Media Bias
No one disputes the fact that the “media” is biased. Alan Loudell makes the observation that is reporters and editors who are middle and upper-middle class bring a class bias to the stories they do. If they are good journalists they might be a bit more aware of that bias, but it is still there.
Loudell contends that most of the journalists that he knows have a biased interest in presenting “good” stories. I take it he means objective, accurate and meaningful to their audience. Here we part ways.
I don’t see that journalists are particularly interested in objectivity and I sure as hell don’t see an American media that is interested in accuracy. Maybe on a person-by-person basis it is possible to find an occasional journalist that puts a premium on accuracy, but by and large journalists accuracy is a quant and bygone notion. (See George Bush & the invasion of Iraq)
Most media observers assert that accuracy and objectivity has been swept away by the confluence of two social changes. One is the change in television journalism from a public service to a moneymaking entertainment ventures for the parent corporation. It is laughable to think that Katie Courric and Stone Phillips consider “objectivity and accuracy” part of their mission. Likewise, as newspaper readership continues to dwindle the “4th estate” newsroom depicted in the novel “All the President’s Men” is as relevant to current newspaper operations as a lascaux cave painting.
Downers like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow would not have a home in the modern television news operations and Woodward and Bernstein have been replaced by court stenographers like Ron Williams, Celia Cohen and Patrick Jackson who put bread on the table by comforting the comfortable.
The other major societal change that has overthrown objectivity and accuracy is the radicalization of the conservative movement around the “liberal media” bogeyman. It is clear that banging the “liberal media” drum for twenty years has paid off in spades for the conservative movement. Terrified of being thought of as “liberal” – newspapers and television have adopted an absurdist stance that devalues the notion of objective truth and elevates “balance” to a high virtue. So high that even the most preposterous conservative theories and claims such as “human activity is not responsible for climate change” and “George Bush is qualified to be the President of the United States” get “equal” treatment alongside of actual facts. The press has been so cowed by the right wing that the fear of being considered a liberal was the subtext of every story leading up to the illegal invasion of Iraq.
As far as Loudell and his approach to the debasement of journalism is concerned, maybe I’ve been a bit hard on him. But I don’t think so. His responses to the couple of posts that have been here indicate that he is about aware of the fact that the system is corrupt as a fish is aware that he is wet. He is a standup guy to continue to defend himself here, but a better defense would be to avoid the bogus neutrality of modern journalism. For example, I remember quite clearly on Election Day it was becoming clear that a Democratic wave was building. While (to his credit) reporting the actual facts of the day, Loudell went out of his way to make sure he interviewed an equal number of clueless loser who were willing to claim that there was no Democratic wave building. What was the point, other than to inoculate himself against the charge of being part of the “liberal media”? It was disgusting.
So I don’t think it is unfair to beat up Loudell here when he absent mindedly interviews Republican spinmiesters and lets their naked shilling for failed conservatism go unchallenged, however I do have qualms about beating up such a nice guy.
Loudell, for all of the faults of modern journalism that he embodies, has ten times more character than the all of the frauds and losers who pose as journalists here in Delaware. At least he takes a stab at defending his indefensible industry. When was the last time you heard Celia Cohen or Doug Williams defend the integrity of their chosen profession?
Jase, my problem will Loudell (and I believe it was Nancy that mentioned this in a comment I saw somewhere), is when he refers to Hillary Clinton, he calls her “Hillary” as opposed to the way he refers to other prez hopefuls as their last name. I know that many print media have specific guidelines that address the way people are referred to their specific media. Maybe Loudell should do the same. Either call everyone by their first name, or not, just treat everyone the same.
He addressed this and says he uses other first names like Rudy and Barack when teasing stories.
The All The President’s Men scenario is playing out quite nicely on blogs like TPM, filling the vacuum left by the abdication of the MSM. Josh Marshall along with a few others might be the new Woodward and Bernstein.
From the Cape Gazette (link):
“…the fate of Sussex Republican Chairman Dave Burris, who was recently appointed to the position, may be a topic of discussion at the regional meeting of the Sussex County Republicans at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, April 9, at Delaware Tech College.
Burris has received criticism in some Republican circles for a letter he wrote asking for Atkins’ resignation. “
Josh Marshall along with a few others might be the new Woodward and Bernstein.
I agree, and that is cause for some small hope. But look at the relative scale of TPM vs. the Washington Post.
Heck, even the declining and suck-ass News Journal has a circulation of 90,000 plus. So when they constantly refer to Michael Castle as a “moderate” in “news” stories in spite of his voting record, there are a great many people who are taken in by that.
