The Note sees bias; world sees reality

October 18, 2006

Because I’ve never been able to grasp why, exactly, conservatives believe there’s a “liberal media,” I immediately gravitate towards examples of leftward bias identified by conservatives. I want to understand the right’s complaints, because for all the media reading/watching/listening I do, evidence of an actual liberal media eludes me.

Today, ABC News’ The Note, which routinely suggests there’s a left-leaning bias in political coverage, goes through what it believes is strong evidence of a liberal media.

Why do conservatives think the Old Media is biased against them? Let’s see: Could it be the New York Times’ poll suggesting GOP doom in Ohio? LINK

Or the Washington Post measuring new drapes for Nancy Pelosi? LINK

Or the Los Angeles Times casually outing senior Republican aides as gay? LINK

Or the obsession with Obama for President? LINK

Or the man Speaker Hastert terms an adviser to Bill Clinton, “Richard” Morris, declaring the House and Senate are going Democratic? LINK

But it is more likely because of the press’ steady drumbeat on the Democrats-are-going-to-win-and-the-Iraq-war-is -going-badly-and-North-Korea-is-a-big-problem-and-House-leaders-knew-more-about-Foley-than-they-claim that is defining the meta-narrative for the midterms in the Old Media.

These are evidence of bias? Let’s quickly go through these, one at a time.

The NYT did a poll and found Ohio voters leaning strongly towards the Dems this year. This reflects a “bias” because, well, actually it doesn’t. Public opinion is public opinion.

The WaPo did a piece about Dems being poised to win back the House, an observation/predictions made by a variety of Republican insiders, as well as Dems. This isn’t bias, it’s reality.

The LAT ran an article about the right still wanting to purge the GOP of gays. Number of aides outed in the article whose sexual orientation was not already known? Zero.

The Chicago Tribune, I will admit, does seem quite enamored with the notion of Obama running for president, but let’s also not forget that none other than Chris Matthews recently described the national media as John McCain’s “base.” If the Trib, which is a Republican Bush-endorsing newspaper, is excited by Obama, and that’s proof of a liberal media bias, the rest of the media’s enduring love for McCain must be proof of a conservative media bias.

Dick Morris believes Democrats are going to take back Congress, but if Morris is a liberal, I’m the chairman of the Republican National Committee.

And, finally, The Note complains that the meta-narrative for the midterms is that a) Dems are favored to win; b) Iraq is a disaster; c) the North Korean crisis is getting worse; and d) GOP leaders appear to have covered up for Mark Foley. In other words, by pointing out news stories that are true, the media is showing a bias.

If this is what the right means by the “liberal media,” they have a pretty weak case.

There’s no better proof that those at the top of American politics are basically idiots than the existence of “The Note.” Only a fool would read that caca for anything but a quick laugh.

  • There you go again, harping on about reality.

    And as is well known, reality has a strong liberal bias.

  • Sometimes reality doesn’t favor republicans, that is liberal bias, by current definition.

    If only the media would say the reps are going to win, Iraq is going swimmingly, and N Korea is Clinton’s fault, the world would be a safer place.

    If only everyone in the world did as GWB says, he wouldn’t have so many problems.

  • I have this Pavlovian revolution to The Note: when I hear those two words, I think “first against the wall when the revolution comes.”

    They’re the sort of syncophantic shitbags-to-power that prompt so many Americans, of all political persuasions, to detest Washington DC.

  • The meaning of the word “liberal” in the phrase “liberal media” denotes any media organization that “reports news” where “news” is defined as “something the powerful don’t want known” and everything else is simply “advertising” (paid or unpaid).

    Thus, any media that reports what the Republican’ts and Bushites don’t want known is, by (their) definition, “liberal”.

    What’s so hard to understand?

  • By Mark Halperin, David Chalian, Teddy Davis, Tahman Bradley, Sarah Baker and Angie Hu with Catrin Jones, Erica Anderson, and Michelle Dubert

    You’d think that between the nine people it took to write that crap, one of them would have noticed the facts they were all checking were true.

    Then again, “reality” doesn’t count for much these days in conservative circles.

  • The NYT did a poll and found Ohio voters leaning strongly towards the Dems this year. This reflects a “bias” because, well, actually it doesn’t. Public opinion is public opinion.

    The WaPo did a piece about Dems being poised to win back the House, an observation/predictions made by a variety of Republican insiders, as well as Dems. This isn’t bias, it’s reality.

    The LAT ran an article about the right still wanting to purge the GOP of gays. Number of aides outed in the article whose sexual orientation was not already known? Zero.

    The Chicago Tribune, I will admit, does seem quite enamored with the notion of Obama running for president, but let’s also not forget that none other than Chris Matthews recently described the national media as John McCain’s “base.” If the Trib, which is a Republican Bush-endorsing newspaper, is excited by Obama, and that’s proof of a liberal media bias, the rest of the media’s enduring love for McCain must be proof of a conservative media bias.

    Dick Morris believes Democrats are going to take back Congress, but if Morris is a liberal, I’m the chairman of the Republican National Committee.

    And, finally, The Note complains that the meta-narrative for the midterms is that a) Dems are favored to win; b) Iraq is a disaster; c) the North Korean crisis is getting worse; and d) GOP leaders appear to have covered up for Mark Foley. In other words, by pointing out news stories that are true, the media is showing a bias.

    If this is what the right means by the “liberal media,” they have a pretty weak case.

    Wow, it’s almost as if this article has a rightward bias the evidence of which is its reporting a sham liberal bias.

  • It’s simple. Every plan which Republicans have- anti-tax, anti-woman, anti-government- fails in action. While they were on the outside, it was easy to be the party raging against the system. Once they achieved total control (and, ergo, had the ability to make their platform a reality), the wheels came off, and what little was ‘achieved’ has generally been agreed to be a total failure (war in Iraq, tax cuts, ‘smaller government’…). The press is simply a bogeyman for them.

    And, please, a liberal bias? I am 25, pretty damn young, but old enough to remember Lewinsky, let alone the rest of Clinton’s terms in office. And I don’t remember the press ever being nice to him.

  • Liberal bias is a close cousin of activist judges, political correctness, partisanship, unAmerican behavior, etc. Liberal bias is what drives all news that is critical of the right. Activist judges are those who rule against the right. Partisanship is when Dems don’t do exactly what Repubs want. And everyone who disagrees with the right is unAmerican. It’s sort of an inbred family of terms.

  • Dick Morris definitely belongs to the Party of Dick. To me Morris was one of Clinton’s biggest mistakes. Why is he given any credence?

    The stories you mention are not only true, they’re valid news items.

    Columnists say such transparently dumb stuff sometimes that they need a peer review for comments before they publish. But as Will says, it took nine of them to come up with this bs article. So that would probably be useless.

    Karl and George are confident that’s why they look like this. 🙂

  • “But it is more likely because of the press’ steady drumbeat on the Democrats-are-going-to-win-and-the-Iraq-war-is-going-badly-and-North-Korea-is-a-big-problem-and-House-leaders-knew-more-about-Foley-than-they-claim that is defining the meta-narrative for the midterms in the Old Media.”

    I guess it does make sense that reporting facts is a “liberal bias”, what with the left’s obsession with facts and reality. It is not the media’s fault that the GOP is delusional. Also, how long did it take the media to criticize the Bushite war in Iraq? If the GOP fucked up, it is their fault, not the fault of the media for reporting it.

    “Or the man Speaker Hastert terms an adviser to Bill Clinton, “Richard” Morris, declaring the House and Senate are going Democratic?”

    When the GOP did the same, I suspect reporting beforehand indictated this. I also suspect that it would be possible to find a number of articles quoting GOP advisors saying the same.

    “The LAT ran an article about the right still wanting to purge the GOP of gays. Number of aides outed in the article whose sexual orientation was not already known? Zero”

    Even if they had, I fail to see this as a bias if it were true and there was a reason beside their sexuality to do so.

  • Didn’t a high official in the WH brag about creating their own reality. They sure as hell did and it sucked them and all the Republicans right into the shitter. And unfortunately the rest of the country with them. Typical Republicans, preaching personal responsibility but refusing to accept any accounting for their own. If the the Dems had half the PR machine the Republicans have, the Republicans would really be clogging the sewer pipes. They should be thankful for the formidable media power they have.

  • Isn’t Barak Obama from Chicago – isn’t the Chicago Tribune the hometown paper getting excited about the hometown boy creating a national buzz?

    When was the last time since 1956 anyone got excited about the Presidential prospects of anyone from Illinois, anyway?

  • Liberal, huh? Maybe they mean a “liberal” sprinkling of different news topics. Like too many croutons liberally sprinkled on a “healthy” salad (i.e. – lots of bad news for Republicans).

  • Meanwhile, Mark Halperin is right at the top of the list of sycophantic, shilling, whoring, Bush dick suckers in the media and Clinton fired Dick Morris back in 96 or 97 and to say they despise each other would be putting it mildly.

  • It’s hard for The Note to understand why we’re not clamoring for more stories on Ward Churchill – there’s a broad, life-or-death issue for all of us to be outraged over.

  • Liberal media bias — n.

    1. When the media reports anything factually accurate that makes Republicans look bad;

    2. When the media covers news stories not involving women in comas, Bush in a tubesock-filled flight suit, or how Baghdad is safer than Manhattan.

  • The problem for the Republicans is that they’re run by a bunch of immature fantasists who think that they’re the heroic viewpoint characters in some sort of godawful Clancyesque potboiler. Seizing control of every sphere of Government was only Step One in a carefully plotted narrative, the dramatic conclusion of which would see America purged of “liberal weakness” and neo-conservative militarism cock-swingingly triumphant over the Right’s entire pantheon of hate figures, while the rest of the world would be shamed into acknowledging the exceptional moral genius of these few, brave men. Who then get laid, a lot, by really, really hot women.

    What they didn’t factor in to their little wish-fulfilment fantasy was the simple fact that real life doesn’t – usually – work out like a bad novel. When you make a mistake, the “Bad Guys” won’t conveniently make an even worse one that ends up making your original fuck-up look like a great strategic move. At no point in the real world can you skip a few chapters to get to the good bit where the plan starts coming together. There are no cut-scenes in real life.

    Six years and counting of badly-plotted garbage that no one wants to read anymore, that’s what Republicans are running on this November.

    And Georgie-Boy, believe me when I say this, you are no Jack Ryan.

  • The charge of “liberal bias” in the media is just a middle-brow ploy to keep journalists on the defensive and to disguise the lack of substance inherent in reich wing arguments. In the pugilist’s art it is the act of waving the left hand in the face of the opponent just before socking him on the jaw with a right hook. The fact that journalists feel self-conscious about their reporting and some networks now believe that spouting the reich wing line is somehow required is proof that this head game is effective propaganda.

    We need many more journalists like Bill Moyers and fewer empty suits like Gibson, Williams, and Couric (even if she is a delectable MILF).

  • The truth hurts don’t it? Better lash out by saying a fact has a liberal bias, just as any investigation into the GOP’s misdeeds is “political,” because that is a little more mature than prancing around chanting “La, la, la! I can’t heaaaar youooo!”

    But only a little.

  • Corddry: How does one report the facts in an unbiased way when the facts themselves are biased?

    Stewart: I’m sorry, Rob, did you say the facts are biased?

    Corddry: That’s right Jon. From the names of our fallen soldiers to the gradual withdrawal of our allies to the growing insurgency, it’s become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda.

    Point made.

  • Wait a second, CB. I think you buried the lede. Dick Morris thinks Dems will win the House? That’s it, we’re screwed. The man hasn’t made a correct prediction since he picked up a pen. Just ask Sen Lazio.

    • Comments are closed.