The Obama-loving media’s fractured "news judgment" – the kind that tried to skip Van Jones and ACORN because they were hobby horses of that wacko Glenn Beck – came under scrutiny Sunday by Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander. Alexander suggested the Post doesn’t pay sufficient attention to conservative media or viewpoints. The headline was "Wrongly Deaf to Right-Wing Media?"
But check out Tom Rosenstiel (formerly of Newsweek and the L.A. Times) gritting his rhetorical teeth at Alexander’s point even as he calls the liberal media "non-ideological":
It "can't be discounted," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. "Complaints by conservatives are slower to be picked up by non-ideological media because there are not enough conservatives and too many liberals in most newsrooms."
"They just don't see the resonance of these issues. They don't hear about them as fast [and] they're not naturally watching as much," he added.
The "non-ideological media" have "too many liberals in most newsrooms"?
Alexander was gentle where he could have been harsher, looking at journalists like ABC's Charlie Gibson, who almost seemed to be taking pride in skipping the story or even following it. And to think these people to mock George W. Bush for being intellectually incurious beyond his bubble. Sarah Palin should ask them which media they're consuming. The world doesn't stop at the edge of the New York Times.
Alexander gave the Washington Post's editor a chance to look less clueless than Gibson:
Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said he worries "that we are not well-enough informed about conservative issues. It's particularly a problem in a town so dominated by Democrats and the Democratic point of view."
To guard against it, he said, "I challenge our reporters and editors with great frequency to look at what is going on across the political spectrum . . . at the extremes, among the rabble-rousers, as well as among policymakers." He said he pressed the National desk this week to provide more ACORN coverage.
The Post does not survey its staff to determine its ideological makeup.
Of course, the Post does obsess a bit over its "affirmative action" makeup. But the line about they're not "surveying" the ideology is really an evasion. Liberals largely hire liberals, even if they're not doing surveys to prove it. I doubt liberals would buy Fox News defending its fair-and-balanced motto by saying Fox does no "survey" of its staff's ideology.
Alexander calmly laid out how the Post was dragged into covering Van Jones and ACORN:
It's tempting to dismiss such gimmicks. Fox News, joined by right-leaning talk radio and bloggers, often hypes stories to apocalyptic proportions while casting competitors as too liberal or too lazy to report the truth.
But they're also occasionally pumping legitimate stories. I thought that was the case with ACORN and, before it, the Fox-fueled controversy that led to the resignation of White House environmental adviser Van Jones.
Jones had issued two public apologies before The Post finally wrote about him. One was for using a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech before joining the administration. The other was for signing a 2004 petition that said members of the Bush administration may have "allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext to war." Conservatives had attacked Jones for more than a week before the first Post story appeared Sept. 5. He resigned the next day.
With ACORN, The Post wrote about it two days after the first of several explosive hidden-camera videos were aired showing the group's employees giving tax advice to young conservative activists posing as a prostitute and her pimp. Three days passed before The Post ran a short Associated Press story about the Senate halting Housing and Urban Development grants to ACORN, which operates in 110 cities. But by that time, the Census Bureau had severed ties with ACORN. State and city investigations had been launched. It wasn't until late in the week that The Post weighed in with two solid pieces.
Kudos to Alexander, since some Post ombudsmen (ahem, Geneva Overholser) never quite located the topic of liberal bias in their Sunday columns.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Golly!
September 21, 2009 - 06:39 ET by heldmywYa think they're finally realizing that the Lamestream Liberal Media is in deep, deep trouble?
Sort of like a dinosaur that looks around in surprise when the tar reaches its neck.
yes, probably
September 21, 2009 - 07:11 ET by 10ksnookerNow that it is too late. Trust is not a renewable resource.
Duh!!
September 21, 2009 - 06:46 ET by richb313Duh!!
They don't realize how
September 21, 2009 - 07:30 ET by kgThey don't realize how ignorant they sound.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
Non-ideological Media
September 21, 2009 - 06:51 ET by Sergeant ROCKIt's not that there's too many liberals or not enough conservatives, it's the fact that those in the media are unabashed propagandists, which are typically liberal. They cannot simply report the facts of the story, they have to spin it to their liking. It's institutionalized propaganda.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
The "non-ideological media"
September 21, 2009 - 06:56 ET by motherbeltThe "non-ideological media" have "too many liberals in most newsrooms"?
Well, Tim, that's because liberals are not "ideological."
They are just "normal."
The Post
September 21, 2009 - 06:56 ET by GeneralAlI think the MSM [Mainly Socialist Media!] ran to the bathroom when the bar room brawl started. They peeked out the door and discovered that our side was winning. When it appeared to be safe they joined us and said "We sure kicked their butts, didn't we?" Our reply? "Go back and hide in the bathroom, we don't need your help!"
Yes, of course
September 21, 2009 - 07:02 ET by Indiana JoeThe liberal media is "non-idealogical."
Washington is (and always has been?) a "town so dominated by Democrats and the Democratic point of view."
Looking "across the political spectrum" one sees only "rabble-rousers." Oh, and (Democrat) "policymakers."
The media sticks up for the little guy. ;^D
All Democrats are non-idealogical moderates.
All Republicans are greedy, wealthy war-mongering fascists.
All "conservatives" are just the above-mentioned Republicans in disguise, with pick-'em up trucks and guns. Oh, and racists, to boot.
The majority of people in this nation are stupid cave-people who don't know what's good for them.
Conservatives don't deserve their own news outlets, because they are liars, besides being wrong. Oh, and We, the Media speak for them anyway.
And finally....
