Media Bias: Existent Only in Fantastical Writings

Stating that the media in the United States, or at least powerful elements of it, have a net liberal slant in the way they present information is quite a grandiose claim, considering the sheer magnitude and variety of publications, books, television shows, radio stations and other forms of communication. Yet, many pundits and media critics have accepted the existence of a "liberal media" as an undoubted truth as though it were a postscript to the Constitution. Bernard Goldberg uses mainly anecdotal evidence in an attempt to show the media to truly have a liberal bent. Eric Alterman counters with examples that do not concur with the "liberal media" thesis, makes a key point about media ownership, and accuses Goldberg of writing out of animosity.

Much of Goldberg's contention and analysis stems from his days while working for CBS. He repeatedly mentions either situations he witnessed or he believes occur on a regular basis, such as "talk about a "vast left-wing conspiracy" in the newsroom" and "reporters see and hear things...facts they tacitly agree not to discuss" (McKenna 82, 87). The main substance of his argument, overall, is that most journalists and media elites hold liberal beliefs, and these inevitably spill out and taint their reporting. To prove this point, he quotes a researcher who claims there is a large body of literature to support the "liberal media" theory, states that polls show reporters to self-identify as liberal and claims that the public at large finds the news media to be liberally-slanted (82). Additionally, Goldberg accuses journalists and liberals in general of isolating themselves from conservative views, creating an attitude that their reinforced, unchallenged liberal views are the societal norm.

Eric Alterman begins his counterargument by showing that claims of a "liberal media" date back at least fifty years, but, he asserts, are simply an instance where fiction has been spun through repetition into a believed truth. He then moves on to attack Goldberg's logic and tactics, contending that Goldberg has a vendetta with CBS and that his reasoning fails to be coherent and sensible. In his most convincing point, he displays the corporate complexity of which media outlets are a miniature but very influential branch. He concludes by laying out a lengthy evaluation of the media's performance in covering the George W. Bush White House, which he says has been lenient and shows a conservative bent.

The nice thing about this issue, the way that Taking Sides presents it at least, is that it is a yes/no question where there is a determinable burden of proof. Unlike many other subjects where there are two sides that debate which policy would be more beneficial or morally acceptable, such as gun control and tax cuts, the "liberal media" either exists or it does not. In this particular case, it is Bernard Goldberg's responsibility to present ample evidence that substantially proves a liberally-slanted media, but unfortunately, the argument as he gives it fails miserably to pass even the lowest acceptable standard of proof or significance test.

Bearing in mind the incredible number of news outlets in the country, the single examples of Dan Rather saying this or an editorial chief saying that amount to having no value unless shown to be part of a statistically significant mass. When five or six people make flippant remarks or report in a prejudiced manner or a media critic agrees that there is a bias present, nothing is tangibly proven. Such statements show the media to be liberal only by implicit reasoning or interpolation, and neither holds much water. They are both examples, like much of Goldberg's reasoning, to be some guise of logical flaw.

Alterman does a nice job of pointing out some of these fallacies in his rebuttal. He mentions that when Goldberg argues the networks' declining numbers are due to the public condemning them as liberal and finding more objective sources on cable, he conveniently leaves out the fact that the falling ratings are not just limited to news programs, and he later shows that many of Goldberg's claims, such as labeling, are outright hyperbole (91-3). In fact, hyperbole is what drives much of Goldberg's argument. The specific names of the polls and surveys he consistently refers to are conspicuously absent. He quotes one academic of stating there is a wide body of texts showing a liberal media, but then he chooses not to list even one of the reputable scholarly sources that prove a "liberal media," instead choosing to speculate that liberal journalists sit in their exclusive caves, complaining about the downfall of their elitist monopoly.

Such prejudiced suggestions are preposterous. Having a liberal media is not about political parties, he insists, but instead concerns "fundamental...beliefs and values" (85). Goldberg says it is much easier for a liberal-minded elitist to be surrounded only by liberal thought, whereas it is much harder for a conservative to do so because "liberal culture is pervasive," in all forms of entertainment (86). Does he give a definition or provide an example of what he considers to be "liberal music" or a "liberal sit-com?" No, so one is left to assume just what he means by the all-encompassing liberal atmosphere, only to assume that Goldberg is fairly conservative himself. To claim, though, that reporters, people who read wire reports from around the world and talk to a variety of people across social strata for a living, are an inclusive, cliquish bunch who reside in a mystical liberal bubble in the sky is simply erroneous. Journalists, by the very nature of their profession, are exposed to a much broader array of values and beliefs than a majority of the citizenry. Maybe if Goldberg could step out of his own fantasyland realm of defective poll data and embellished assumptions, he could see that conservative isolation and reinforcement works equally well in the south, rural areas, and the mountain country.

Moreover, what does this have to do with the argument at hand? Granted, maybe a majority of journalists do happen to hold uncontested liberal beliefs. The question is, then, does that transfer to their news coverage? Goldberg seems to assume that it automatically does, but this is faulty. Isn't it equally possible that they might overcompensate for their own views in an effort to appear neutral? And, unlike Goldberg asserts, the media certainly know what the mainstream thinks, as they are often the ones who sponsor the polls to determine such data.

Alterman does well in debunking the other claims. Particularly, he points out the sprawling, wide-ranging structure of American business, a key consideration in this argument. For a journalist to give something a liberal slant influenced by their personal political agenda, the assumption must be that they act independently. But, as Alterman shows, this can not be so (95). Since General Electric owns NBC, they are hardly going to sit back and allow reporters on that station give liberal, environmentalist slants to stories if such a view would be harmful to their bottom line. To think otherwise is absurd. He points out another major problem in Goldberg's logic when he shows the limited scope with which Goldberg is examining to back his claim (91). Looking at only three programs that run once a day, concurrently with each other, and then trying to extrapolate that data to the entire domain of media in order to make broad claims about journalists as a whole is poor form.

The main fault of the refutation is that Alterman reveals that he has a bias of his own. The whole argument regarding the conservative media bias is rather excessive; all he should have done was show the "liberal media" claim to be deceitful, defending the concept of a neutral news media. In addition, after he reports convincingly that Bernard Goldberg bears a grudge with the elites at CBS and writes much of what he says out of spite, he sadly exposes that he is biased towards liberal thought when he repeatedly calls the President "unelected" (96-101). The debatable level of truth of that statement is irrelevant; the argument would be more convincing without the conservative media claim or the exposed liberal bias, as appearing neutral and moderate can often bring a sense of even-tempered, impartial reason along with it.

Overall, the bias of each is unfortunate because an individual's vantage point distorts their answer to the question at hand. Assuming that news media coverage is indeed moderate and neutral, individuals on the right, like Rush Limbaugh or Trent Lott, will invariably see even moderate news coverage as having a liberal slant, simply because it is to the left of their worldview. The same goes with those on the left, looking right across the linear political spectrum and seeing neutral news as more conservative news. All things considered, there is no media bias, only in how individuals see it. If the journalists are liberals, they will either self-censor or be monitored by conservative superiors in the hierarchy. This sort of check-and-balance system should weed out any bias that might exist. Like so many things in history, the term "liberal media" has been said so many times it is accepted as unshakable truth. If there is really any modicum of prejudice in the news media, on a grand scale, the effects of any such spin are likely to be insignificant, if existent at all.