Media Bias against the Tea Party ?

[Michael Hardner]

The Christian Broadcasting Network thinks so...

CBN blog

I disagree with them, in that they're comparing apples to oranges: the million-man-march was a single national event in the capital, versus many smaller gatherings. Also, they're comparing a 12-month period versus single-event coverage.

(apparently there was a big event on September 12, 2009 and Beck was behind it, so... yeah... well... )

Let alone the fact that the entire movement was conceived with FOX news pushing it from day 1, and the fact that they have a cable network cheerleading the entire thing...

I did find something I agreed with, though:

Here’s another issue too: There is an elitism factor at play as well here. Let’s face it. The NY-Washington media corridor loves credentials. If you have a Masters Degree from Princeton or a Doctorate from Columbia then you have “media street cred”. If you went to Community College somewhere in rural Georgia you are looked at differently in the eyes of the media. It’s just a fact. The heart of Tea Party movement is made up average, ordinary, real Americans. I’m not saying you won’t find a few Princeton graduates in the crowd but the media has a tendency to judge people and so you have that bias at play here as well.

This snippet is closer to the truth - and shows that we're talking about culture differences here, at heart.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Shady]

Let alone the fact that the entire movement was conceived with FOX news pushing it from day 1

Again, your premise is completely wrong. They didn't conceive of the movement.

But the media bias towards the Tea Party is real. Just take a look at how the recent immigration protests were covered in Arizona. Can you imagine if Tea Party members started throwing rocks and bottles and police officers? That immigration protest was labelled "mostly peaceful" even though riot police had to be present. However, a Tea Party event held just a few days earlier was referred to as "ugly", even though there was no violence, and no riot police necessary. You do the math.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9Xyer7GTY

I already asked the question in another thread. What if this was a Tea Party protest?

[Michael Hardner]

I have no position on whether the media coverage of these events is biased or not. Certainly protests such as the G8 protests, haven't had favourable coverage that I have seen. Indeed, in Quebec they actually infiltrated the protesters to incite violence.

I'm not concerned about that.

FOX certainly helped launch the movement - Glenn Beck himself promoted the March on Washington on his show.

[bloodyminded]

The Christian Broadcasting Network thinks so...

CBN blog

I disagree with them, in that they're comparing apples to oranges: the million-man-march was a single national event in the capital, versus many smaller gatherings. Also, they're comparing a 12-month period versus single-event coverage.

(apparently there was a big event on September 12, 2009 and Beck was behind it, so... yeah... well... )

Let alone the fact that the entire movement was conceived with FOX news pushing it from day 1, and the fact that they have a cable network cheerleading the entire thing...

I did find something I agreed with, though:

This snippet is closer to the truth - and shows that we're talking about culture differences here, at heart.

Yes, there is some truth to this. Leaving aside the canard about he "left-leaning media," it is certainly prone to elitist tendencies. In fact, this is quite predictable, given the mainstream media's propaganda position as part of the Managerial class. (This is a simplification, yes, but so are any broad institutional analyses.)

There IS a somewhat more democratic impulse alive in the general culture than there used to be. Which is why when people think "Victorian England," they tend to imagine upper-crust types in monocles and petticoats, rather than the hardship and squalor which made up the general population. So views as filtered through the lens of news and entertainment have improved somewhat in this regard. However, the news is still largely an elite institution; and the primary newsmakers (the NYTimes etc., which remain something of the standard) have as their principal object the selling of a product (the public) to the buyers (the advertisers). Since this is a status quo ideal, they remain quite firmly ensconced in an elite world of Profit and Power. Supportive of both...by definition, really.

But the smaller news organs--including those touted as "conservative"--are also quite heavily beholden to and supportive of a status quo establishment. If anything, moreso; which is why I find it funny that they berate the Times as "radical leftists" and the like.

Please.