Have y’all caught today’s buzz on media ethics violations?
The WaPo REMOVED a paragraph that went against the Bushie Anti-Irani talking point today.
US forces in Iraq yesterday discovered a manufacturing plant making the roadside bombs that for some time, the White House had been referred to in war-speak as ONLY possibly having been produced in Iran.
Because the discovery of this capacity in Iraq was not consistent with the White House war on terror intel, WaPo “made it all go away” in one short hour after posting it online.
The reference to this discovery is still in the Reuters news accounts and others.
courtisan stenographers
btw I was not the source of the Hillary comment.
WDEL serves us well, but as a GOPEr rag, it can only go so far.
Long-lamented is the dearth of Lefty investment in media conglomerates.
btw I was not the source of the Hillary comment.
WDEL serves us well, but as a GOPEry radio-rag, it can only go so far.
Long-lamented is the dearth of Lefty investment in media conglomerates.
curses!
Wow… You brought up so many interesting items.
I don’t know where to start!
Hey, I’ve been telling audiences for thirty years or more that the public was probably better served under the “old” media model where the news divisions at the television-networks (and even the local television stations)were the ornamental edifice, more or less the “best foot forward” for a station or network (even as the same station or network was spewing lowest-common-denominator pabulum in its entertainment programming!).
Then, by the late 1960’s, and certainly the 19-70’s, local TV news, and “Sixty Minutes” on CBS, became a profit center, and the public-service role gradually disappeared.
Like any profession, journalism has its idealistic, driven figures; its crusaders; its “nuts and bolts” people who do their best, but who are not driven; and everyone else.
But, Jason, I’ll argue to the death that most journalists just want to get a good story, and don’t consciously have an ideological axe to grind.
(I find more examples of talk-show hosts or ideologically-driven bloggers who “twist” the products of journalism. Example: When Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff “broke” stories about President Clinton, Rush Limbaugh loved it. Quoted Isikoff on-the-air. When Isikoff started breaking stories about the Bush Administration and Iraq, suddenly Isikoff became the journalist “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”.
Reality check: Isikoff will break stories about whomever is in power.)
Mainstream journalism’s biggest enemies? In my view…
1. Lack of time. Especially in an era of reduced staffs AND 24/7 news on the Internet, journalists have to perform their craft quickly, but as accurately as they can. But there’s only so much you can humanly do. “Old-timers” would lament the lack of time to think and reflect.
2. Not an ideological bias necessarily, but the bias of the marketplace. Journalists in all mainstream media (not to be confused with specialty media) come under tremendous pressure to deliver news which will “appeal” to the audiences most sought by advertisers: 18-34 and 25-54 adults, especially women, broadly middle-class.
Stories about politics and especially international affairs of ANY kind are discouraged. Stories about health, relationships, money, entertainment, leisure, etc. are to be encouraged.
(Although crime & accident stories with great visuals remain a staple on local TV news)
And more than anything else, you’re supposed to fixate on the weather: That’s why you’ll see reporters on local TV stations do long stand-ups underneath an umbrella!
3. The need to avoid a long-term rupture of relations with the newsmakers. Columnists, talk-show hosts, and bloggers all need sources, but they can afford to get the “silent” treatment from a public figure for a protracted period of time. Daily journalists SHOULD ask hard questions; they SHOULD try to get beyond press releases; but in the end, they’ll be of little use to their employer if they alienate half the people they’re covering!
4. The relentless quest for a journalist / columnist / editor “to move to a bigger market”. In some cases, newspaper and broadcast chains actively promote such moves within their companies. The result: Lack of institutional –that is, local — memory over the long haul.
5. Long hours, holiday work, more modest pay than in many of the other “professions”, even teaching! (Obviously, we’re not talking about the network “stars” or the most popular big-market local TV anchors) And, in more recent years, the contraction of the journalistic job-market.
All these trends have accelerated the exodus of journalists to other fields, with the consequent decline in institutional knowledge.
From a societal point of view, this trend becomes even more pernicious, because many of these same journalists end up in P.R. jobs, with often much higher salaries. So you have older ex-journalists dealing with younger “green” journalists. A variation of the lawmaker-turns-lobbyist phenomenon.
But like everybody, folks have to put food on the table!
Jason, it’s interesting you pulled my comment about many journalists coming from middle- and upper-middle-class backgrounds. It’s interesting, because conservatives often have seen that as a source of bias!
