I had the opportunity to sit down this week with one of America's top economists, Paul Krugman, who of course doubles as an influential op-ed columnist for The New York Times. It's more than a bit surprising when the guy from The New York Times sounds more radical than anyone else in the room...but Krugman and his twice-weekly column have been more consistently surprising and radically different than anything else allowed to appear in the Times (or indeed anywhere else in the so-called 'mainstream media') for so long that even Krugman himself no longer seems surprised by the force of his own outrage.
He certainly pulled no punches during our conversation, stating in a forthright manner his opinions on such controversial topics as truth and lies in the newsroom ("The Big Lies are all on the right"), media bias ("A large part of it is in fact right-wing bias, because they are effectively part of the right wing") and corporate pressure ("It's very clear that when the parent companies of the major news sources have issues at stake before the federal government... this definitely influences the coverage.) Perhaps the fact that he's a tenured professor at Princeton -- and not a professional journalist still on the make - has freed Krugman to speak truth to naked emperors and Times readers on a biweekly basis...
We spoke at the beginning of a national publicity tour for Krugman's latest book, The Conscience of a Liberal, which ranges over the history of the past century to explain what went wrong in America -- and then attempts to point the way to a "new New Deal." Part of what went wrong with America, of course, was the role played in our democracy by the mass media, as Krugman recognized and parsed in one chapter in his book entitled 'Weapons of Mass Distraction.'
ROC: You speak in your book about "movement conservatism," which you call a "radical new force in American politics that took over the Republican Party." What role if any do the media play in movement conservatism?
PK: The media are a very important force in it. They shape perceptions and they conceal issues. Look at the 2000 presidential campaign, for example, where the media were so heavily biased against Al Gore. That's what brought Bush to within a Supreme Court decision of the White House. So if you look at, certainly these last seven years, the role of the media in not telling you reasons why you should be skeptical about the course of the war, for example, it's enormously important.
We have a situation right now in which there are several major parts of the news media that are for all practical purposes part of "movement conservatism" - Fox News, The New York Post, The Washington Times -- and in which other news organizations are intimidated, at least to some extent. I sometimes talk about what I call "asymmetrical intimidation." If you say a true but unflattering thing about Bush or in fact about any other prominent conservative, oh boy! People are going to go after you. I mean, I've got people working fulltime going after me, right? But if you say a false, unflattering thing about a Democrat or a progressive, no risk... And that shapes coverage, no question about it. It's better now, but it's still very asymmetric. The other thing we should mention about the media is their addiction to the trivial. We've got the most substantive election coming up, I think, ever. We've got clear differences on policies between parties. And what are we seeing news stories about? John Edwards' hair and Hillary Clinton's laugh... this is horrifying! And again -- it's asymmetric. I can think of lots of unflattering things to say about any of the Republican candidates - Mitt Romney's saying his sons are serving the country by helping him get elected! - but it doesn't get nearly as much play in the media.
ROC: It sounds like you're saying there's a bias in the media. If you are, what is the bias?
PK: The media's bias, a large part of it is in fact right wing bias, because they are effectively part of the right wing. Fox News... there's nothing like Fox News on other television networks that you can look at. There is no liberal equivalent of Fox News, there is no network that, if a conservative got the Nobel Peace Prize, would have responded the way Fox News did to Al Gore's Peace Prize, by first saying nothing at all, then when they figured out the line, talking about how fat he is.... So there's no correspondence there.
Beyond that, there's two things at least; first, the hatred of substance -- they really want to talk about all that trivia -- and there's also the fetish of evenhandedness. If one candidate says something that's completely false, and the other something that's true, the media will say, 'Some people believe what that guy said was false, and some people say it was true.' Way back in the 2000 campaign, I wrote a piece in which I said that if Bush said the earth was flat, the headline would read: "Opinions Differ on Shape of the Planet." I was thinking specifically about what Bush was saying about taxes and Social Security, which were just out and out lies! But no one would say that, and they still won't. It's better now, a little, but they still won't say it, and that tends -- I imagine in some future environment that might work to the advantage of some dishonest candidates on the left - - but the fact of the matter is the Big Lies are all on the right right now. So it works much more to their advantage.
ROC: Do you think it's possible that economics is driving politics in the media?
PK: The role of economics in driving the media is an interesting one. One question is simply, "Do they respond to what sells?" And to some extent the focus on the trivial is there due to that. And also, by the way, talking heads screaming at each other is a lot cheaper than actually having reporters out in the field doing reporting, so that's one reason why you get that.
