The "Liberal" Media's Right-Wing Orthodoxy

[bloodyminded]

Interesting: Octavia Nasr (CNN), Helen Thomas, Dave Wiegel (Washington Post), Eason Jordan (CNN), Peter Arnett (NBC), Ashleigh Banfield (MSNBC), Phil Donahue (MSNBC)....

All were fired for their "controversial" remarks: about the war in Iraq, about Israel, about specific actions of the US military, even over harsh criticism of Right-wing demagogues like Rush Limbaugh.

So, where in our "liberal/leftist media" are the firings of controversial right-wing reporting and commentary?

Are there any? At all?

If the US media is so blatantly "left wing," then why do only lefties (and mostly quite moderate ones at that) get the axe when they upset the dainty sensibilities of hawks and conservatives?

............................

by Glenn Greenwald

CNN yesterday ended the 20-year career of Octavia Nasr, its Atlanta-based Senior Middle East News Editor, because of a now-deleted tweet she wrote on Sunday upon learning of the death of one of the Shiite world's most beloved religious figures: "Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah . . . . One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot." That message spawned an intense fit of protest from Far Right outlets, Thought Crime enforcers, and other neocon precincts, and CNN quickly (and characteristically) capitulated to that pressure by firing her. The network -- which has employed a former AIPAC official, Wolf Blitzer, as its primary news anchor for the last 15 years -- justified its actions by claiming that Nasr's "credibility" had been "compromised." Within this episode lies several important lessons about media "objectivity" and how the scope of permissible views is enforced.

Continue reading

First, consider which viewpoints cause someone to be fired from The Liberal Media. Last month, Helen Thomas' 60-year career as a journalist ended when she expressed the exact view about Jews which numerous public figures have expressed (with no consequence or even controversy) about Palestinians. Just weeks ago, The Washington Post accepted the "resignation" of Dave Weigel because of scorn he heaped on right-wing figures such as Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh. CNN's Chief News Executive, Eason Jordan, was previously forced to resign after he provoked a right-wing fit of fury over comments he made about the numerous -- and obviously disturbing -- incidents where the U.S. military had injured or killed journalists in war zones. NBC fired Peter Arnett for criticizing the U.S. war plan on Iraqi television, which prompted accusations of Treason from the Right. MSNBC demoted and then fired its rising star Ashleigh Banfield after she criticized American media war coverage for adhering to the Fox model of glorifying U.S. wars; the same network fired its top-rated host, Phil Donahue, due to its fear of being perceived as anti-war; and its former reporter, Jessica Yellin, confessed that journalists were "under enormous pressure from corporate executives" to present the news in a pro-war and pro-Bush manner.

What each of these firing offenses have in common is that they angered and offended the neocon Right. Isn't that a strange dynamic for the supposedly Liberal Media: the only viewpoint-based firings of journalists are ones where the journalist breaches neoconservative orthodoxy? Have there ever been any viewpoint-based firings of establishment journalists by The Liberal Media because of comments which offended liberals? None that I can recall. I foolishly thought that when George Bush's own Press Secretary mocked the American media for being "too deferential" to the Bush administration, that would at least put a dent in that most fictitious American myth: The Liberal Media. But it didn't; nothing does, not even the endless spate of journalist firings for deviating from right-wing dogma.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html?page=2

[bush_cheney2004]

So, where in our "liberal/leftist media" are the firings of controversial right-wing reporting and commentary?

Apparently "our" media (of any stripe) is in the United States.

.....If the US media is so blatantly "left wing," then why do only lefties (and mostly quite moderate ones at that) get the axe when they upset the dainty sensibilities of hawks and conservatives?

Maybe your premise is false....starting with examples like Tucker Carlson.

[TimG]

Interesting: Octavia Nasr (CNN), Helen Thomas, Dave Wiegel (Washington Post), Eason Jordan (CNN), Peter Arnett (NBC), Ashleigh Banfield (MSNBC), Phil Donahue (MSNBC)

All of these people were fired from for profit businesses - something that would not have happened if their employers business interests were not threatened.

I suspect more likely explanation is the majority MSM journalists and opinion makers hold world views which are not shared by the audience that these businesses need to attract. When these opinions are tolerated as long as they are not so blatant that they damaged the company's business interests. When they cross the line they get fired.

