HH: A proposition. The reason talk radio exploded, followed by Fox News, followed by the center-right blogosphere, is that because folks like you have been the dominant voice in American media for a long time, and you’re a pretty thoroughgoing, Democratic favoring, agenda journalist for the left, and you’ve been the senior political reporter of the Washington Post for a very long time. And people didn’t trust your news product…not you, personally, but the accumulation of you, throughout the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and they got sick and tired of being spoon fed liberal dross, and they went to the radio when an alternative product came along.
TE: To a certain degree, I agree with that.
HH: And so, why do you think it’s wrong, somehow, for people to want to hear news that they don’t consider as biased? I mean, that’s what it is. It’s just unbiased news is what people wanted. That’s why conservatives like me got platforms, and our blogs get read, and our columns get absorbed.
TE: One, I don’t think it’s unbiased.
HH: It’s transparent at least. Everyone has bias. I agree with that. Everyone’s got bias.
TE: It’s transparent. Okay, that I would agree. And I agree that whatever you want to call it, mainstream media, presents itself as unbiased, when in fact, there are built into it, many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left.
*****************************************
HH: ... given that number of reporters out there, is it ten to one Democrat to Republican? Twenty to one Democrat to Republican?
TE: It’s probably in the range of 15-25:1 Democrat.
*****************************************
HH: ...Your newspaper wrote that Evangelicals were ill-educated, and easily led. Remember that one?
TE: That was one of the dumber things that’s been in the paper.
HH: Yeah, but it was in the paper.
TE: It was.
HH: And it got past editors.
TE: The only reason that the reporter who wrote it didn’t get in bigger trouble is that the editor who let it get by was someone of some prominence.
HH: Oh, what was his name?
TE: I’m not going to get into that, but it was someone of some power at the Washington Post, and there was no way they were going to mess with him.
HH: And so, they didn’t really have an early warning system. My guess is, because in the newsroom, and the newsrooms which I have worked, and that’s primarily PBS…
TE: I agree with you on this score, 100%.
HH: It’s very anti-religion, isn’t it?
TE: Well, it…certainly, they would let a quote by that, without, in many cases, without blinking, not recognizing that it was extraordinarily insulting.
9 comments:
Hey, your posts have been good lately--just wanted to let you know that. I've not been commenting for lack of time, not lack of interest. Keep checking "What's in a name?" I'm going to get something good in there sometime soon.
As for this one--you've read my take on this sort of thing on my blog. I agree with Hewitt and Edsall that newsrooms are dominated by liberals and Democrats, and that no one is free of bias. I just think the dominant bias in any publication is sensationalism.
Man, I love TNR, NYT, the Post, and all the other MSM that is being criticized here. Here is a serious proposition and, standingoutinthecold, I want you to respond to it thoughtfully.
Acknowledging that the MSM is generally left and the blogosphere/talk radio/cable news media is generally right doesn’t get us very far. As Hewitt said, Americans “got sick and tired of being spoon fed liberal dross, and they went to the radio when an alternative product came along.” It is, of course, true, but so what? Why don’t people want a generally left account of the news when they could have a generally right account? What is it about “liberal dross” that is so unpalatable to most Americans?
I want to suggest that the sort of leftist account historically given in the best of the MSM is elite, complex, sophisticated, and nuanced. It appeals to the best of the democratic tradition; to read long, complicated articles that present subtlety; to think about them; to discuss them in public; to write a response to the editor; etc. As a result, it problemizes gut reactions, quick responses, regurgitated prejudices, and easy consumption. Reading a really good article means that you have to approach the news as a citizen, not a consumer. It requires work and thought and education and the willingness to acknowledge that you aren’t an authority and the self-respected to acknowledge that easy answers aren’t probably what you want.
The sort of rightist account generally given in the most popular sources (FoxNews, talk radio, blogs, etc.) is the exact opposite of all of that. It is democratized, simple, uncomplicated, and “straight-forward.” It appeals to the worst of the democratic tradition; to read short, simplistic articles unless reading can be avoided all together; to react to them impulsively; to reinforce long-standing, insular beliefs; etc. As a result, it champions gut reactions, quick responses, regurgitated party lines, and easy use. It discourages citizenship in favor of consumption. It requires almost nothing by way of effort, thought, education, acknowledgement of authority, or willing to thinking beyond pre-existent partialities. That is the appeal of New Media; it is easy and comforting.
Now you might say that I am not comparing equals. I am comparing the best of the MSM with the worst of the New Media. But, that is only to acknowledge the argument that New Media people want to give themselves: I want to take New Media on its own terms. Hewitt frames it in terms consumption himself: “…they went to the radio when an alternative product came along.” He points to Fox News, not me. He points to talk radio, not me. Hewitt and the New Media proponents are the one’s not being fair: they pick out the worst of the MSM to caricature it. As an alternative, they point to popular New Media. This comparison – the best of the MSM and the most popular of the New Media – then, is fair and balanced, in that it takes both sides on their own terms and compares them.
