|
|
Title: What Liberal Media?: The Truth about Bias and the News
Purchase
Item
Manufacturer: Basic Books
List Price: $15.00
Our Price: $1.35
|
|
| Customer Reviews: |
| What Liberal Media?: The Truth about Bias and the News by Basic Books Don't believe the conservative talking points! | Even though it was published in 2004, Eric Alterman's WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA?: THE TRUTH ABOUT BIAS AND THE NEWS is just as relevant and insightful today, as the 2008 election cycle begins to heat up. From the mainstream media's misogynist slurs against Hillary Clinton to their love affair with presumptive Republican nominee John McCain (note to Chris Matthews: the media isn't supposed to be ANY candidate's "base"), the total lack of a liberal bias, even among ostensibly moderate-to-lefty journalists, is painfully evident.
Alterman debunks the myth of the liberal media from a number of angles. From the rise of right-wing pundits and well-funded conservative "think tanks" (an oxymoron if ever there was one), to the political leanings of and corporate pressures faced by individual journalists, Alterman illustrates how the Republican Party seized control of the mainstream media, all the while decrying its supposed bias in favor of liberal causes.
Especially timely is his discussion of how the media has treated George W. Bush with kid gloves, previously having eviscerated (sometimes, rightfully so) Bill Clinton for lesser evils. Yes, Bill Clinton deserves scorn for taking advantage of an awe-struck intern (power disparity, anyone?); but a BJ pales in comparison to an unjust war. (Mind bogglingly, the media's slant has only veered further to the right in the wake of 9/11 and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.) Shortly after the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq passed 4,000, Dick Cheney declared "It places a special burden obviously on the families, and we recognize, I think -- it's a reminder of the extent to which we are blessed with families who've sacrificed as they have. The president carries the biggest burden, obviously." Bush himself said - with no hint of irony, compassion, or remorse - that he's found his presidency "joyful" and he sleeps "a lot better than people would assume." And the MSM didn't even blink.
*head desk*
Seriously, WHAT liberal media!?
As the primaries drag on, it's a whole lotta history repeating.
While WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? probably won't sway any hardcore conservatives, it is a useful tool for liberals who wish to quash the myth of the liberal media, and might help to educate misinformed moderates and independents. Generally speaking, it's a good read and a persuasive argument, but I wish Alterman had included more hard statistics and fewer anecdotes. Then again, there seems to be a dearth of research in this area; perhaps WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? can serve as a starting point for some enterprising young journalism or social science students looking to study the issue further. An update for 2008 would be a welcome addition as well; Alterman has four more years of dubya's shenanigans to document, not to mention the farcical 2008 primaries.
To the content of the book, I bequeath four stars. To the format, which was for me an audiobook, one lonely star. I'm normally a huge fan of audiobooks, since they allow me to "read" 2-3 times as many books as I might otherwise. Yet Alterman narrated WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? himself, and the result is almost un-listenable. It's truly awful. (His Bill O'Reilly impression is spot on, though. Hey, credit where credit's due.) And this comes from someone who has a high tolerance for non-professional narration; I usually prefer that authors record the audio versions of their own books, since it lends an added authenticity to the reading. I loved listening to Ayaan Hirsi Ali's INFIDEL and Christopher Hitchens' GOD IS NOT GREAT, both of which were read by the respective authors, thick accents and all. But Alterman's publisher really should have shelled out the extra money for a pro. | | What Liberal Media?: The Truth about Bias and the News by Basic Books The perefect example of the problem with the media | | The author creates his own definitions and believes he proves a point by merely explaining his own a-priori assumptions. The bias is not just in the ratio of talking heads but in the assumptions made and excuses accepted. The mainstrem media never challenges the intellectual failings of liberal politicians. Lets face it - Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Cynthia McKinny, Robert Byrd, Mary Landrieu, Barbara Boxer, and many many more are not bright people - but the media treats them with kid gloves....Conservative with low wattage brains are considered fair game. | | What Liberal Media?: The Truth about Bias and the News by Basic Books Perception Management And The Basic Assumption of Official Doctrine | What the accusation of a liberal-leaning media structure does is establish a [corporate/state nexus] desired framework which serves as a crucial overarching structure for journalism/discussion: this far, and no further. That way, anything that falls outside of the framework is ignored, attacked, spun, or omitted outright. It is an exercise in obfuscation. Within the various mediums of mainline media, it is difficult for many to distinguish between "news," entertainment, and indoctrination. [lean heavily towards the latter] "News," shows, movies, sports and Empty-V all deliver products which essentially sell a specific mindset, and can do so even more effectively than "commercials" do, yet are essentially little more than advertisements. How? People have long been conditioned to identify themselves with such 'products' and not to see reality as it is, thereby establishing a media induced unreality. Which leads to Alterman's book.