Beck, Limbaugh, et. al. have not damaged the business interests of their employers so they stay. If they did they would be gone too. If a left wing 'shock jock' got paid for a Beck style show I suspect he would have the same immunity to controversy.

Edited July 17, 2010 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

....I suspect more likely explanation is the majority MSM journalists and opinion makers hold world views which are not shared by the audience that these businesses need to attract. When these opinions are tolerated as long as they are not so blatant that they damaged the company's business interests. When they cross the line they get fired.

Spot on...we now have instances of such journalists popping off with their views (e.g. Twitter), which damages their credibility and market appeal for employers' ratings share.

[bloodyminded]

Maybe your premise is false....starting with examples like Tucker Carlson.

Where does it say anywhere that Tucker Carlson was fired for promoting controversial views? Where are the stories of angry, liberal flak that resulted in a fear-based dismissal of the man?

Anyone else?

[bloodyminded]

All of these people were fired from for profit businesses - something that would not have happened if their employers business interests were not threatened.

I suspect more likely explanation is the majority MSM journalists and opinion makers hold world views which are not shared by the audience that these businesses need to attract. When these opinions are tolerated as long as they are not so blatant that they damaged the company's business interests. When they cross the line they get fired.

Beck, Limbaugh, et. al. have not damaged the business interests of their employers so they stay. If they did they would be gone too. If a left wing 'shock jock' got paid for a Beck style show I suspect he would have the same immunity to controversy.

These are certainly all debatable points...though many of them don't hold up to scrutiny. Phil Donahue's show was popular, and attracted a lot of viewers.

But it's moot anyway, because my point (as stated already) is this: if the media is so "left-leaning," then it would appear odd to fire left-leaning commentators and reporters for "controversy," while very controversial commentators are in fact often present...so long as they hold to the conventional pieties.

The media is "leftist"...but being leftist is far more risky to one's career than being to the right.

Edited July 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

These are certainly all debatable points...though many of them don't hold up to scrutiny. Phil Donahue's show was popular, and attracted a lot of viewers.

The network has more to worry about than just Donahue's show. He would not have been fired if there were not business interests at stake. Given the context of the time the major advertisers may have refused to support the show which would be a death blow even if it was popular. Advertisers would only boycott a show if their business interests were threatened by it and that would only happen if a significant number of people opposed his views.

The media is "leftist"...but being leftist is far more risky to one's career than being to the right.

I am saying many of the people who choose careers in the media have a leftish bent (i.e. through self selection - media is not one that attracts people with a right wing bent). That is very different saying the institution is leftish because many of the people running the media only care about the money which has no left or right. Edited July 17, 2010 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

Where does it say anywhere that Tucker Carlson was fired for promoting controversial views? Where are the stories of angry, liberal flak that resulted in a fear-based dismissal of the man?

Do your own homework....it's not like you have to wade through as much depth in Canadian media.

[bloodyminded]

Do your own homework....it's not like you have to wade through as much depth in Canadian media.

I appreciate this tacit concession of my view.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I am saying many of the people who choose careers in the media have leftish bent. That is very different saying the institution is leftish because many of the people running the media only care about the money which has no left or right.

Yes, the two are very different ideas. Dan Rather (and his producer) had to go from CBS for very specific reasons related to employer liability and professional ethics. That there are more "left leaning" jounalists in the profession to begin with, it onl;y stands to reason that more will run afoul of basic employer policies and budget decisions.

[bloodyminded]

The network has more to worry about than just Donahue's show. He would not have been fired if there were not business interests at stake. Given the context of the time the major advertisers may have refused to support the show which would be a death blow even if it was popular. Advertisers would only boycott a show if their business interests were threatened by it and that would only happen if a significant number of people opposed his views.

While there's somehting to this, it's not entirely true. "Pure" busines interests are not the only factor, not by a long shot.

At any rate, there is no refutation at all here of my central point.

I am saying many of the people who choose careers in the media have a leftish bent (i.e. through self selection - media is not one that attracts people with a right wing bent). That is very different saying the institution is leftish because many of the people running the media only care about the money which has no left or right.

There probably is a disproportionate number of mildy-liberal people attracted to journalism, yes. But this has a very limited effect on the institutional nature of media organs...which, as you correclty point out, are not clearly left or right for the most part. however, they are establsihment organs, who have every reason to be supportive of power generally. (A slight simplification, but reasonable in terms of institutional analysis.)