"Four legs good... two legs better!" - George Orwell
>>>Washington is (and
September 21, 2009 - 21:35 ET by seanrobins>>>Washington is (and always has been?) a "town so dominated by Democrats and the Democratic point of view."
Well, not always! Just within the memory of anyone living.
sean robins
blog.seanrobins.com
Someone's afraid
September 21, 2009 - 07:15 ET by legacyrepublicanSomeone's afraid we will show up as 100,000 at their doorstep with a sign that simply says "You are the story, stop media bias!"
News isn't objective
September 21, 2009 - 08:26 ET by KC MulvilleThe problem is the premise. News is a product. Media outlets make money by attracting viewers or readers, and the advertisers pay according to the number of consumers they attract. The premise, however, is that the news itself is about "events." Events are supposed to be objective (I deny that, but anyway...) but that doesn't tell the whole story.
If you start with the premise that a news outlet is professionally objective, then how can anyone explain the bias (subjectivity) being so pervasive? The problem is with the premise. News is subjective. It starts with a point of view.
It's good that some in the
September 21, 2009 - 08:40 ET by PewahIt's good that some in the MSM are finally beginning to see the bias in their reporting and hiring. Now, if we can only see our way clear as a concerned society to give them billions of dollars to bail their businesses out we should soon see a shift in their reporting, including brilliant objectivity.
Come on America, it's time again to hand out money to those in another U.S. industry who perform the worst!!
ATTENTION LURKERS
September 21, 2009 - 08:45 ET by G. MayThe problem is that these outlets are owned and managed by leftists/liberals/Democrats.
For all you sniveling little leftist lurkers reading this, that means the "corporate run media" is not Republican by default simply because "well golly, they're corporations, so they must be Republicans!". It means many, if not most of the owners are registered Democrats and big time contributors to Democratic candidates. It means that even if the owners aren't Democrats, the majority of their managerial staff and editorial staff are registered Democrats. Finally, in the very few cases where the ownership or managerial/editorial staff aren't registered Democrats shelling out money to Democratic candidates, the vast majority of their so called reporters and newsreaders vote that way.
So is there any wonder why the hiring process or the reporting is warped? The left is more concerned with diversity of appearance than diversity of substance.
But they're
September 21, 2009 - 08:55 ET by MidAmericaBut they're (conservatives) also occasionally pumping legitimate stories. I thought that was the case with ACORN.........
What!? (scratching head) A story about an organization comitting crimes that recieves millions of tax dollar and is associated with the President is considered a 'conservative' story? Wow...
Re Tax Dollars
September 21, 2009 - 09:45 ET by slickwillie2001And by the way, the Bamster used the premise of government money to strongarm many private companies, sometimes even firing the CEOs, and micromanaging in his Chavezian style the compensation packages of hundreds of employees. Let's not pretend that the Bamster can't do anything about ACORN because it's a private company.
He wants us to believe that he has to sit back and wait to see what Congress does, but that would be a first for him. Different rules for his friends.
Naw - WaPost - not paying attention to the citizen's views!
September 21, 2009 - 12:31 ET by Gary HallRE: Alexander suggested the Post doesn’t pay sufficient attention to conservative media or viewpoints. The headline was "Wrongly Deaf to Right-Wing Media?"
Tim. Well, I might suggest that the issue here is a bit different. The MSM which I’ve been witnessing has had it’s sights on the “Right-Wing Media” day in and day out – 24/7, and it comes in the form of daily attacks, from the left, on the right - direct attacks, by name, on Fox, and on any one of some 6-10 nationally recognized conservative commentors out there. I’d say that the MSM, including the Post, is paying way too much attention to the “Right-Wing Media.”
What their not paying attention to is the broad consensus [majority] views of the American people. This is true today, and this was true for the past 8 years of the Bush administration.
For example, two recent Rasmussen polls found that 80 and 83% of voters, respectively, do not want the federal government providing services, via taxpayers money, to illegal immigrants – this notably included health care. Did the WaPost pass that information along to it’s readers, in the midst of the fixation, from the liberal media, to Rep. Joe Wilson? Does the MSM then, take the findings (as they always do when their polling support their agenda) and then put the question to the Obama camp, and it's supporters in congress. Such as this:
While the WaPost is intently paving the way for Obama Care, as is the rest of the MSM, Investors Business Daily’s recent poll found that:
My guess is that a strong majority of folks, including readers of the WaPost whould like to believe that the WaPost would not censor such information from the reader at such a critical moment in this national debate.
(;~/ gary
The further problem is,
September 21, 2009 - 14:02 ET by Chris NormanThe further problem is, even when they finally do get around to reporting the "conservative point of view", they usually mischaracterize it - either deliberately or from just not "getting" it...
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
>>>The Obama-loving
September 21, 2009 - 21:32 ET by seanrobins>>>The Obama-loving media’s fractured "news judgment" – the kind that
tried to skip Van Jones and ACORN because they were hobby horses of
that wacko Glenn Beck
Let's put aside your silly poke at Glenn Beck for a moment . . .
You think that the MSM ignored van Jones and ACORN because of Beck's intense scrutiny? Or because of anyone's scrutiny? I think you have a bit of a screw loose, my friend.
The MSM does not need to "bounce" its utter indifference to Lefty corruption off of anyone on the right. The MSM ignores Dem squalor because it is part of it, not in spite of it. And certainly not because it is reacting to Glenn Beck.
You are sooooo silly.
sean robins
blog.seanrobins.com
September 22, 2009 - 09:24 ET by jessieHI guess they don't have the money to hire an editor.