The "Liberal" Media's Right-Wing Orthodoxy

[bloodyminded]

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?

Their purpose, their intent, is mostly honest. They see no need to question what has become a cherished note in their ongoing victimology. And because of right-wing media watchdogs--some of whom are disingenuous, no doubt, but most of whom I believe are sincere, as I said--they can find scattered, unrelated examples of apparent "liberal bias" and mistake this for a wholesale criticism.

It isn't; it utterly ignores the institutional biases, which is crazy way to proceed.

So they can point out, probably correctly, that the majority of journalists vote on the centre/liberal side of the spectrum: the Democrats in the US, the Liberals here. (hardly "radical left" as some contend, but that's another matter.) To the "liberal bias" critics, this virtually constitutes proof of the bias in itself.

Meaning there's no need to look deeper into the matter, especially not on a larger structural level. This is fatal to an intelligent understanding.

And although Chomsky has been perhaps over-cited here in recent days, and in part because of myself, I think he's worth returning to on this instance, having co-written what I think remains the gold standard for institutional media critiques: His and Edward Herman's "Propaganda Model" from Manufacturing Consent.

So instead of looking at majority voting habits of journalists (ideology), or of the profit motive, the model takes a much more expansive view. These two are included in the model, by the way, but say little in and of themselves. It also makes use of comparisons between what we can deem "pro-establishment, pro-Western" stories compared to ones that vilify the West. (vanishingly rare, which would be predicted by the propaganda model as hypothesis, and then tested.)

To get back to your original question, the "liberal media bias" theme actually shows one of the few demonstrable successes of media propaganda. (Because it's hard to measure public effect of propaganda in a relatively free society.) As follows:

The New York Times, for example, is often deemed by the political Right to be "leftist" and even a "fifth column," undermining American resolve by coddling enemies, & co. & co. And to those conservatives who don't hold to this laughable nonsense, it is still a given that it is a "left-leaning" newspaper.

Therefore, when the Times supports Western interests in issues of foreign policy (which it generally does) conservative critics can point to it and say "Even the Times agrees...and they've got a left-wing bias!"

It'd be rather like my saying "Even bush-cheney_2004 thinks that Canada is less than perfect....and he's a Canadian-phile!"

That's how deep this particular rabbit-hole goes. It's preposterous, and demonstrably so.

The fact is, the Times, aside from some real achievements, acts frequently as stenographer for power. This is an institutional failure, not intentional propaganda by journalists.

For just one, and recent, example, as Glenn Greenwald recently showed (giving us his research sources so we can check for ourselves if we don't believe him...something the major newspapers simply won't do), in all the many stories and reports in the Times about the torture controversies, the newspaper has never referred to American torture as "torture"...while simultaneously, they refer to even the precise same practices by enemies as "torture," and freely, routinely. They called waterboarding "torture" when this was the Official Stance (which it has long been), ceasing the practice immediately once the administration declared the matter not so simple.

Even beating to death is not "torture"...unless it is done by others...in which case it suddenly is.

One example doesn't make the case, by the way, and I would agree. (Though this IS the conservative method of exposing "liberal bias.") But there are lots. Lots and lots and lots.

One of the ones written about extensively by Chomsky and Herman was the difference in reporting between Kosovo and East Timor, which were occurring at precisely the same time. The former, a NATO war almost universally supported in the press, was evidence of the West's "new humanitarianism." Whereas the simultaneous, outright, material support for the far, far worse massacres and abuses occurring in East Timor...well, it didn't warrant much of a nod at all, except some occasional stories that were highly misleading, even false. (ie "we looked away" during the massacres...presumably, code for "materially supported the massacres, while intervening in the UN to stop anyone from trying to end the massacres.")

So the unambiguous fact that the prominent Western nations are supporters of State terror on a scale unimagined by such terror amateurs as Hamas...well, that's not reported. I mean, it's not even looked at. The parameters of what is Proper to Discuss are fairly well-established, though no one's forcing anyone to this self-censorship. Meanwhile, the lesser terror committed by official enemies receives a tremendous amount of press.

This works on some people...say, the very people who will read this post of mine, and conclude that I'm a "terrorist-supporter."

That is, I condemn terrorism, they defend it...and somehow I'm the terrorist-supporter.

