Monday, May 16, 2005
What does 'liberal media' mean?
Media
and Democracy
Liberal bias. Liberal media.
Catch phrases such as these have been bantered about, most recently
by supporters of the Bush administration and its appointed chair
of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), Ken Tomlison. Tomlison has started a
battle for more control over news content on public television and
radio stations in an attempt to correct what he feels is ‘liberal
bias’ in programming.
With all this talk about ‘liberal bias’, I have yet to
hear a thoughtful discussion of what detractors of public broadcasting
actually mean by liberal; which appears to be more of a
code word for ‘reportage that rubs power the wrong way’—namely,
those currently in power, i.e. the Bush administration.
If the issue were bias towards a particular political party—Democratic
bias or Republican bias—then there would be a real problem.
Yet this is exactly the problem Tomlison
would effectively create by providing for more direct control of
news content on public broadcasting by a given administration.
So what does liberal really mean in liberal media?
The concept of liberal media can be defined as free, broad
minded reporting that investigates those in power. The fourth estate
is supposed to be a watchdog and critical check on government, industry
and the interests of the rich and powerful. In this light, media
would best be described as liberal if they challenge the official
word and provide critical coverage of issues that doesn’t simply
rely on government spokespeople or press releases.
With this definition of liberal media, the antithesis would
presumably be ‘conservative’—media that adhere to
orthodox and authoritarian attitudes and provide traditional views
that cautiously rely on official sources without providing investigative
reporting. Liberal democracy relies on liberal media. Free and critical
media that investigate those in power do not represent a problem
in a democratic society—except for those who hold power and
wish to consolidate that power and avoid democratic scrutiny.
On the face of it, the goal of detractors of so-called liberal
media has little to do with providing ‘balanced’
views and more to do with replacing free, independent and critical
media with controlled and docile media that depend upon official
government and industry sources for the ‘news’ they report.
A main target of Tomlinson’s attack on PBS is the now retired
investigative journalist Bill Moyers.
Robert McChesney, professor of communication
at the
McChesney said (Democracy Now, 12 May 2005), “The Moyers
show was not a liberal or left-wing version of the right-wing talk
show. It was an investigative journalism show. Bill actually broke
stories. He investigated people in power. And frankly, if they put
on a conservative-oriented investigative show, I think that would
have been terrific. But you don't balance an investigative journalism
show with pontificators that just sort of shout out sound bites
but don't actually do any journalism, don’t get dirt under
their fingernails, and that’s why I don’t think that’s
a legitimate comparison.”
Bill Moyers, speaking at the National Conference
for Media Reform in
“I decided long ago that this [when the press simply recounts
what officials say instead of subjecting their words and deeds to
critical scrutiny] wasn’t healthy for democracy. I came to
see that news is what people want to keep hidden, and everything
else is publicity. In my documentaries, whether on the Watergate
scandal thirty years ago, or the Iran-Contra conspiracy twenty years
ago, or Bill Clinton’s fundraising scandals ten years ago,
or five years ago the chemical industry’s long and despicable
cover up of its cynical and unspeakable withholding of critical
data about its toxic products, I realized that investigative journalism
could not be a collaboration between the journalist and the subject.
Objectivity was not satisfied by two opposing people offering competing
opinions, leaving the viewer to split the difference. I came to
believe that objective journalism means describing the object being
reported on, including the little fibs and fantasies, as well as
the big lie of people in power.”
What is really at issue in the attacks against PBS, NPR
and so-called liberal media?
There certainly is a problem from the perspective of those who hold
power: free, independent, and investigative media pose a check to
that power. Free, independent and investigative media attempt to
reign in authoritarian impulses and check the abuse of power that
results in lies and distorted truth.
Tomlison’s purge in public broadcasting
has little to do with providing ‘balance’ and more to
do with an attempt to influence editorial content in favor of a
particular administration. If that’s not bias, then what is?
If that’s not antithetical to public broadcasting in a democratic
society, then what is? Public media need to remain free from the
controls of any given administration in order to avoid simply becoming
a propaganda office.
As Bill Moyers notes, “I know firsthand
that the Public Broadcasting Act was meant to provide an alternative
to commercial television and to reflect the diversity of the American
people.”
Links:
- "A Battle Over Programming at National Public Radio," by Stephen Labaton (New York Times, 16 May 2005)
- "Speech
at Conference Assails Right Wing," by Michael Sorkin
(
- Adam