J Morgan, I'm going to have to respond in chunks due to the large number of points you've made, and maybe the time I have.
You: Why don’t people want a generally left account of the news when they could have a generally right account? What is it about “liberal dross” that is so unpalatable to most Americans?
Me: I don't think that in reality its that people would rather have a right leaning bias than a left. Its that they don't really want a bias. As Hewitt and Edsall agree on later the bias is more transparent in the right-leaning stuff, so that appeals to people more. Also, they had decades of left leaning news and they were ready for something different. Its not because its left that Americans don't like it, its because its very biased and they're tired of that bias. There's no reason it couldn't be the other way around, as far as political leaning goes.
You: I want to suggest that the sort of leftist account historically given in the best of the MSM is elite, complex, sophisticated, and nuanced.
Me: I agree. I think the same is true about the BEST of the "New Media." However, the best is not the majority or the most popular.
You: The sort of rightist account generally given in the most popular sources (FoxNews, talk radio, blogs, etc.) is the exact opposite of all of that.
Me: I agree. However, I think the same is true about the accounts given in the MOST POPULAR of the leftist accounts also. The BEST accounts are not the MOST POPULAR. Probably due in great part to your following insight...
You: It requires work and thought and education and the willingness to acknowledge that you aren’t an authority and the self-respected to acknowledge that easy answers aren’t probably what you want.
Me: Right. And most Americans are lazy. But, left or right, Americans are Americans. The right definetly does not have a monopoly on the lazy. What is the most popular news source for young people? The Daily Show. I hope that is not an example of what you think of as elite, sophisticated, or nuanced. Hilarious, yes. Elite, no. But definetly leftist. Americans are lazy so the most popular media choices are going to reflect that. But the most popular does not reflect the best of either side.
You: Now you might say that I am not comparing equals.
Me: Yeah, I pretty much have.
You: This comparison – the best of the MSM and the most popular of the New Media – then, is fair and balanced, in that it takes both sides on their own terms and compares them.
Me: I disagree. You say that Hewitt compares the worst of the MSM to the most popular of the New Media. You compare the BEST of the MSM to the most popular of the new media. I suppose you are taking Hewitt's assertions to mean that the New Media considers the most popular to be its best and you believe that the MSM would rather be discussed by its best than its most popular. However, I don't think that, no matter what Hewitt or any others on either side say, we can have a fair or enlightening conversation without comparing equals. We need to compare the most popular of both, the best of both, the majority of both, and both as a whole. Anything else is does not really make a good discussion. My point in this post was not so much that the so called New Media is better but rather that the MSM is indeed more biased than they usually like to admit as told by one of their own rather than slanderous attacks by the right.
I have to disagree with you too, J. Morgan - I think you correctly identified the false dichotomy you've created for your own liking, and it's not what Hewitt's talking about.
First, if you flip on any nightly news station, it's ALL commercialized, sensationalized, dross. Whether it's liberal or conservative nonsense, it's all the sort of civically-irresponsible news you're lambasting. Watching the nightly news, whether it's CNN or Fox, is more like watching a TV show, complete with clifhangers before commercial breaks and teaser segments for the morning show. None of it is good - it is all terrible.
I think Hewitt's most salient point is that most of this dross is liberal and biased towards democrats. Now, I'm in complete agreement with you that this doesn't get us anywhere in terms of having better news, but it's worth noticing. It's especially worth noticing when discussing the topic of how the media is consistently representing a bias not desired or accepted by their consumer base. It's still a consumerism mentality and I agree that that's fundamentally bad, but his point is that the liberal media consistently sells liberally-baised news to a conservatively-biased crowd, and that they're sick of it. It might not be the best point, but it's true, and it's what he meant to say, for better or worse.
That being said, Hewitt is a sound proponent of responsible and democratized media. I know you hate democratization for the diminishment that necessarily accompanies these ignorant masses, but Hewitt soundly and repeatedly calls for citizens of the country to be involved in critically analyzing their news, and he often calls for this in terms of blogging. He wants lots of blogging, hopefully all by responsible citizens, who question opinions and stretch intellectual horizons. I point this out only to say that, perhaps not in this article, but quite often, Hewitt does point to YOU, as a blogger, and as a private citizen involved in reading and analyzing the news, as the correct way to learn about the world. I'm sure you and he would have vastly different opinions on many of the details involved in this, but fundamentally, he's all for you.
Except J. Morgan continues to not have a blog.
Standingoutinthecold:
“What is the most popular news source for young people? The Daily Show. I hope that is not an example of what you think of as elite, sophisticated, or nuanced. Hilarious, yes. Elite, no. But definetly leftist. Americans are lazy so the most popular media choices are going to reflect that. But the most popular does not reflect the best of either side.”
