Already a member?
Sign in
Welcome! Wikis are websites that everyone can build together. It's easy!
The Malcontents: What Conservative and Liberal Critics Say About the Media
by Lauren Passalacqua, posted November 14, 2007
Allegations of media bias volley from both the right and left. Conservative, Emmy Award winning reporter Bernard Goldberg examines how the American “news [slants] to the left” in Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News (2002). Eric Alterman’s What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News directly opposes that claim (2003). Alterman, a journalist and blogger for the media watchdog group, Media Matters for America, writes that the liberal media is little more than a “myth.” Observing a conservative-liberal conflict hardly requires an in-depth examination. Yet, Goldberg and Alterman agree that the media fail to produce objective, thorough reports. What causes this general dissatisfaction? What issues does the right have with the news media? Do they parallel those of the left?
To answer these questions, this reporter looked at two, ideologically opposed centers for media criticism, Accuracy In Media (AIM) and Media Matters for America.
Since 1969, AIM has read the media through a conservative lens. The intentions of AIM’s founder, conservative economist Reed Irvine, remain today. Its website’s “Frequently Asked Qquestions” connects “botched and bungled news stories … that have received slanted coverage” with left-leaning journalists. In an interview with this reporter, AIM’s Executive Secretary and Media Analyst, Roger Aronoff said it was AIM's priority to “pressure [for] intelligent, well-reasoned fact-based journalism.” He credits AIM with raising reporters’ awareness of their own biases, some admitting that they “need to be more balanced” (Aronoff). For AIM, said Aronoff, “left wing bias” is “pretty thoroughly affirmed” and provides the topic for its biweekly “AIM Report.”
Media Matters for America agrees that the media are swayed, yet its website faults the right. In 2004, founder and CEO David Brock, began the center to “systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and internet media outlets for conservative misinformation,” says the website’s “About US.” Like AIM, Media Matters for America appeals to both readers and also to journalists to “rebut false claims and take direct action against offending media institutions.” Each week “Media Matters” column by Managing Director Jamison Foser reports on “instance of misinformation.”
This survey reviews the “AIM Report” and “Media Matters” articles published within a 12-month time period: November 1, 2006 – November 2, 2007. Twenty-two articles from each outlet were selected and paired. For instance, an “AIM Report” posted on November 6, 2006 was paired with a “Media Matters” column with the closest publication date, November 3, 2006. This sample process ensures that the articles compared fall within the same news cycle. Reports were read and categorized based on their dominant themes. Patterns emerged in both the “AIM Report” and “Media Matters” column, revealing that each believes certain issues are frequently misrepresented.
AIM – "Liberal Bias"
Of the 22 “AIM Reports” examined, 37 percent focus on what it considers the irrefutable presence of liberal bi
as in media. The “liberal bias” category consists of those stories that: cite empirical evidence, like the 2004 survey from Pew Research Center for People and the Press depicting an increase of conservative skepticism of news; blame “new media” for discouraging conservative participation within the 2004 midterm elections; question “our media” and its campaign for global warming proponents, like Al Gore. “AIM Reports” also paid particular attention to issues it felt threatened U.S. sovereignty. Thirty-six percent of the articles sampled express concern for what staff describe as the “’conspiracy [that] is very much out in the open, if only the media would pay some attention to it.” These pieces maintain that. Democratic Party members like the Clintons and Robert Pastor, Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, favor a “North American Union.” The March 22, 2007 “AIM Report” disclosed that efforts like Pastor’s are “being conducted largely beyond the scrutiny of the public or the Congress.” The “AIM Reports” build upon these warnings over the course of 12 months and consider Department of Commerce projects, like a massive road system called the Trans-Texas Corridor, President Bush’s guest-work immigration program, and United Nations initiatives a threat to America.
Finally, at least 18 percent of the “AIM Reports” concentrated on the Clintons’ alleged media manipulation. The clips connect the Clintons to donors with a criminal record and charge that they’ve assisted in a cover-up of the TWA Flight 800 crash.
Aronoff said while “[‘AIM Reports’] aren’t random, [a pattern] makes sense.” He explained that “these are the stories that either the media are misreporting or reporting with such a bias that [AIM]” has to correct the record.
Media Matters – “Conservative Misinformation”
Jamison Foser’s “Media Matters” column also seeks to correct the record and, like “AIM Reports,” patterns of discussion arise.
