The Myth of Liberal Bias in the Media

When you watch CNN or a major network news program, do you detect a liberal bias, a conservative bias or is the coverage “fair and balanced”(courtesy Fox News Channel)? If you listen to conservative commentators, a liberal bias exists in our mainstream media today and it’s ruining our country. But is there really a liberal bias in mainstream media coverage today or are the claims of such bias actually a clever ploy to marginalize liberal opinion? A close examination of the topic will not only reveal that the latter is true, it’s working brilliantly.

What constitutes “liberal bias” in the eyes of conservatives? Basically, any story that contains some criticism of the Bush Administration or of a noted conservative figure is deemed to be an example of liberal bias in the media. There are also occasions in which a story that is purely objective is flagged as “biased” because it doesn’t cheerlead enough for the Bush Administration.

Let’s look at a few specific examples and debunk the idea of liberal bias. Each year, the Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby writes a year-end column on hate speech from the left, and contends that the lack of coverage of this is because of a liberal bias in the media. In this year’s installment, Jacoby cites examples of hate speech from Harry Belafonte and syndicated columnist, Pat Oliphant as particularly egregious, yet these men were not criticized to the same degree as Pat Robertson for his comments regarding Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez. While I will agree that such speech from both sides is inappropriate, there’s a reason that Robertson is more widely criticized, and that is because he commands a far larger audience than Belafonte or Oliphant. He has a daily show with approximately 1 million viewers. Belafonte and Oliphant don’t have that broad of an appeal. Jacoby is desperate when he implies that Belafonte is on par with Robertson in terms of national scope. Interestingly enough, a couple of weeks after Jacoby’s column was published, Belafonte was roundly criticized in the media for controversial statements he made in Venezuela. So much for that liberal bias.

The plain fact is that conservative hate speech is more roundly criticized because it is uttered by conservatives with audiences that number in the millions. When Bill O’Reilly says that Al Qaeda can blow up San Francisco and the rest of the country won’t help, that deserves to be criticized because so many Americans listen to him and believe him to be credible. Can you name a liberal commentator with as large an audience as O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh that makes the same types of outrageous and hateful comments? If there were a liberal bias in the media, don’t you think such a person would exist?

Another example of “liberal bias” comes from the conservative media watchdog site, Media Research Center (MRC). Recently (I read this about a month ago, but I couldn’t find it in their archives, so I don’t have a link), MRC performed a “study” on the news programs of the major networks and CNN, and graded the presentation of stories. If a story on the Iraq war was shown and it said anything negative about the topic (like soldiers dying), the story was deemed to be negative and therefore contained a liberal bias. Other stories were judged in the same way. The basic conclusion of the study was that these news programs were negative in their overall coverage due to bias. Since when is “if it bleeds, it leads” part of the liberal agenda? News programs are all about bad news because that’s what drives ratings, not because of ideology. Anyone who watches local news knows that all of the stories are about murders, fires, crime, storms, and other tragedies.

Websites like Media Research Center and its liberal counterpart, Media Matters for America (MMFA), have a mission of exposing bias in the media. However, to fully debunk the myth of a liberal bias in the media, we have to discuss what is NOT on the air, rather than what is on the air. For example, the story of the Downing Street Memos and their significance was completely downplayed in this country by the mainstream media. The liberal position on this story was that this was the “smoking gun” in the assertion that the Bush administration fabricated the case for the War in Iraq. Yet the so-called “liberal” mainstream media barely discussed the story let alone its significance. With such a liberal media, how was this possible?

Another topic that isn’t getting any airtime in the mainstream media, but is being discussed actively in the actual progressive/liberal media, is Impeachment of President Bush. Many liberals feel that between the fabrication of the case for War in Iraq and the Domestic Spying scandal, there is more than enough evidence to pursue Impeachment of the President. Again, if the mainstream media is so liberal, why isn’t it doing its best to bring down this President? If these scandals had occurred under President Clinton, I guarantee you that Impeachment would be a daily topic in our newspapers and televisions.