Well, all you are saying is that the right-ish version of news media is dominant now. The old, left-ish version was long, hard to read articles in big newspapers and monthlies. The new, right-ish version is short entertainment to consume. The Daily Show is about as right as it gets; even though the content (which is fairly irrelevant) is facile, leftist garbage.
This whole distinction between MSM and New Media is worthless now, because everything is New Media. Every evening news show, every news magazine, every newspaper; they are all new media. They all bought into the FoxNews model. What I am holding up is the historic MSM, which only exists in small pockets now.
“We need to compare the most popular of both, the best of both, the majority of both, and both as a whole.”
But that is to deny the terms set by the parties themselves. Hewitt seems to be championing Rush Limbaugh et al as a GOOD alternative to Walter Lippmann et al. So, I will take him up on the challenge he set up for himself. That is a fair challenge. Saying, “Yeah, but we have really smart people, too” is silly.
“My point in this post was not so much that the so called New Media is better but rather that the MSM is indeed more biased than they usually like to admit as told by one of their own rather than slanderous attacks by the right.”
Yeah, maybe but it is more complicated than that. The idea that journalism is just reporting the facts of what took place with the least amount of value judgment is silly; good journalism is telling people what happened and then telling them “so what.”
Now, we tend to make this distinction between “facts” and “opinions” in journalism. That’s basically bullshit. There is bad journalism – making things up, misrepresenting the news, giving irresponsible commentary, etc. – and then there is good journalism – taking a position on the “so what” of what was faithfully reported. All we mean when we say “biased journalism” is “good journalism.” Let’s not confuse that with bad journalism.
I think you are probably going to hate this, but, as far as I can tell, the MSM has historically been “left” because the most thoughtful, subtle, responsible commentary on what happened has been a leftist account. Given the historical events of the 20th century, a thoughtful interaction with “what happened” leads almost inevitably to a leftist “so what.” That is to say that it is more true and accurate than a rightist account. Historically, the rightist account has been ignorant, reactionary, bigoted, violent, etc. If journalism is about making society better through the distribution of information, then it is certainly the case that some of that information is a challenge to blatantly un-American, un-democratic views.
What Hewitt is championing is just bad journalism. All he is saying is that good journalism has a perspective, which is a truism and isn’t even worth saying. All I am saying is that good journalism is disliked because it challenges people for the better, rather than catering to them.
"All we mean when we say “biased journalism” is “good journalism.” Let’s not confuse that with bad journalism."
That's just not true. When we say "biased journalism", we're not just talking about "news with a perspective" or a "so what." We're talking about news with a social agenda, where the facts are often abused and construed in such a manner as to support an existing view point. Responsible, good journalism reports the facts and then explores the questions of "why did this happen?" and "what impact will this have on our lives, the world, and other events?" Irresponsible journalism, normally called "biased" today, looks at the facts and then explores the question, "How can I present these circumstances in order to make these facts seem to defend the leftist perspective I have on the world, the current administration, etc.?"
Hewitt's point is that journalism in recent years is exactly what you've called New Media, but it didn't start with Fox News - it started with CNN and NBC and CBS and ABC, and they were all profoundly leftist, and now Fox and the Radio have entered the picture, and we have a totally different bias to choose. He's probably also saying that the right-wing bias ISN'T bias, and I'll agree with you that he's incorrect there. I just think it's very short cited of you to refer to Hewitt and Fox News as the paragons of New Media, when really they're the followers using models created by the liberal networks earlier, most profoundly obvious during the Clinton administration, long before Fox entered the picture.
Furthermore, it's those networks everyone is referring to when they say MSM, and not the old responsible thought provoking journalism you're talking about.
Even more futhermore, the leftists you're talking about as being the champions of great news and the traditionally leftist perspective you're defending here was profoundly different than our leftists today. I agree with you in theory - that reporting, journalism and news have always had a leftist perspective, and that this isn't bad - but this sort of "liberal" isn't the kind Hewitt's hating on. He's not talking about Thomas Jefferson and the englightenment's brand of liberalism, which was healthy and productive; he's talking about Peter Jennings, Tom Brocaw, and Dan Rather, who represent the unproductive agenda-laden journalism I'm so disgusted by and defined earlier.
So, to finally conclude, I think I might agree with what you're saying about journalism in general, and it's purpose and history, but disagree entirely that what you've branded MSM is really MSM, that what you're calling "leftist" is what Hewitt's against, and that Fox news was the harbinger of bad journalism.
Redhurt:
“We're talking about news with a social agenda, where the facts are often abused and construed in such a manner as to support an existing view point…. Irresponsible journalism, normally called ‘biased’ today, looks at the facts and then explores the question, ‘How can I present these circumstances in order to make these facts seem to defend the leftist perspective I have on the world, the current administration, etc.?’”
