The College Hill Independent

Back

Here's What's Really Slanderous
A book review of What Liberal Media?
. . . by Michael Kerman

FINALLY, A BOOK that gets it right about American media bias. If you have any interest in the interplay between American politics and the media, read this book.

In his new book, political commentator Eric Alterman writes, “The myth of the ‘liberal media’ empowers conservatives to control debate…to the point where liberals cannot even hope for a fair shake anymore…I aim to change that.”

Some cite a survey claiming that a majority of reporters voted for Bill Clinton as proof of liberal bias. Not only was this survey administered in a questionable manner, but the decision to measure liberal/conservative bias on the basis

of voting for or against Clinton is quite problematic.
Is voting for Clinton a truly liberal thing to do?

Alterman does not think so, but a conservative might. While Clinton was clearly not a conservative, I don’t view Clinton’s vow to “end welfare as we know it” or his declaration that “the era of Big Government is over” as liberal statements.

For most Americans, economic issues matter as much or more than social issues. Alterman acknowledges the difficulties in pinning down political figures and ideas, but he is forced to work with what he hopes is the common understanding of the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” Needless to say, not everyone will agree with his partisan stance. Yet, compared to the other literature in the field, Alterman’s book is a model of level-headedness.

Studies on media bias, Alterman claims, often presuppose their conclusions without substantial factual evidence. Among these are Anne Coulter’s insipid Slander and Bernard Goldberg’s Bias. If you are worried that Coulter and Goldberg might be right, check out www.whatliberalmedia.com to read Alterman’s arguments. Slander and Bias are symptomatic of the larger belief in a “so-called liberal media bias.” Liberals are so effectively shut out of the debate that anything they say in rebuttal to this claim is unfairly dismissed, and genuine debate is successfully avoided.

Corporate ownership is a critical factor in the hiring of the pundits and talk show hosts who reach millions of Americans. In his chapter “You’re Only As Liberal As The Man Who Owns You,” Alterman argues that the owners determine the agenda, so even if reporters are liberals, their views wouldn’t make into the news. Alterman points out the prevailing occurrence of self-censorship among reporters.

One counterintuitive example that Alterman dwells on to illustrate a conservative bias is the 2000 Presidential race. While Gore was represented as a liar (Alterman takes great pains to contradict this), Bush was treated relatively well. Gore’s previous missteps, such as his alleged flip-flop on abortion, were treated with much greater scrutiny and derision than Bush’s previous experiences, such as his business failures. To attempt to balance their treatment, Alterman lists several damaging Bush stories that are more important and shocking than anything Gore has done.

Another necessary factor in the conservatives’ manipulation of the media is funding. Billionaire conservative “philanthropists” like Richard Scaife have bankrolled the infrastructure of the conservative movement for decades, and it’s paid off. Consequently, conservative candidates and ideas are not subject to the same scrutiny as liberal ones.

The status quo leaves conservatives with too much leeway. And that’s harmful for democracy. We cannot afford to allow the weakening of the “democratic bond between the powerful and the powerless that can, alone, prevent the emergence of unchecked corruption where it matters most.” Full citizenship depends on “spinach,” Alterman’s term for the kind of information that maintains a functioning democracy. “Pudding” is Alterman’s term for the fluffy garbage that passes for news today, and it’s crowding out the spinach. If print and broadcast media are all poisoned, perhaps our last, best hope is Weblogs, but even here conservatives have more influence at the moment. One way or another, for democracy to thrive, we need exposure to a variety of viewpoints. It may not taste as good to those in power who would prefer to keep feeding us pudding, but now more than ever, we need it.

Michael Kerman B’04 is biased in favor of the Indy.

Back to Indy Home