Foser makes a point avoid using the term “bias,” explaining that “there are dozens of reporters who don't have an ideological axe to grind, but whose work contains conservative misinformation anyway.” This caveat differs from “AIM Report’s” contention of a pervasive liberal media bias.
Nonetheless, Foser stymies “conservative misinformation” and frequently touches on two themes.
Fifty-four percent of the “Media Matters” sample noted significant “conservative bias.” In the same week that the “AIM: Report” cited evidence of liberal media bias, Foser indicted the “Gang of 500,” a term that ABC News analyst Mark Halperin uses to describe the political players, pundits and press operating inside Washington. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Candy Crowley, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, and the magazine Newsweek are amongst the list of offenders that Foser wrote “[acted] as a shill for the Republican Party,” during the coverage of the 2006 Mid-term election.
“Media Matters” points out consistent violations of fair reporting as it makes charges of pervasive conservative-led misinformation.
The January 26, 2007 column compares the coverage of Al Gore, former Vice President and Democratic Presidential Nominee, to that of current Democratic candidates, like Barak Obama and John Edwards. Foser blames the The New York Times and Washington Post for “unquestioningly quot[ing] false Republican claims” about Democrats’ income, property titles, and childhoods. Foser’s observations last through July and he laments.
“There is an endless supply of nonsense for reporters to say about progressives," Foser writes. "Whether it is Hillary Clinton's alleged display of cleavage (the horror!) or bogus attacks on Barack Obama's comments about teaching kindergarteners about ‘inappropriate touching.’"
These analyses of “conservative misinformation” differ from “AIM Report’s” discussions of liberal bias. Foser regularly responds to a specific outlet, program or journalist; “AIM Report” cite media more generally and incorporates some original reporting to supplement what it feels is an absence of ideas on pertinent topics.
The other dominant theme to arise from the “Media Matters” survey comprises 23 percent of the total coverage, the Clintons.
Unlike “AIM Reports'" assertions that the Clintons easily manipulate media, Foser posits that the media manipulate news regarding the Clintons. The post responds to reports by The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank and the New York Times’ Anne Kornblut of Hillary Clinton’s sensitivities to the Obama campaign. Though not alone on the list of wrong reporters, Foser lists these cases among a list of those that “say any damn thing [they] want about progressives.” Foser suggests in later columns from May and June 2007 that these portrayals “speed toward another presidential election, [Carl] Bernstein-style focus on personalities and speculation about "authenticity" is again carrying the day.” In other words, Foser places the Clintons within the enduring conservative media bias, arguing that popular perceptions are both inaccurate and unfair.
The rest of the sample’s 22 articles address miscellaneous concerns that speak to the news industry more generally. A piece on 2006 World AIDS Day asks why progressive issues are not covered more regularly than on commemorative occasion. Another column answers a few Media Matters’ critics. To Investor’s Business Daily (which called the organization a “nuisance group”) and The Wall Street Journal (which wondered if Media Matters would support the suppression of conservative speech), Foser advised to base judgments on the “merits of what [Media Matters] say.”
What might it mean for media?
This evaluation identifies the problems that columnists for AIM and Media Matters cite when criticizing the news media. While the content of their analyses disagrees, they raise parallel issues: bias, “conservative misinformation,” and the Clintons.
As oppositional ideologies, these groups will continue to represent different points of view - butboth Media Matters and AIM share a disdain for limited news discussions.
Media Matters shares the distress of a limited news scope as Foser dismisses shortsighted coverage of important people and issues:
"Meanwhile, if reporters would just fact-check the verifiable claims candidates make -- such as Bush's claim his tax cuts -- we'd have a far better understanding of which candidate is truthful than we do after reading endless columns about who wears brown pants and what that tells us about their relationship with their father.”
“AIM: Report’s” feature of original research on issues concerning U.S. sovereignty reflects its absence and the mainstream. These are, Aronoff contends, “what's absent from the marketplace of ideas.”
Sources:
Aronoff, Roger. Telephone Interview. 13, November 2007.
Latest page update: made by lp824
, Nov 14 2007, 9:04 PM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by lp824
8 words added
2 words deleted
view changes
- complete history)
Edited by lp824
8 words added
2 words deleted
view changes
- complete history)
Keyword tags: None
More Info: links to this page