I guess the question that you want to ask is "To what extent is news coverage biased by the corporate interest of the parents?" And that's hard to pin down in any direct way, but one of the interesting things that you notice right now is the remarkable reluctance of some of the networks to follow what the viewer ship numbers seem to be saying. I mean, look at Olbermann's show versus anything else at MSNBC, for example. Why aren't there more programs like that? Why is CNN still trying to be Fox Lite, when you clearly can't outfox Fox and there clearly seems to be a bigger market opportunity on the other side? And you really do start to think that -- there probably aren't, at networks other than Fox, there probably aren't memos saying here is how we are going to slant the news today - at Fox there are, everyday. But there's probably this general sort of pressure to go for the views that won't upset the CEO of the firm that controls the network that has a lot of business interests that are best served by one side or the other... so yes, this is a problem.
ROC: So deregulation, consolidation and corporate issues like that might affect news coverage?
PK: Oh sure. It's very clear that when the parent companies of the major news sources have issues at stake before the federal government -- and if one party controls the White House and both houses of Congress and has made it very clear that it keeps lists and remembers who its friend and not-so-friend are -- this definitely influences the coverage. A lot of people I talk to in the media say that they have received pressure in ways that only seem to make sense if you think that at some level management -- not the guys that think about audience shares but the guys who think about broader concerns -- are taking into account the political liabilities. Which is one reason why it is remarkable, although it's still not what I want, that the news coverage has gotten a whole lot better -- funny, no? -- after the polls really turned the other way.
ROC: In your book, you talk about the media's use of "storylines" and what you've called the "Ramobofication of history."
PK: Yes, I'm rather proud of the term "Rambofication." In the years immediately following Vietnam, all of this stuff that now seems so much a part of the story -- that we lost the war because we were stabbed in the back, that the "weak" politicians, the Democrats, can't be trusted on national security -- wasn't very much out there. I actually went back and looked at a lot of polling and what people had to say at the time. In 1977, people still remembered what Vietnam had actually been like, and why we needed to get the heck out of there.
It wasn't really until the 1980's that the history began to be re-invented, so if only we'd let Sylvester Stallone flex his muscles, we could have gone back and won the war. The idea of Democrats as "weak" on national security really got invented then -- and you know there were a couple of events that played into that, such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, which I really don't think had much to do with Reagan, but helped make the storyline. So when 9/11 came along, the realities of 9/11 were that the Clinton people had been working pretty hard to try to do something about Bin Laden, and the Bushies said as soon as they came in, "We're not interested, we want to think about a war with China." But the storyline that the media fell into was that "We're the tough guys, the other guys neglected it." And that gave them a good run--they won two elections, in '02 and '04, which I think otherwise they would have lost -- by playing on this notion of "We're strong, and they're weak." I guess the sort of good news is that they have done such an incredibly terrible job at all of that that we may have at least a while before all that scare tactic stuff comes back.
ROC: Or we may hear in four years how the Democrats "lost Iraq."
PK: I'm worried, obviously. Clearly, if it's a Democrat who withdraws from Iraq, which it appears likely it will be, then it will be more of the "We were winning, we were on the edge of victory, then they stabbed us in the back..."
ROC: "They spit on our soldiers..."
PK: Yeah, that's amazing, the 'spitting on our soldiers' thing -- because it never happened, there are no documented cases -- but it became part of the storyline. Will that happen again? Certainly they'll do their damndest to make it happen....
I guess I'm more optimistic about the American public, that it will take a lot more than four years, for us to see that again, because it took more than four years after Vietnam, and right now the American public has a pretty good sense of just what a disaster that's all been... I think people have made up their minds that this is a disaster. Maybe ten years from now, they'll have forgotten and be willing to, you know, see movies in which some heroic guy goes back and wins the Iraq war but... not for a while anyway.
ROC: Well, I'm more of a Mencken disciple when it comes to the American public, but I hope you're right.
PK: I hope I'm right too!
This post first appeared here.
Follow Rory O'Connor on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rocglobal
The impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
The seizure of all their assets.
Like Truman did, hold hearings on War Profiteers. The imprisonment of all War Profiteers a seizure of all their assets.
Hearings on the lies behind the Iraq War.
Once the individuals are named who spread these lies, they will be imprisoned.
A clean sweep must be made of all the criminals of the past 6 years.
To me, the fact that a seemingly reasonalbe guy like Krugman spews such nonsense diminishes his credibility considerably.