But the Busienss model doesn't explain it all away. There is simply not a far greater percentage of the public who agrees with Glenn Beck than with Phil Donahue. If anything, much of Beck's opinion is comparatively radical, even fringe.

So it's not a clear-cut matter of business interests being dictated by market forces through the public will.

Edited July 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Yes, the two are very different ideas. Dan Rather (and his producer) had to go from CBS for very specific reasons related to employer liability and professional ethics. That there are more "left leaning" jounalists in the profession to begin with, it onl;y stands to reason that more will run afoul of basic employer policies and budget decisions.

The point wasn't "more"; it was "all," or close enough to shatter your hypothesis here.

[bush_cheney2004]

I appreciate this tacit concession of my view.

The concession is that your "view" is dominated by American media, regardless of political leanings. Don't worry, you have lots of company in Canada when it comes to that.

[TimG]

At any rate, there is no refutation at all here of my central point.

If 8 out 10 members of group A believe Y then it follows that a random occurrence to members of group A will mostly affect people that believe Y.

But the Busienss model doesn't explain it all away. There is simply not a far greater percentage of the public who agrees with Glenn Beck than with Phil Donahue. If anything, much of Beck's opinion is comparatively radical, even fringe.

He keeps his advertisers even in the face of an organized boycott. That is all that matters. Edited July 17, 2010 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

....He keeps his advertisers even in the face of an organized boycott. That is all that matters.

I guess ad revenue and market share are another right wing conspiracy.

[bloodyminded]

The concession is that your "view" is dominated by American media, regardless of political leanings. Don't worry, you have lots of company in Canada when it comes to that.

The original concession was yours, as is this one...which doesn't constitute a "concession" at all, but rather patriotic delicacy.

[bloodyminded]

If 8 out 10 members of group A believe Y then it follows that a random occurrence to members of group A will mostly affect people that believe Y.

First you need to establish that your premise is correct, before you apply the formula to it. As it stands, it's a tautology.

He keeps his advertisers even in the face of an organized boycott. That is all that matters.

But it wasn't your orginal, oversimplified point, at all.

At least we're in agreement on the central thesis: that the "media" is not "left wing."

Edited July 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

The original concession was yours, as is this one...which doesn't constitute a "concession" at all, but rather patriotic delicacy.

I know...as this disturbs you so...a person without a country because that would be so "dainty". No, yours is a smug superiority that transcends borders. My reality concedes nothing.

[bloodyminded]

I know...as this disturbs you so...a person without a country because that would be so "dainty". No, yours is a smug superiority that transcends borders. My reality concedes nothing.

It's the weak-in-character patriots who indulge in "smug superiority." By definition.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's the weak-in-character patriots who indulge in "smug superiority." By definition.

Wrong...it is amoral superiority and identity based on real economic and political power....reality vs. your moral fantasies.

[bloodyminded]

Wrong...it is amoral superiority and identity based on real economic and political power....reality vs. your moral fantasies.

Morality is "fantasy" and amorality is "superiority."

That's wonderful stuff, Mr. Dalmer.

But at least this would hold to some consistency, albeit the stance of the pathetic loser. But you aren't even consistent.

Because you admonish folks for not "supporting the troops"--a shriveled, politically correct stance, but one that nonetheless has its genesis in a moral worldview.

Or when you fancy yourself the moral arbiter of Canadian hypocrisy, under the pretence that America is free of illusions--also a moral stance, however adolescent and obediently (very obediently) selective.

You might want to get your confused life-philosopies straight.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Beck, Limbaugh, et. al. have not damaged the business interests of their employers so they stay. If they did they would be gone too. If a left wing 'shock jock' got paid for a Beck style show I suspect he would have the same immunity to controversy.

Beck lost most of the people who advertised with his show, so there goes that premise.

[bush_cheney2004]

...You might want to get your confused life-philosopies straight.

Why? I'm living large in the USA...while you just get to watch and wonder about American "morality". Your smug superiority will not change that reality.

[bloodyminded]

Beck lost most of the people who advertised with his show, so there goes that premise.

At any rate, we can look to Economics 101 for a simple-minded explanation...or we can examine objective reality itself and perceive what is occurring.

When theory trumps reality itself, you just know we're talking with the equivalent to religious fanatics.

Edited July 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

But around we come and swing back to purpose.

Let's suppose that there is no real 'liberal' media bias.

Then for what purpose could there be for 'The Right' to continually bray about a liberal media bias?