That's propaganda at work.

Edited July 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

This works on some people...say, the very people who will read this post of mine, and conclude that I'm a "terrorist-supporter."

That is, I condemn terrorism, they defend it...and somehow I'm the terrorist-supporter.

That's propaganda at work.

And if we refer to Manufactured Consent we find the prevailing opinion from Herman & Chomsky points to "the government," as producer of most of the "news," as being the controlling factor in media content bias. And if you want to report on a national order, I am thinking that the Federal government is the kingpin.

Supposing this is true for the US media. Then for what purpose would the propaganda serve a Democratic administration, especially following a Republican administration that was perceived in many circles to be somewhat cynical with regard to media manipulation?

For one, I think there is a line in US media that Canadians - vastly liberal in outlook, are simply not familiar or comfortable with. So sure, the reporting of the fictional bias has an honest aspect, but there is propaganda as there is advertising, and each the focus of 'products' (or 'outcome').

(i.e. the full title of Herman ^ Chomsky's book is: Manufactured Consent, the Political Economy of the Mass Media)

It has said here before, their 'liberal' is more akin to our 'conservative' for a large part. So I can see why a Democratic administration would want to keep the fictional bias alive as they have as much invested in the control of perspective as the Republicans do for more or less the same reasons.

Two interesting questions follow from your's and, generally, BC's comments: to what effect does this media bias have on Canadians, esp. those who use US sources as their primary "world" content and is there a way out of this model without being preceived as skewed toward one political bias or another?

Edited July 19, 2010 by Shwa

[bloodyminded]

And if we refer to Manufactured Consent we find the prevailing opinion from Herman & Chomsky points to "the government," as producer of most of the "news," as being the controlling factor in media content bias. And if you want to report on a national order, I am thinking that the Federal government is the kingpin.

Supposing this is true for the US media. Then for what purpose would the propaganda serve a Democratic administration, especially following a Republican administration that was perceived in many circles to be somewhat cynical with regard to media manipulation?

It has said here before, their 'liberal' is more akin to our 'conservative' for a large part. So I can see why a Democratic administration would want to keep the fictional bias alive as they have as much invested in the control of perspective as the Republicans do for more or less the same reasons.

They don't claim that the government is the source of most of the news; the claim (and while I thought insightful, is not especially a controversial view) is that major media use government and big business spokespeople for the overwhelming majority of their sources. And "sourcing" is only one of the "five filters" they cite as of primary interest to their model. The others are ownership, advertising, "flak" from influential organizations, and ideology.

They don't claim in any way that "the government" is the controlling factor in media bias. They claim there is no real "controlling factor," that the fact of a free press is what has generated the need for propaganda in the first place, as developed along the lines of the theories of Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman...and their primary concern was not only about obedience to government, but to the manipulation by economic interests for financial benefit. Both the advertising industry and the PR industry, which are kissing cousins at least, grew in large part from their theories.

Chomsky and Herman make no serious distinction between Democrats and Republicans; they're noth establishment power, which means they both benefit (and sometimes are wounded) by media propaganda.

So, when you ask "for what purpose would the propaganda serve a Democratic administration," you seem to be assuming that Chomsky and Herman are Democrats, who hate Republicans. But that's not at all the case. The Democrats come in for as much criticism--maybe more--than do the Republicans.

I'm not sure at any rate why you'd make a distinction between the two. The authors don't argue that there is a "conservative media." At all.

Two interesting questions follow from your's and, generally, BC's comments: to what effect does this media bias have on Canadians, esp. those who use US sources as their primary "world" content and is there a way out of this model without being preceived as skewed toward one political bias or another?

They are interesitng questions, but difficult maybe to the level of impossibility to measure.

As you say, the book is titled the Political Economy of the Mass Media; perfectly implicit in this is that it's an institutional analysis of the way propaganda is used...but not of its effects on the general public, which are unknown and ambiguous and extraordinarily complex. That there is some effect is not in doubt: for example, the advertising industry doesn't spend tens of billions of dollars without some expectations of returns and some study of efficacy. But the effects of propaganda as a whole? who knows?

At any rate, I don't think they'd make a substantive distinction between Canadian and American news media. Without an American bias, Canadians still are offerred a Canadian bias, which I can't see as somehow superior; and they're substantively the same kinds of biases anyway.