Paul: You can get my e-mail address from Huff-Po. Get in touch with me. I want to see you call these men liars to their faces.
The real story here is how Americans are throwing their newspapers away, starting to turn off the TV, and searching for their own news on the Internet. You will perhaps never hear the CFR-Corporate Members Oligarchy of mainstream televised or printed news come out and proclaim what the citizenry are starting to accept as a given fact already; that the Internet is the "free press" the country was always waiting for.
The "Democrat vs. Republican" thing is just downright laughable nowadays. Neither party consistently or HARDLY EVER (I would argue) promotes truly liberal and conservative respective values as different approaches to defending the Constitution and defending the interests of the American people. Instead, both parties are CHOCK FULL of crooks who are supporting multi-national corporate special interests and subverting American sovreignty through international government organizations. This isnt "conspiracy" at all...it is readily verifiable FACT.
Ask yourself why all the media's favorite "top-tier candidates" are ALL (ALL OF THEM) members of the same nifty little CFR club that Dick Cheney directed for a number of years (concealing that fact for fear of hurting Bush's presidency).
Ask why the only ones who DONT belong to it (Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel) are consistently laughed at and downplayed in the media as "nutty and crazy" when they consistently SPEAK THE TRUTH.
Sure, the media's candidates will fiddle with your unconstitutional IRS tax code and threaten alternately to support or snatch away all those welfare and entitlement programs theyve convinced everyone that they TRULY NEED, but the bigger crap game is kept safe and hidden from the vast majority who keep looking to the MSM for their information.
When you get everyone to focus on what color mask you're wearing, sooner or later everyone gets so worked up and excited over their favorite color that they forget that youre full of $#!% to begin with and that youre robbing the bank.
The MSM is sitting in the swollen pockets of the corporatists, the elite.
Fox new is simply Josef Goebbels reincarnate.
Hello-oH? Fellow progressives, we had better start speaking up, in the finest tradition of
real journalism (communications majors need not apply, here) and speak of, and to the truth.
In the end, "Truth will out!"
theyoungturks.com
Anyone who uses 'liberal' to describe the media or anyone or anything in today's political climate is suspect, and anyone with a chance at being placed in the highest office in the US no longer deserves the description. They have all fallen into the fold.
That's a prescribed notion for the ignorant and liars.
diverges from reporting the 5 w's with some
efficiency, you've got an issue there. I used
to kind of have more faith in the ethics and
honesty of our media sources, but the Iraq war
has been kind in the context of its' controversy
by pretty much showing for one, how much money
is being thrown around, and two, how malleable
the press is to influence by both money and
governmental doings.
Further, I think you don't GET unbiased media
anymore, reference the 5 w's above, you've got
all this opinion, not a lot of this happened on that day at that time at this location etc. Kind of all still just a big soap commercial etc.
In other words, I don't WANT a stenographer that just repeats what he/she is told.
For example, a "story" that says (basically) "The president says Iran is a huge threat and pursuing nuclear weapons...but the democrats disagree" is NOT a story.
It's BS. People read that, and if they already supported the president they think "yeah, Go Bush! Let's go after Iran!"
People who already supported the democrats read the same thing and think "Yeah, Go democrats! Let's NOT go after Iran!"
*Actual* reporting looks into who is telling the truth *and making a judgment based on those facts* rather than just repeating the talking points of EITHER side as fact OR repeating the talking points of BOTH sides as if that's "fair" and asking the viewer/reader to "make up their own mind".
Huh? What? How can I "make up my own mind" when all you did was state the *opinion* of some democrats vs. some republicans?
PS---There is also that fake "fact checking" that goes on where they don't provide any real context for the viewer/reader and they *pretend* like they totally debunked something.
This is a PERFECT example I urge you to watch (short video clip):
youtube.com/watch?v=vwU90B3d6e4
Radio: According to Media Matters research, there is a 10 to 1 ratio of conservative shows to progressive shows.
Go ahead, turn on your radio and see how easy it is, for example, to get Limbaugh or Hannity (and how clear the signal is). Now try the same for Bill Press, Thom Hartmann or The Young Turks and see what happens.
(The good news is that progressive radio was less than 1% of the market share 3 years ago and is up to 10%)
Print: Again, according to MM, (paraphrase) conservative editorials pass by around 152 million eyes a day vs 125 for progressive writing.
The number one most widely circulated/syndicated political writer in America is conservative George Will.