I found my copy in a used book shop last week, and even though I was already quite aware of the right-wing fostered mythos of the so-called liberal media, decided to pick it up and wasn't disappointed. He's not exactly covering new ground - linguist and life-long activist/dissident Noam Chomsky was making the same point decades ago. The works of Charles Lewis, Mark Crispin Miller, Chris Hedges and Amy Goodman also come to mind. Most of what is seen or read in mainstream "news" is so carefully managed that the result is little more than the transmission of elite opinion to the masses for strategic purposes. People are instructed as to which views they should adhere to based around the desires of hawkish elites and vested corporate interests, hardly "liberal" in their professional/institutional capacities, who have to sell an open society a democracy-friendly movie script in order to, from their standing, win as many "hearts and minds" as possible in order to suppress dissent i.e. democratic interference to illegality and immorality. As Chomsky warns, "propaganda is to democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian society." Or to cite Alterman, "many conservatives who attack the media for its alleged liberalism do so because the constant drumbeat of groundless accusation has proven an effective weapon in weakening journalism's watchdog function."
The agenda setting mainline media is nothing more than a bullhorn public relation's/propaganda effort for the corporate and political interests it is owned by. The media is supposed to serve as a checks and balance system between Power and The People, but instead it does the exact opposite and ensures the right-wing profits over people agenda. There is always a subversion of language which precedes fascist movements. Such movements seek to instill a parallel reality while vehemently attacking any who dare question motive or validity. It is for this reason that free thinking moral agents need be gravely concerned over what's happened to our media, and the ensuing belligerence of authoritarians who relish its dumbed down, militant tone. For the accusation of a liberal slant gets incredible mileage in shifting the entire national debate much further to the right than what many are able or are willing to concede. Alterman himself even steps lightly here, and although is willing to state the obvious with regard to the 2000 and 04 elections, is quick to avoid venturing onto conspiratorial groud per se, something more professional liberals need to overcome as an effective means of altering the established national dialogue. The fact is, people with convergent interests, often times unaccountable to the public, conspire to carve a bigger slice of pie for themselves all the time. Yet this top-down, deeply ingrained bias against lending credence to conspiracies is a cornerstone of right-wing rhetoric and has unfortunately prevented many, liberal or authoritarian, from seeing what should be many painfully obvious truths regarding the American empire. Although the tide is shifting, I remain unconvinced that the brainwashed public mind will evolve beyond serving the interests of dominant institutions. | | What Liberal Media?: The Truth about Bias and the News by Basic Books You are as liberal as the man who owns you | One Republican troll who probably did not read the book said, "First off, In a recent poll, over 90% of the news correspondents in Washington, DC said they voted Democrat.".
But there is a problem. The corporations that own the media outlets where these reporters work sympathize for the Republican party. The Republican party is the party of corporations.
In one of the chapters Alterman explains that no matter how liberal a reporter is, he will censor his own work, trying to please his editor, and the editor about that editor, and the managing editor, all the way to the top, which in the case of MSNBC, is General Electric, for example.
Right-wingers do not give us example of media bias, but go on yapping about how polls show reporters vote Democratic.
Prove it with a study. Prove it that corporate-owned TV channels and newspapers are publishing lefty stuff. That's right. You don't have anything but cries of "liberal media!, liberal media!"
91% of talk radio (political) content is conservative. | | What Liberal Media?: The Truth about Bias and the News by Basic Books Really.....Reporter Bernard Goldberg disagrees... | First off, In a recent poll, over 90% of the news correspondents in Washington, DC said they voted Democrat.
Moving on...Bernard Goldberg has a book out called "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News"
Here is some of what he had to say in an interview:
"Well, I think we marginalize conservative views. I think too many people in the big-time media think conservatives, in too many cases, are just right-wing nuts."
"They marginalize conservatives mainly.. . I could give you many, many examples, Terry, but mainly by identifying every conservative who's in a story because -- and I think rightly -- the audience needs to know that these people are conservatives, that their views are conservative views and we should know, as they say, where they're coming from. But the very fact that we rarely identify liberals tells you, at least it tells me, that journalists very often think that these liberal views aren't liberal at all, but really mainstream, civilized, reasonable views. And that's the problem, I think."
"Let me just give you one little example. It was during impeachment, which we can all agree was a very, very big, very important story. And right before the impeachment proceedings began, Senators went up to sign what they call "an oath book," promising to be fair and impartial. As they went up, Peter Jennings, doing a live play-by-play, on ABC, identified Senator Santorum as a young conservative Senator from Pennsylvania -- determinately conservative. Then Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was also a determined conservative. Senator Smith from New Hampshire was a very, very conservative Senator from New Hampshire. Those are exact quotes. And I think that's absolutely fine.
This is impeachment, it's a political process, we need to know that these are conservatives, and their conservatism may affect their views. But Marvin, Barbara Boxer was simply Barbara Boxer from California. Ted Kennedy was simply Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts. Paul Wellstone was simply Paul Wellstone from Minnesota. Now, did Peter Jennings, who is a bright, intelligent, excellent, first-rate newsman, did he really think that the conservative views would affect the vote, but that liberal views wouldn't affect the vote?
You see, this reminds me of the bad-old days, and we both remember these days, Marvin, when the only time a criminal was identified in a news story by race is if he were black. Why was that? And if the criminal was white, by the way, his race meant nothing because the black criminal was seen as what -- different, out of the mainstream, certainly inferior, not just inferior to you and me, inferior to white criminals, and possibly dangerous, too." | | What Liberal Media?: The Truth about Bias and the News by Basic Books Product Description | Widely acclaimed and hotly contested, veteran journalist Eric Alterman's ambitious investigation into the true nature of the U.S. news media touched a nerve and sparked debate across the country. As the question of whose interests the media protects-and how-continues to raise hackles, Alterman's sharp, utterly convincing assessment cuts through the cloud of inflammatory rhetoric, settling the question of liberal bias in the news once and for all. Eye-opening, witty, and thoroughly and solidly researched, What Liberal Media? is required reading for media watchers, and anyone concerned about the potentially dangerous consequences for the future of democracy in America. | | What Liberal Media?: The Truth about Bias and the News by Basic Books Amazon.com | | The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. The book is unlikely to make many friends among conservative media talking heads. Alterman picks apart charges made by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Sean Hannity, and others (even the subtitle refers to a popular book by former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg that argues a lefty slant in news coverage). But the perspectives of less-incendiary figures, including David Broder and Howard Kurtz, are also dissected in Alterman's quest to prove that not only do the media lack a liberal slant but that quite the opposite is true. Much of Alterman's argument comes down to this: the conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist, says Alterman. In methodically shooting down conservative charges, Alterman employs extensive endnotes, all of which are referenced with superscript numbers throughout the body of the book. Those little numbers seem to say, "Look, I've done my homework." What Liberal Media? is a book very much of 2003 and will likely lose some relevance as political powers and media arrangements evolve. But it's likely to be a tonic for anyone who has suspected that in a media environment overflowing with conservatives, the charges of bias are hard to swallow. For liberals hoping someone will take off the gloves and mix it up with the verbal brawlers of the right, Eric Alterman is a champion. --John Moe |
| |
