The Myth of a Liberal Media

It is one often mentioned by so-called conservatives, and anyone who disagrees with what is presented on the news. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every television network is owned by a large coporation, some of them being giant multi-national corporations with interests in many different industries and markets. Their number one goal is to make profit, and the best way to do that is to not alienate any of their customers. They usually don’t buy television station’s in order to espouse a particular ideology, but to make a lot of money from it.

Where the tag “liberal media” comes from, oddly enough, is the right-wing media. It’s a term often used by Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, people who are incredibly popular media personalities with huge audiences. If the media were liberal, how would they find work? Another group who loves to use it is fear-monger Republican politicians. Why do they tell you that the media is liberal? Well, simply because the media reports the facts, and these politicians don’t agree with facts, or the facts prove just how wrong these politicians. So, rather than rethink their ways, they just tell you that the media reports these things not because they are true, but because the media is biased, so they can’t be trusted.

The evidence to the contrary is everywhere. Fox News, the misnamed “Fair and Balanced” network, offers most of it’s airtime to confirmed Conservatives, only offering space for liberals to come on and be berated or pummeled. Most of it’s coverage tends to emphasize the success of conservatives, and the failings of liberals. The man who owns and created Fox News is himself very conservative and owns networks all over the world, as well as 20th Century Fox, Fox Television, radio stations, and the Wall Street Journal. These are often #1 in their respective categories and represent huge market share. How are they not considered “the media.”

Then, look at the other big players. CNN gives airtime to Anderson Cooper and Campbell Brown, liberal leaning if you have to apply labels, but also Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck. MSNBC has both Keith Olbermann and Joe Scarborough. The majority of talk radio networks are devoted to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, while many newspapers have been complicit in support of George W. Bush’s policies. To me, this does not seem like a landscape overwhelming with liberals while conservatives are hidden away. Both viewpoints are represented, often disproportionate to their actual substance.

See, these corporations that own these entities don’t want to alienate their customers, so they often compell these networks/newspapers/stations/etc. to give equal time and equal weight to differing opinions. In this sense, it becomes and ideological affirmative action, causing them to give time and space to people based not on their abilities as journalists or commentators but based entirely on their politics. It also means that otherwise moderate voices then become drowned out by extremist pundits placed among their ranks, and that anytime a story is reported, the opposing party is given a chance to respond with little to no commentary, even when they are lying.

During this election, it was often claimed that the media was “in the tank” for Obama. If that’s true, how come McCain’s coverage was so favorable for much of his campaign, and he often jokingly refered to the press as his “base?” How come most networks official poll estimates placed McCain neck-and-neck with Obama even when the final election results should a tremendous lead for Obama? How come networks regularly ran stories, later proven false, saying that Obama had gone to a Muslim school, didn’t have a birth certificate, or was close friends with Bill Ayers?

What people meant to say when they said the media was “in the tank” for Obama was that the public was in favor of Obama, and the media was reporting it. They meant that Obama was running a mostly positive campaign while the McCain camp was running a mostly negative one, and the media was reporting it. They meant that Barack Obama has agreed to be interviewed while Sarah Palin and John McCain had refused interviews, yet the media still used the Obama interviews.

See, there is no “liberal media.” There is a media, made up of varying people with varying levels of skill, qualification, and objectivity. There are also facts and events and things that are newsworthy to be reported. And on top of all of that, there is a liberal majority of the populace, especially among the under-30 crowd suggest a growing trend. So what people like Rush mean to say is that they’re in the minority, most people don’t agree with them, and the facts don’t support them.