For a few years now, conservatives have been loudly advancing their favorite theory of the media as a vast liberal conspiracy machine. They are jubilant over the recent Dan Rather/CBS documents scandal involving Bush's military service because they see it as indisputable proof that the mainstream media are not only liberal and in cahoots with the Democrats, but scheming and nefarious as well.
The scandal proves nothing of the kind.
I'm not saying Dan Rather has no political agenda or, as reported, John Kerry's campaign had nothing to do with the story being run in the first place.
But that doesn't mean an entire television network (much less an entire mainstream media) touts a liberal bias. Consider the following:
Rather has a reputation as a stubborn, recalcitrant, childish man. He has been involved in many controversial stunts over the years, as when he walked off the set in 1987, leaving CBS to broadcast six minutes of dead air.
Rather is not necessarily liberal just because he has again acted stubborn, recalcitrant and childish by running and then standing by an obviously false story. Bill O'Reilly acts stubborn, recalcitrant and childish on almost every edition of his show. I think it's safe to say he's not liberal.
As far as CBS goes, last November the network yanked its miniseries "The Reagans" from its broadcast premiere when it caught just a whiff of pressure from conservatives who hadn't even seen the movie, but only read snippets of its script and thought it "a left-wing smear."
Consider also, for years CBS was known as the "Matlock" channel because of its programming targeted at middle-class, middle-age adults -- not exactly the demographic that makes up this country's liberal base.
Now consider the media age in which we live. In eras past there were many more distinctive and independent voices in the media, especially among newspapers. Now huge corporations, such as NewsCorp or Clear Channel Communications, own much of the media and are acquiring more.
Not only does this style of ownership tend to homogenize disparate voices, but I would argue that the homogenized voice that emerges is conservative. Why? Because the men and women who sit on the boards of these corporations (whose main objective is a healthy bottom line) are generally conservative and support conservative agendas that favor big corporations.
And believe it or not, journalism school instructors teach us not to be elitist, liberal, left wing, Democrats or socialists, but to be fair-minded, ethical and honorable, and to try to find an objective truth. And when we go out into the world, that's exactly what most of us try to do. As a columnist I might proclaim my liberal beliefs, but as a reporter I make myself forget that I even have them.
Of course I'm not naive to think that sometimes opinions don't report news, unconsciously or consciously -- or that there aren't people and news organizations out there that aren't working from some personal or political agenda.
And I too see many problems with the mainstream media. My point is that the media is not a machine or an entity, but an assembly of individual human beings who are complex and feeling -- sometimes honorable, sometimes not. I know mainstream media bashers don't want to think in those terms because it's always harder to hate an individual with whom you might have something in common.
As far as the alternative media go, I applaud the proficient reporting of the bloggers -- who claim to be the heroes of the Dan Rather case, the great unmaskers of liberal charlatanism -- and I encourage a multiplicity of journalistic voices and styles. Just so bloggers don't conveniently gloss over the fact that those "liberal" mainstream media they despise (The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post) were also hot after Rather following the initial story broadcast.
Of course there's a contradiction that many conservatives never reconcile. They claim not to trust the mainstream media, and yet they rarely question the motivations or methods of alternative media or their holy shrine, Fox News, which makes no bones about its inherent bias.
My advice: try reading a liberal paper for a few weeks, like The New York Times, or maybe listen to some National Public Radio. Mainstream media aren't perfect, but you might be surprised at the honest professionalism, the fair-mindedness and the dedication to simply getting the story right.
Michael Green is pursuing degrees in creative writing and film and media studies. Direct your vitriolic comments to michael.b.green@asu.edu.
