” And that “it is safe to say that the median journalist in America is to the left of the median American voter, and that this affects how the news is presented to the public”? (Hold on to that latter thought for a second.)
But yes, if Matthews would leave it at that. Fat chance of that . Instead he spends almost the entirety of his essay “proving” that “if there’s demand for more conservative media, the free market would provide it.” (This is supposed to be hoisting “free-market fundamentalists “ on their own petard.)
Trying to dissect his argument, I gather the gist of what Matthews is arguing goes like this. Quoting from a 15-year-old study (a) “Journalists themselves, and the type of person who aspires to journalism, are almost uniformly of a liberal disposition”; (b) “People with the talent, temperament, and personality to be journalists might also be inclined toward liberal political causes”; and (c) “The hyper-educated media elite are trading the better pay they might fetch in corporate communications (for example) for the prestige of journalism work. If managers of media companies tried to force these workers to produce content that robs them of the benefits of working in journalism, they’ll simply find work elsewhere.”
I’m not sure whether it’s circular reasoning and/or the hint that those who go to what Matthews calls “Legacy news organizations like NBC News or the New York Times” (which “have brand recognition and resources”) are just better people for turning down higher paying jobs for which they are qualified, or smarter, or both.
But that’s all fine and good but it avoids entirely the far more pressing questions: why conservatives, and independents “increasingly distrust the news media” and how having one almost wholly dominant political orientation “affects how the news is presented to the public.”
One answer is in Matthews’ opening paragraph which he acknowledges how one of the Republican presidential candidates turned the obvious biases demonstrated by the CNBC moderators against them in the most recent GOP debate. But he swings and misses when he suggests it was just “conservatives” who found the panel’s questioning appalling. That discomfort and dismay and displeasure was felt across much of the ideological spectrum, excepting President Obama who (what else?) mocked the Republicans for being angry.
The other part of the answer to the question of what is the effect on “how the news is presented to the public” when the “median journalist in America is to the left of the median American voter” is found in the moderators’ responses. They couldn’t believe, couldn’t grasp how anyone could think they had an agenda. They were just doing their job.
Put another way, it’s the questions not asked, the assumptions never questioned that fundamentally distorts how the networks and the New York Times and the Washington Post and the AP cover, say, abortion. Their stories read as if they were lifted from press releases from Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
And they could have been, because they are ideologically almost wholly in tune with one another. It would never dawn on “Legacy news organizations” to question Planned Parenthood when it says it adheres to the highest ethical standards or to trash those who do not take PPFA’s word for it.
But that’s why we have alternatives, such as National Right to Life News and National Right to Life News Today. I trust you are sending links to our stories to your pro-life contacts.
Source: NRLC News
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment