How Journalism Plays Twister...To the Right

It's so true that freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose -- and so our brush here with terminal illness is occasionally truly liberating for America's newsrooms. This week, in fact, it seems that journalists are rushing to admit something -- openly in one case, tacitly in another -- something that's been true ever since the Nixon-Agnew era, but was rarely talked about.

This uncomfortable truth? That to accommodate the perceived notion that the news media warps things so far to the left, journalists have been playing Twister to bend over backwards to accommodate conservatives -- and tying ourselves in knots.

Exhibit A: The New York Times admits that it's easier to get on one of the most coveted pieces of real estate in American journalism, a slot on its letters-to-the-editor page, if you are a conservative. Here is what Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor, said in a recent online chat:

The best kind of letter is relatively short (under 150 words), clearly written, strongly opinionated and direct. It doesn't contain personal invective aimed at the writer or subject of an article. And it's well written. I'll be honest: Because of the nature of our readers, letter writers who defend Republican, conservative or right-wing positions on many topics have a higher shot at being published.

Exhibit B: Cynthia Tucker -- the Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has long been the kind of contrarian voice that we journalists allegedly worship -- is being moved up and out of her slot in what local observers say is part of a seemingly futile bid to woo back conservative suburban readers:

It's safe to say, however, that for the first time in generations, the state's leading editorial page finally will have abandoned its mission as a progressive voice in favor of a carefully constructed mirage of "balance" -- designed not to tell the truth, whether it's unpopular or not, as much as to mollify conservative readers.

This article about Tucker's move to Washington and away from her key local post at the Atlanta paper does a good job of laying out the broader issues, of why journalists are so self-conscious about their alleged liberalism -- some of it real but a lot of it perceived -- and why we become so accommodating to conservatives that it quickly becomes a case of being too accommodating.

That could be because efforts at balance come across as what they are -- a bit patronizing. But it's also because the practice of journalism is an essentially liberal exercise in the classical sense of the word: It places faith in the ability of people to form their opinions based on facts and reasoning rather than on preconceptions and prejudice. Meanwhile, the South's brand of conservatism -- the brand that has taken over much of the Republican Party -- is essentially reactionary: Any narrative, no matter how factual, that challenges a set worldview is seen as a threat from outsiders to be battled, no matter how high the cost.

It's not surprising that there's an overlap between liberal values and journalistic values -- at least as journalists and progressives like to perceive themselves, as rational thinkers and as questioners of authority. But the reality is that at the more visible levels of the media -- inside the Beltway. on cable TV and in the national papers and newsweeklies -- the practitioners of journalism are not so much questioners of authority, that they have a lot on common with the other elites they're supposedly practicing on.

There are social ties, sometimes college ties, shared world views that over the years grow less and less liberal. Many higher-earning journalists share the liberal social values of the blue-state suburbs -- on issues like abortion or the environment -- but also some conservative economic views, and a comfort level with conformity. A good number aren't keen on labor unions (even though a few actually belong to them), aren't familiar with working-class concerns, and were freaked out by the "dirty freakin' hippies" who just happened to be right on Iraq.

What's the one liberal value that journalists retain as we grow long in the tooth and rise up the salary ladder? Liberal guilt. Politicians have played on this successfully for 40 years, ever since too many newsrooms cowered from Spiro Agnew calling us "nattering nabobs of negativism." As I wrote about in my recent book Tear Down This Myth, Ronald Reagan's "teflon presidency" was in good measure due to journalists fearful they'd be accused of liberal bias with a too aggressive posture.

Did you ever watch the Sunday political talk shows, and the regular cavalcade of aggressively conservative pols and pundits, who usually outnumber and outtalk the handful of passive "liberals," many of whom aren't even that liberal? The Beltway journalists who book those shows tend to book "liberals" who are a reflection of themselves -- low-key, just-a-tad-to-the-left-of-centrists -- while bringing on more rabid conservatives a) to show that they're open minded and not "biased liberals" and b) because they find wild-eyed conservative entertaining. Real DFH liberals scare the heck out of them, and God only knows what they might blurt out about something like NBC/MSNBC/CNBC parent General Electric, also a major defense contractor.

Remember the debate on President Obama's stimulus package a few months back? Everytime I flipped on cable TV, there was a 30-second factual (usually) description of the proposal, followed by five minutes of loud conservative criticism. That's how the "liberal media" shows that it's really fair and balanced.

Even so, I'm still a little stunned and slightly confused by Rosenthal's comment about over-accommodating conservative letter writers because of "the nature of our readers." Does that mean that the majority of the letters-to-the-editor in the New York Times take center-left to liberal positions on most issues? If so, that may not be the nature of the Times' readers but the nature of America, since most surveys show that most Americans hold center-left views on most issues. But instead a reader of the letters page, seeing an unfair weighting to conservative writers, will be getting a false impression of what people out there are thinking.

It's true that the Times' takes liberal positions on many issues, but not all. For example, its editorial page did not aggressively question the rush to war in Iraq, nor did some of the hyperbolic "news" coverage of the run-up by Judy Miller -- and like everyone else the Times ignored or undercovered massive protests before the invasion. But presumably the editorial page also overweighted conservative pro-war letters and underweighted the DFHs who couldn't understand why America was invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. That's balance?

A year later, the Philadelphia Inquirer made a bold decision (and correct, in my opinion) that the Bush presidency was such a danger to America that it ran a series of 21 editorials calling for the election of John Kerry. Yet every day it gave equal space to someone arguing that Bush should be re-elected, so was it really that bold of a move after all? That's balance, but what's the point? Check out this great riff from Jay Rosen on the bogusness of "he said, she said" journalism for a broader perspective.

Ironically, as the Atlanta piece notes, none of this contorting to accommodate right-wing critics has brought in any right-wing support or, more importantly, news readership -- conservatives still hate us, and no amount of sucking up will change that. That said, what's the harm in bending over backwards to overly represent or kowtow to conservative viewpoints? Well, when pundits still believe that America is a center-right nation on the morning after the election of a center-left president and large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, that might offer a window into how the greater political debate gets warped by this odd charade.

Journalists should only have one great mission in our career. It is not the quest for something called balance. It is the search for the truth. Period. No matter how uncomfortable that makes some people. Cynthia Tucker knows that, and now she's paying a price.

Ironically, the arrival of the Internet should have been a liberating effect. The unlimited electrons of cyberspace gives plenty of room for the naysayers to have their naysay, in a comments section or on a competing blog.

Instead, it looks like the chaos caused by the implosion of the business model for news has had the opposite effect -- a futile search to give Americans what we think they want to hear and maybe what they think they want to hear, and not what they need to hear. That's not serving balance. That's not serving anybody.

Comments

[ErikW65]

Excellent analysis, thank you.

[camper65]

What an unbelievable, delusional CROCK!! Give it a rest!

[ProgressiveVoice]

The perfect example of this trend is the San Francisco Chronicle. So often accused of having a liberal bias but if you actually read it, almost all the opinion columnists are conservative (they do print Tucker though, one of the few "liberal" voices) Even the layout editors do it; the best information refuting the Bush Administration was always being hidden on the back page or inside back page of front section, where it could barely be seen between the ads.

[HST]

ProgressiveVoice check out the letters to the editor with all the people who call the Chron "a leftist rag" .

[Careysub]

Bunch notes in his wrap-up:

"Ironically, as the Atlanta piece notes, none of this contorting to accommodate right-wing critics has brought in any right-wing support or, more importantly, news readership -- conservatives still hate us, and no amount of sucking up will change that."

Actually the situation is much worse than that.

This kow-towing to the Right has never brought so much as a tip of the hat in acknowledgment.

In fact it has only served to encourage the Right to institutionalize hate-speech directed at the "liberal media" (among other targets). This posture of perpetual anger began as a tactic, then during the 1980s became a way of life, and has now become the Right's reason for existing.