Edited July 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

They don't claim that the government is the source of most of the news; the claim (and while I thought insightful, is not especially a controversial view) is that major media use government and big business spokespeople for the overwhelming majority of their sources. And "sourcing" is only one of the "five filters" they cite as of primary interest to their model. The others are ownership, advertising, "flak" from influential organizations, and ideology.

It was my reading of their "prevailing opinion." I didn't mean to imply they "claim."

Of course when I say "news" I am referring to the reporting of events that lead to conditions for propaganda to perpetuate. In a smaller way I suppose sports, arts and entertainment have their propaganda value (i.e. as diversionary according to retired NY Times editor Max Frankel), but not so much as the seemingly foreign policy related case studies in chapters 2-6 which is my focus since this might be an insight into liberal/left vs conservative/right claims of media bias.

When I say "governments" and also meaning the bureaucracy, justice organs, military, police and other public organs including offices of international concerns such as NATO. Now, no doubt, Exxon-Mobile or, say, Microsoft have international interests, but I am not sure how they would be a source for, or have an immediate concern or influence about the KGB plot on the Pope, the use of the word 'genocide' when reporting foreign conflicts or the fact or Guatemalan trade unions. The primary source filtering agent for this information, that eventually appears as news, would be the US government.

They don't claim in any way that "the government" is the controlling factor in media bias. They claim there is no real "controlling factor," that the fact of a free press is what has generated the need for propaganda in the first place, as developed along the lines of the theories of Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman...and their primary concern was not only about obedience to government, but to the manipulation by economic interests for financial benefit. Both the advertising industry and the PR industry, which are kissing cousins at least, grew in large part from their theories.

Would it be fair to say that before you get to the point of effective (or wanting effective) propaganda, there would be a bias toward a particular view or goal and that, while operating in that propaganda mode, that bias would still be inherent? I don't want to downplay the significance of the large corporations (which come and go), their relationship to the government or the principle of bureaucratic affinity, but wouldn't you say that "the manipulation by economic interests for financial benefit" would also be a driving factor for US foreign policy or a keen government view or goal?

Chomsky and Herman make no serious distinction between Democrats and Republicans; they're noth establishment power, which means they both benefit (and sometimes are wounded) by media propaganda.

No, when I ask, "supposing this is true" we pass from Herman and Chomsky and get to bloodyminded. (ok, ok, I cited the book title later on, but that was for something different)

Are we good so far?

[bloodyminded]

Would it be fair to say that before you get to the point of effective (or wanting effective) propaganda, there would be a bias toward a particular view or goal and that, while operating in that propaganda mode, that bias would still be inherent? I don't want to downplay the significance of the large corporations (which come and go), their relationship to the government or the principle of bureaucratic affinity, but wouldn't you say that "the manipulation by economic interests for financial benefit" would also be a driving factor for US foreign policy or a keen government view or goal?

Yes, fair enough. And inherent bias, of course, is completely natural, and does not even necessarily constitute propaganda...not as the term is generally understood in the contemporary era (ie as negative and deceptive). That is, it tecnically will inevitably produce propaganda in the orginal sense of the word...but it does not have to be unfairly biased. By unfairly biased I mean going against the vaunted principles of honesty, of holding power to account, of some genuine attempt at objectivity to the best of our ability.

In other words, reporting that the same acts committed by foreign governments and by our governments gets the same treatment (say, the use of the word "torture")....that would be "unbiased" in the sense I would understand the term. Using different language depending on who the acting agents is--in which the horrors or implied probity are downplayed because it is our actions--I would call that "biased," and certainly "propaganda."

No, when I ask, "supposing this is true" we pass from Herman and Chomsky and get to bloodyminded. (ok, ok, I cited the book title later on, but that was for something different)

Are we good so far?

Sure!

OK, first, instead of saying "there is no liberal bias" (begging the question of why the right would continually assert that there is), I personally would insist there is sometimes a liberal bias. I simply don't see it as an ovewrarching tendency or constantly repeating theme in the news media. Sometimes there is a conservative bias too, thought that also is not a constant or overwhelming feature.