The fact is that there is no liberal media bias. The left doesn’t have anyone who has the audience reach of a Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Pat Robertson, nor does it have its own major news network promoting its agenda like Fox News does for the conservative cause. Claims of liberal media bias are comparable to claims of discrimination against Christians. It doesn’t exist. These claims are part of a strategy to help cement conservative opinion on various topics while marginalizing the liberal position, and the strategy is working. In fact, it’s working so well that the once mighty bastion of liberalism, the New York Times, has been remarkably cooperative with the Bush Administration on the War in Iraq and Domestic Spying. Now, liberals can’t trust the newspaper that has served them so well in the past. Cries of liberal media bias have disguised the actual shift of the media to the right, and real liberals are left with progressive websites and blogs as their refuge.


Note: If you choose to read Jeff Jacoby’s piece from 12/28/2005, please note that he has chosen to present as fact an unsubstantiated story of a racist attack on Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele. For more details, read this from Media Matters for America.

Strict Constructionist vs. Judicial Activist

The Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings for Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito are fast approaching, and the process could be contentious as forces from the left and right appear to be polarized on this nominee. Conservative supporters of Judge Alito will saturate the airwaves with the terms “Strict Constructionist” and “Judicial Activist”, and will assert that Alito is the former – and presumably, that’s good for the American people.

What do these impressive sounding terms mean? And, what do these terms REALLY mean in the context of their usage and why do conservatives want you to accept these terms blindly?

Strict Constructionist
Term Definition: Someone who interprets the Constitution literally. (As an aside, do we really want someone who interprets the Constitution literally? Doesn’t all law have to be interpreted with the perspective of modern society? The Founding Fathers of this country could never have foreseen the rigors of modern society, so how could we expect them to design a framework to legislate it completely?)
Conservative Usage of the term: Someone who agrees with the conservative viewpoint on political and social issues (e.g., abortion).

Judicial Activist
Term Definition: A judge who legislates from the bench.
Conservative Usage of the term: Someone who disagrees with the conservative viewpoint on political and social issues (e.g., Terry Schiavo).

Looking at the above definitions, it’s no surprise that Samuel Alito is being cast as a Strict Constructionist. Of course, the definitions of these terms are sufficiently vague enough to make it nearly impossible to determine whether anyone belongs in one camp versus the other. Is there a prescribed method for reviewing a judge’s record and determining whether he is a Strict Constructionist or Judicial Activist? In my opinion, the answer to that question is “No” and that’s deliberate.

Conservative supporters of Judge Alito are not using these terms for their definitions, but as labels. The more Samuel Alito is referred to as a Strict Constructionist, the more he will become the symbol of conservatism on Constitutional issues, regardless of his record. Republicans want the label to stick because labels are stronger than facts in American society today. Already, the mainstream media is parroting the view that Alito is a Strict Constructionist so the process is beginning to take hold. Once the label is established, the average American won’t bother to research Judge Alito’s record on the issues and that’s exactly what conservatives want to happen. In today’s fast food styled world, a quick label from the mainstream media is all the average American citizen needs to make a decision, and that is sad.

Liberals have been slow to realize this and still attempt to fight labels with facts with the belief that rational discourse will prevail. Unfortunately, it often takes years for the rational perspective to supplant the label. With that reality in mind, perhaps Democrats should turn the tables and label this nominee as a Judicial Activist. Media Matters for America compiled the Top Alito Myths and Falsehoods, and in item #3, put forth a reasonable argument for branding Samuel Alito as a Judicial Activist. I doubt we’ll see the Democrats adopting this strategy, but wouldn’t it be fun to see TV pundits from each side yelling “Strict Constructionist”, “NO, Judicial Activist”, “NO, Strict Constructionist”, “NO, Judicial Activist” …

Of course, the best way to determine your level of support for Judge Alito is to research his published opinions and views on the topics that are important to you. There’s a famous adage in sports and I think it applies here: Don’t believe the hype!