There is no dialogue with the Right. There is only the Right's party-line monologue of anger and hate.

[slowtono]

Are you kidding me! This is the twister, computer news over delivered yesterdays news. The computer is an hourly news break, with added news happening now. It's technology, none of which the media can take credit for. It's TV and telephone evolution. What is greatly appreciated is the immediate interaction where Joe the plumber can submit his view, posted now. The twister is this post, "oh how were trying to appease the right." And pickles are pink. The rights rising because the lefts not answering. Homes are foreclosing, jobs are being lost, and moneys being lost. The media could really swing the country if they would find the middle ground. Congress can't. Local leaders can't. Special interest groups can't. The twist is answers not questions. Moving towards a future. Writing realism, not fantasy. We are at point A we won't get to D or E till we pass through B and C. Just like the computer. In 1963 at the Seattle worlds fair I spoke to my sister 1000 feet away why viewing her on the telephone. What was to become of that technology , a 30 year twister?

[Rrhain]

What is with this obsession for "the middle ground"? I handily agree that life comes at you in shades of grey, but there really are things that are black and white and to pretend that there is some sort of "middle ground" is to simply lie to people. If I say that two and two are four and you say they are six, it does nobody any good to hype the "middle ground" and say that two and two are five.

[JWheels]

I would agree that the internet has not really 'liberalized' mainstream media since its full emergence as a political force after the 2004 elections.
However, I think what has happened is twofold:
1) The Internet has helped provide a vast array of sources to get news and political information. This has led to more specialization and certainly caused some to zero in on information agreeing with their pre-conceived ideas. But there is also the benefit of a variety of educated, informed people being able to broadly diversify their sources of information. That means they can see what's on either end of the political spectrum, and many views across the middle as well. In other words, more liberal and progressive voices exist online that can counter the drumbeat of the right-wing machine.
2) The Internet's use as a venue for political discourse has allowed people who previously felt ignored or alienated by their local political situation to find a common voice. My experience growing up as a Democrat in a solidly Republican town exemplifies this disconnect that many progressives feel. I feel that the Internet has allowed many people leaning left-of-center to realize they are not alone. Certainly this has been the case for some conservatives as well. But ultimately I think this medium is dominated by more liberal ideas. I think that's reflective of the real balance in the US, but that the Internet is helping to reverse the trend towards apathy in recent generations.

[democracy7]

It's not a wonder that newspapers are going bankrupt, I can't find the unbiased truth in the news but instead have to go to other media.IE Internet, BBC America, and other sources. When the newspapers sold their soul to espouse pollicy rather than facts, they sealed their own fates.

[HST]

democracy7 -You, my friend are spot on!

[HST]

It's true conservatives have painted the media with broad brush strokes proclaiming that all mainstream media is slanted to left because of the journalists personal views while ignoring the right wing ownership. As a result we have the media bending over backwards for the right alienating much of the media consumers who have fled to the internet. Now the right wing cries about the death of the media it has stabbed in the heart. Reap what you sow and we are all worse off because of this.

[DeadPossum]

I just realised that I had blamed both the public and the print media for lack of penetrating journalism. Sorry. It is conventional to blame and villify just one party. It betrays the fact I am not sure who ha failed. Probably both.

[DeadPossum]

Whatever happened to "publish and be damned"? Well, it went broke. If the public doesn't demand hard-hitting investigative reporting, it wont happen. Of course the papers follow the money, they have no choice. It is up to us, the people, to demand views contrary to the mainstream to have alternatives and not be sedated by the comfortable familiar pap.
The conservative side of politics has scored a major victory in the last few decades by taking the high ground and projecting itself as the holder and protector of 'American values'. Anyone who didn't toe the line was 'unAmerican'. Conveniently forgetting such values as opportunity for everybody, equality, rule by the people for the people.
Things have moved on. If the print media cant break out of the mold, then it will quickly become irrelevent and we wont have to bother discussing it because it wont exist.