Okay, but that is just what I have been calling “bad journalism.” A lot of that goes on, but I think it would be a mistake to think that the MSM or the left-ish journalist core is disproportionately represented in the “bad journalism” camp. Of course there is a social agenda and that is part of the “so what.” Murrow’s coverage of the McCarthy debacle, Rather’s reports on Vietnam, The Pentagon Papers, Woodward and Bernstein’s coverage of Watergate, etc. all had a social agenda behind them. And they are all superb instances of good journalism: cases when reporters fulfilled their obligation to the public and demanded that the public look at gross injustices, crimes, or undemocratic views. That is good journalism. It has a definite social agenda and is definitely biased and that is precisely why it is good journalism. I think that the Neo-Conservative resentment of the MSM goes back to Vietnam and Watergate coverage, where the right-ish position was objectively wrong and illegal but wasn’t swept under the rug.
“I just think it's very short cited of you to refer to Hewitt and Fox News as the paragons of New Media, when really they're the followers using models created by the liberal networks earlier, most profoundly obvious during the Clinton administration, long before Fox entered the picture.”
I just don’t know that this is true. I suspect that the Nightly News with Dan Rather in the 80s was much better than the Nightly News with Dan Rather in the 90s. Also, I think the shift to New Media – whomever is responsible for it – is a) a right-wing move and b) bad. Right-wing, because it adopts this populist consumerism and treats media as a product, which is a right-ish perspective. Bad, because it thrives on bad journalism as defined above. Hewitt is arguing that it is GOOD!!!! That is the problem. He is arguing that media outlets now are better than they were 25 years ago, which just isn’t true. New Media – CNN, Rush Limbaugh, FoxNews, blogs, etc. – is bad journalism.
“He's not talking about Thomas Jefferson and the englightenment's brand of liberalism, which was healthy and productive; he's talking about Peter Jennings, Tom Brocaw, and Dan Rather, who represent the unproductive agenda-laden journalism I'm so disgusted by and defined earlier.”
Well, I don’t know. He was doing this interview with a journalist who writes for The New Republic, which is a paragon of good and responsible journalism (and founded by Lippmann, which is why I brought him up). I think that what the right-ish types most often attack explicitly is the New York Times, a paragon of good and responsible journalism, when they have in mind Peter Jennings. Again, I would argue that the Rather/Brocaw/Jennings thing was much better 25 years ago (I know it was in the case of Dan Rather), but that the right-ish move in news media CREATED what people like Hewitt hate.
I can roll with this a little better, but I still have to question this:
"It has a definite social agenda and is definitely biased and that is precisely why it is good journalism."
That's not why it's good journalism, though that might be part - you call it good because you feel like the social agenda is constructive and the bias a productive and healthy one, right? In depth reporting from a communist perspective would probably still be bad journalism, if we agree that communism is bad, right? So it's not bias that makes news good - it's a good bias helping create good reporting. Can we agree on that?
I think this is part of what Hewitt and other people on the Right take issue with, and why they tend to follow what you've painted as consumerism - they take issue with the fact that the left believes their bias to be lofted and beyond reproach, and that they are gifted with some keen insight lesser mortals are bereft of. Now before you go saying, "well, they are", because I know you will, let's talk about it a little. I think the right's reaction against leftist bias came from viewing their reporting as being guided by a socially destructive bias rather than a socially productive one. To question this, they appealed to the concept of democracy, and the left responded that democracies aren't smart enough to think for themselves and needed to be instructed by their betters. The right responded by making their own news channels, and now left and right have both degraded themselves by engaged in sensationalist tactics to gain an audience. That's my understanding of how the issue went, and so I find both left and right at fault. Dan Rather would hold a much better place in my mind if he hadn't reported things he absolutely knew were fabricated, and if his network hadn't allowed and caused the fabrication in the first place, and that has absoltuely nothing to do with the right wing.
And this brings us to the issue of the democratization of news media, and the issue of blogs. Here's my assertion: news, as a media, has changed, both for better and worse. I think it's still important to listen to the opinions of informed individuals with knowledge, and because of that you won't hear me degrade the NYT or New Republic as long as they continue to do so. But along with this, we've added a means by which these sources can be held accountable in the form of critical bloggers, and a mass of people ready to question every assertion made by our journalistic elites. Now, does this create more dross to sift through? Absolutely. But once we've sifted through it, I think the news we wind up with is better for it, and our opinions are more informed.
Anyway, I've gotten a long way off of our original point. In conclusion, CNN sucks, Fox News isn't better, Hewitt is only 60% correct, bloggers are the best thing to happen to news since the printing press, and I hate Tom Brocaw.
Post a Comment