Alterman spends a lot of time talking about the rise of conservative think tanks. Conservatives have certainly been successful there, but once again, there is no mention of the vast network of huge, taxpayer-funded liberal think tanks that influence the debate on social issues far more successfully than the Heritage Foundation.
I'm talking, of course, about the universities. After all, whose quote sounds more authoritative in a story on, say, welfare reform -- a (unlabeled Marxist) sociology professor from Harvard or a GOP apparatchik from the "conservative Heritage Foundation"?
And here is a revealing -- and surprising -- admission from Alterman:
In the media world in which I live, everybody has basically the same views on social issues, everybody supports gay marriage, everybody supports abortion rights, everybody I know supports gun control.
So I think they’re right that in the liberal elites everybody basically has these views on social issues. But I think that because they’ve been beating up the liberal elites for so long, the media have grown particularly cowardly on these issues and have bent over backwards to try and give the conservatives what they want, so that it no longer matters that much that they happen to be right about journalists’ views on these social issues. I think that the journalists’ views aren’t very important in terms of how the news is reported.
Well, that's Eric's opinion, and he's entitled to it. My personal experience after 13 years in the newspaper business is rather different. As I've written over and over and over again, certain social issues, especially ones touching on race, crime, abortion, immigration, religion, AIDS and homosexuality, are invariably reported from what I call the American Liberal perspective. (I call it the American Liberal perspective to differentiate it from the European Leftist perspective, because I'm sure that from the viewpoint of The Guardian, there is NO liberal media in the USA, except maybe for The Nation.)
In my opinion, the indirect result of left-leaning coverage of these social issues is to subtly cast Republicans as evil and Democrats as good. (This happens even though I believe that the horse-race coverage of political races is much fairer than most conservatives are willing to admit.) Then again, it must also be admitted that conservatives have a tougher case to make. I'll return to a quote from Martin Malia to highlight what I mean:
In American usage, the shorthand contrast for Left-Right difference is "compassionate" versus "mean-spirited." ... In modern political rhetoric, therefore, it has always been easier to make a vibrant plea for equality and fraternity than for hierarchy, distinction and privilege, or even for individual liberty. So the moral economy of modern politics gives the Left a permanent, built-in advantage.
Yes, conservatives do have a tougher task. Despite that, it appears they've had some success. After all, the country is roughly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. Is the fact that those on the right side of the aisle are finally making some headway in the mainstream media really so dangerous? (I suppose so, if you consider conservatives as deluded as Palestinian shahids -- see below.) Fox News and other conservative media have found a niche and are serving it. Liberals have their niches that are being served as well. To me, that's the very essence of what debate in a free society should look like.
Let's continue:
CALPUNDIT: Do ordinary reporters still believe all this stuff? You say they’re cowed by charges of liberal bias, but do they still believe it, do they react to it, or do you think they’re catching on?
ALTERMAN: Do they believe it? Yeah, they believe it because they don’t think about it. The conservatives have invested so much money in this notion of liberal bias in the media that they buy into it even though there’s very little evidence to support it.
Well, most of the reporters I work with, who are invariably American Liberals, seem to regard the "media bias" argument put forward by conservatives as a joke. But they are at least thinking about it. I've been in "budget meetings" (that's where what goes in the paper gets hashed out) and seen the idea of "getting the other side" begrudgingly acknowledged as necessary "so we don't get letters from the nutbags and yahoos." So why is this a problem? If Alterman believes that basic journalistic fairness (or what he calls "bending over backwards to try and give the conservatives what they want") only serves to further the agenda of reactionaries, he should just say so. Even though I see precious little bending over on some issues, especially ones touching on race, which has always been the most vexing social problem in America. (See here for more.)
Just go check out CalPundit's interview and see what you think. Some points I agreed with; some I didn't.