I'd also point out that even the New York Times, the paper most pointed to for liberal bias, has David Brooks and Tom Friedman.
Television: I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I know you can find them at MM. Take the Sunday shows on the major networks (Meet the Press, etc), and the number of conservative guests is much higher than progressive guests.
Also, just think about it for a second.
Other than Keith Olbermann, name me ONE progressive show host. Seriously, just one. And no, Comedy Central shows do NOT count.
You could possibly make an "ok" case for Lou Dobbs, but is he really "progressive"? If anything his immigration rants (which make up 90% of his show) are populist-centrist.
The major network anchors might be pegged as "liberal", but they are soft moderates at best. Sure, I concede they might *personally* lean liberal, but you'd be hard pressed to show me solid examples of when that manifested itself in an actual show.
PS---Also note that on Olbermann's supposedly "liberal" MSNBC there is Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough and war correspondent Pat Buchanan.
Finally, let's not forget the blatantly conservative (idiot) Glenn Beck (who's also on ABC's Good Morning America!).
theyoungturks.com
There ARE lots of *pseudo-democrats* out there, and they add false fuel to the fire of "liberal bias".
That's why I made sure to appropriately frame the debate in terms of "progressives" on television rather than "democrats".
Granted, my arguemnt still stands either way.
Colmes is the perfect example of a soft, slightly left of center dope who also happens to be strange looking...a man far less confident and charismatic than his conservative co-host, Sean Hannity (who regularly bulldozes Holmes to the delight of the audience I'm sure).
I mean really, Comes is a real-life strawman.
Fox News can point to him (and other un-charismatic, pseudo-liberal types) and say "Ah-hah! See, this is what ALL liberals are like. A bunch of funny looking pansies who secretly agree with us on 80% of everything and slightly disagree on the other 20%".
Carville is married to Republican propagandist Mary Matalin, who had worked for Bush on his 1992 reelection campaign. She was an assistant to Bush and counselor to Cheney until 2003.
Matalin, worked with Karl Rove, when working for Cheney. She was part of the Iraq propaganda project the White House Iraq Group, a secretive internal White House task force convened in August 2002 (seven months before the 2003 Invasion of Iraq). WHIG was charged with the task of convincing the US public of the potential threat of Saddam Hussein's alleged violations of international law in his refusal to cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors.
Carville is a traitor to the Dems and he’s the first to spew bullshit and lies about Dems.
"Other than Keith Olbermann, name me ONE progressive show host. Seriously, just one."
Chris Matthews
George Stefanapolis
Brian Williams
Katie Couric
Tim Russert
Wolf Blitzer
"war correspondent Pat Buchanan?"
Um, Pat Buchanan has been against the Iraq War from day one.
This is in stark contrast to your straw-man version of media matters that is completely unsupported by a shred of evidence.
It's funny too, because Media Matters is chock full of numerous long videos and transcripts that show examples of outrageous conservative bias. Note the use of video and transcripts to provide *actual evidence* rather than ONLY opinion.
When I mention that Pat Buchanan is conservative, do you disupte that claim? So what if he's against the war, is he *liberal* because of that (if you answer yes it's quite telling)?
As for the other mainstream media dopes you list, give me some solid examples of where there supposed "liberal bias" came through on air.
Because there are certainly numerous examples of where these people were anything but liberally biased.
Let's see, Wolf Blitzer doing a report to "debunk" Michael Moore's new film on healthcare.
Or maybe Tim Russert having far more *conservative* guests on his show Meet the Press?
How about Chris Matthews suggesting that the ONLY reason democrats were going to subpeona Rove and Miers was for "payback" rather than a legitimate investigation into the attorney scandal?
I could go on but they only allow a certain number of words in each post.
PS---How about the fact that ALL of the MSM dopes you listed kissed the ass of this administration in the lead up to the war and NOT ONE asked tough questions until *well after* the presidents approval ratings were in the toilet.
I'm guessing in your mind "liberal bias" is any time a news person isn't blatantly pro-republican. Do you honestly believe, that, for example, ANY of the people you listed is even HALF as partisan *on air* as Glenn Beck?
mediamatters.org/sundayshowreport/
I guess Carlson was afraid to attack Maher because he thought Maher would make jokes about him, so he went after Krugman. I thought Krugman was great. He didn't yell at Carlson, he just stated so many facts and so much evidence to support his position that Carlson had nothing to say except nah nah nah nah.
I wish we had an opposition party in this country. Because if we did, they could do a lot of good for us if they listened to Paul Krugman.