Like I said elsewhere, I assume the Right complains about the "liberal bias" from a reflexive, though mostly sincere belief that it is all too real, that the worldview of a lot of citizens are omitted from mainstream news discourse. But I think they're mistaken. By ignoring the larger, overarching institutional analyses, they can instead point to scattered, individual examples of "liberal bias" and misperceive this as constituting indictment of the whole.

Yet of course, if this were a reasonable way to understand the whole, complex beast, we can perform the same methods and conclude that there is a "conservative bias," and with very little effort.

[Shwa]

Yes, fair enough. And inherent bias, of course, is completely natural, and does not even necessarily constitute propaganda...not as the term is generally understood in the contemporary era (ie as negative and deceptive). That is, it tecnically will inevitably produce propaganda in the orginal sense of the word...but it does not have to be unfairly biased. By unfairly biased I mean going against the vaunted principles of honesty, of holding power to account, of some genuine attempt at objectivity to the best of our ability.

In other words, reporting that the same acts committed by foreign governments and by our governments gets the same treatment (say, the use of the word "torture")....that would be "unbiased" in the sense I would understand the term. Using different language depending on who the acting agents is--in which the horrors or implied probity are downplayed because it is our actions--I would call that "biased," and certainly "propaganda."

I think this is very important to realize: what entity is at the heart of scrubbing words like "torture" from mainstream news media? With the example of the 'The Media and the word "Torture" we have the implication of a concetrated government effort to influence the bias of media content. And that is just one word!

So, since the end of the Bush Administration, do we have a sudden to even perceptable reversal of the use of the word "torture" by a Democratic government? has their been more openness on the use of the word? I am asking you since you seem to have more depth on this issue that I or most others here. If not then can we safely assume that the 'inherent bias' on this particular issue is more or less the same with regard to both Republican and Democrat media handlers.

If so (and I am not saying it is so, just 'if') a common bias would indicate a centre of sorts and it would appear that, since 2004, the centre line has shifted - at least insofar as the use of the word 'torture' is concerned.

So have you noticed the return of the word 'torture' as referring to US activities (or even waterboarding) in the major US news media?

[bloodyminded]

I think this is very important to realize: what entity is at the heart of scrubbing words like "torture" from mainstream news media? With the example of the 'The Media and the word "Torture" we have the implication of a concetrated government effort to influence the bias of media content. And that is just one word!

I'm not sure how concentrated the effort is. On some matters, including this one, the mainstream media generally seems naturally inclined to help, without clear overt pressure from government.

So, since the end of the Bush Administration, do we have a sudden to even perceptable reversal of the use of the word "torture" by a Democratic government? has their been more openness on the use of the word? I am asking you since you seem to have more depth on this issue that I or most others here. If not then can we safely assume that the 'inherent bias' on this particular issue is more or less the same with regard to both Republican and Democrat media handlers.

As far as I can tell, it is about the same, yes.

If so (and I am not saying it is so, just 'if') a common bias would indicate a centre of sorts and it would appear that, since 2004, the centre line has shifted - at least insofar as the use of the word 'torture' is concerned.

My impression (and I freely admit that impression is about all that it is) is that there has been no shifting of any line. I believe things remain, albeit with minor variations in any direction, roughly the same as they were during the Cold War era. But I could be wrong, and it's an interesting question.

So have you noticed the return of the word 'torture' as referring to US activities (or even waterboarding) in the major US news media?

Personally, I haven't noticed, no.

Edited August 1, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

Liberal media does not liberate - It enslaves - strange how the lefties are actually duped henchmen for the extreme conservative right that might as well be the new neo-Nazi party...If the right did not need the left they would get rid of it - they have the money and they own the media.

[Shwa]

My impression (and I freely admit that impression is about all that it is) is that there has been no shifting of any line. I believe things remain, albeit with minor variations in any direction, roughly the same as they were during the Cold War era. But I could be wrong, and it's an interesting question.

From earlier: Two interesting questions follow from your's and, generally, BC's comments: to what effect does this media bias have on Canadians, esp. those who use US sources as their primary "world" content and is there a way out of this model without being preceived as skewed toward one political bias or another?

So one of two things (or varying degrees of either) should result:

There is no bias in Canadian media compared to US media, including the so-called 'liberal bias' of media or:

There is a bias between Canadian and American media and, if there is, which way does it lean?