(I can cite a few examples here to make the point: Whether it be “Chateau Country” in northern Delaware; affluent areas of Connecticut; or DuPage County, Illinois — the home of Wheaton College” — all those places are trending Democratic and liberal, because their Republicanism was grounded more in economics, not moral conservatism.)
Certainly some newspapers have instituted aggressive programs to mentor students in inner-city schools, etc., to try to diversify the pool of qualified applicants. But as newspapers face budgetary woes…
By the way, I dispute that I was trying to artificially even out my reports from Election Day. I think the breadth of my reporting through the day suggested that it would be a big Democratic day in Delaware. I came close to predicting a victory for now–Representative John Kowalko.
And, when I’ve gotten complaints from conservatives that my Iraq interviews — on balance — have been too negative, I feel obliged to remind them that I can’t help it that a preponderance of the experts (including some “Cold War warriors”) are pessimistic about the entire enterprise.
I end again with “Loudell’s Theorem”: The more adamant and emotionally invested you are in an issue, or further to one side of the political spectrum, the more bias you’re likely to see.
(I should know… I’ve tested the above theorem on myself, on the many issues I care about!)
Allan R. Loudell
News Anchor–Reporter–Interviewer
1150 A.M. — WDEL Radio & http://www.wdel.com
Delmarva Broadcasting Company
2727 Shipley Road
Wilmington, Delaware 19810
(302) 478-2700 — Extension # 161
aloudell@wdel.com
Allan,
Thanks for the reply to the reply. I think we have some common ground but you still leave a bunch of logical fallicies around for me to unpack.
Have a happy Easter and I’ll be listening so I’m sure you will give me plenty of fresh examples to work with and expose those fallacies befor long.
Allan you are missing the essential point of Jason’s issue with you. You should not try to explain yourself because doing so will neither alter the basis of the critique or the reasons that give rise to it.
The bottom line is not about ideological balance. It is about accountability and how it is nullified by a form of institutionalized corruption that underlies Delaware’s entire political establishment and the special few who perpetually control and manipulate it. Call it the “Delaware Way”.
For activists and people who do this stuff on their own time and their own dime Delaware is largely governed by offensively cozy self serving elitists who, to these activists, constantly get away with murder.
Those in the scarce Delaware ‘media’ who permit this or, worse, coddle and validate it are worse than negligent. They are part and parcel of it.
The last thing people who care about social progress and public integrity want to hear from so-called media is surface level regurgitation of the “official” line spouted by those who hold and covet power for their own sakes and never fail to use it to their own ends.
It does not mean a thing whether they are R’s or D’s or whether they claim to be liberals or conservatives because these are just window dressing for the same revolving clique that has made a tidy and well-insulated profession of undermining basic democratic ideals and spitting in the face of popular will. Forget about public interest.
When you prop these people up by “objectively” reporting their endless stream of frauds and spin you are now their mouthpiece not a serious journalist. When you don’t call them out in the most unyielding hard hitting fashion but rather only dance around the edges of the most blatant of their nonsense you lose the respect of people who think you owe more to the public airwaves (at least if you really want to be taken seriously).
My suggestion to you is to forget about maintaining coziness, credibility, or access with Delaware’s “elites” and the mushy little political establishment they jealously guard from any real accountability. Stop buying into and reporting their spin. Start scrutinizing them for honesty and constancy in serving the public rather than consistency in playing political games acceptable to the powerful and perfected by their rings of palace guards. There is nothing worse than the bare masquerade of a sycophant cowering behind ‘conventional wisdom’ and political convenience.
Screw convention. Screw convenience. Otherwise screw your credibility.
Gosh
I am extremely heartened to read your comment, conscience. Great job extracating the point from the the hoodle-loodle.
Hey Jason, Nancy, “Conscience”, whoever reads this—
I’m addressing the Academy of Lifelong Learning at the University of Delaware’s Arsht Hall in Wilmington… this Wednesday,April 11th, beginning at about 12:30 p.m.
Love to see you there. I would say the audience is more liberal than conservative, and would certainly identify as people who “care about social progress and public integrity”.
You come, and after I answer a few questions, I’ll introduce you and we can have a small debate about the merits of objectivity, the “Delaware Way”, etc.
The more, the merrier!
Otherwise, we ought to meet at some mutually-agreeable location and have a discussion.
I do think “Conscience’s” latest comments betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of how a radio newsroom functions.
Hope to see you,
Allan Loudell
1150 A.M. — WDEL radio & http://www.wdel.com
Gosh darn it. I was just googleing and found this. Sorry I missed Loudell’s invitation – I certianly would have done my level best to be there.
hi
yumgu5wrov825ubc
good luck