[ESerafina42]

This is SO true. Scientific issues like global warming or evolution are also a good example. 99.9% of scientists share one view, so they bring on one of them and also dig up the one crackpot from under a rock to present the "opposing view," making it look like they're equally valid. Also, when they have a "religious" viewpoint, it's always a fundamentalist Christian or orthodox Jew (I'm not so sure how they do it with Muslims), either because they consider those groups more "legitimate" than more liberal religious people, who, at least in the Jewish community, outnumber the more conservative ones, or because it's harder to gin up a controversy with reasonable people on the religious side.

Molly Ivins decried this idea of "balance" in one of her last book, saying that if someone said that Hitler was a bad person, they'd feel compelled to find someone who thought that Hitler was a prince.

One thing that's driven me up the wall for quite a while is the prevalence of conservatives and right-wing tools on TV, specifically the Sunday morning talk shows, as documented by Media Matters, and how the "standards" change. When Republicans are in power they tell us, well, they ARE in power anyway and liberals' viewpoints don't matter because they're not. Then when Democrats are in power all of a sudden it's the people who are out of power who matter and need to be heard.

[Republicnotademocracy]

Does anyone read newspapers anymore except for the personals and book reviews?
It's so easy to turn on Fox or CNN and get the daily news in an entertaining fashion..

[Shashi0224]

IF you're looking for news......­Fox is not the place to go.

[Thevail]

Oh let's face it...old people buy newspapers­..and old people are conservative. Therefore newspapers tend to overcompensate in their "slant" towards the conservative side of the scorecard. They are trying to produce not "news", but rather a saleable product. In the case of newspapers they are trying to produce a vehical with the highest possible number for circulation so that they can make money from advertisers.

We go back to "old people buy newspapers". Therefore the older (and hence more conservative) population must be induced to buy the newspaper. They will not buy a newspaper whose editorials routinely upset them. So to sell the paper the editorials have to be tailored to their more conservative tastes, regardless of the truth of the matter at hand.

So newspapers are dying..at almost EXACTLY the rate as their older readers. I get my news online, where I can cross check it..since these sites sell ads too.

[JerryLevy]

Here is the problem, the major newspapers (i.e. NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times and the St. Petersburg, FL paper cannot separate their editorial pages from news reporting. Say what you want on the editorial page, give whatever opinions you have on this page. But when you are reporting events, make the reporting objective, in context and without putting your opinions in it. Unfortunately, a combination of laziness on the part of most mainstream press reporters coupled with a pervasive ideaology means you get the facts wrong often. Look at how the papers simply publish reports from advocasy groups----and do it without question. But look at the Wall Street Journal------they have a right wing editorial view that NEVER leaks into the news reporting---and that ladies and gentlemen is why the WSJ continues to increase circulation while the NYT is almost bankrupt.

[Thevail]

I have to say...I quit even looking at the WSJ, and got my dad too as well. I'm doing it on purpose, not because they are too conservative, but because they obviously suck at their job. Reporting on the economy. They didn't see the big crash coming. That just means they are either financially illiterate, or covering for someone or something.

Wages stayed stagnant or went backwards over 10 years.
Inflation rose at an average rate of 3% over those 10 years (30% cumulative).
Housing prices nearly doubled in the same 10 years.
More people owned homes than ever before....

If this doesn't set alarm bells ringing...­you just don't understand money and how it works.

[cn2004]

Actually, they did foresee the crash They warned many times in the editorial page that rising home prices, over leveraging, and FederReserve easy money policy was un-sustainable. So obviously, you don't read the WSJ.

[philistine]

Great post, Mr. Bunch. News should cut through the fog instead of making things foggier. News should make us uncomfortable a fair amount of the time, and as such should never be confused with entertainment. News should not be viewed as a profit center - although a source of good journalism will make money. Most importantly, news should step on powerful toes when necessary. If a news medium stands a risk of losing an advertiser because of a adversarial story, they should run it - because that kind of news will be supported by subscribers and/or viewers. Advertisers may like safe puff pieces, but news consumers don't want to pay for fluff.