Obama's speech in Cairo yesterday was quite remarkable. Obama is not just an exceptional American president, but also an exceptional world leader. I need to go over the transcript for blogging purposes….so for now, here's a great 4:43 long compilation from Talking Points Memo, of Obama's remarks to the Muslim world….
What I want to cover today is what E.J. Dionne wrote yesterday in the Washington Post. While President Obama was speaking rarely heard truth to world viewers and listeners….E.J. Dionne was writing rarely read truth back home….
A media environment that tilts to the right is obscuring what President Obama stands for and closing off political options that should be part of the public discussion.
That's exactly right. Not simply because I've been saying it since before Obama's inauguration….but because it's painfully obvious. From Limbaugh's "I want Obama to fail" messaging, to the 2-1 Republicans over Democrats representation on Sunday news shows analyzing the stimulus plan, to the nightly appearance of the Cheney Torture family, to the savaging of Sonia Sotomayor…..corporate media has been, as Dionne says, "tilt(ing) to the right."
Yes, you read that correctly: If you doubt that there is a conservative inclination in the media, consider which arguments you hear regularly and which you don't. When Rush Limbaugh sneezes or Newt Gingrich tweets, their views ricochet from the Internet to cable television and into the traditional media. It is remarkable how successful they are in setting what passes for the news agenda.
To hear wimpy teleprompter-reading media anchors, like Chrissy Matthews of MSNBC, tell it…. Cheney and Limbaugh have nearly intergalactic powers to "grab the headlines." Often Matthews has asked, "what's Cheney doing, what's Cheney up to?" But each night Matthews obediently rolls a Cheney video and then, a Limbaugh clip. That dynamic is what Dionne calls "remarkable." I call it, standard operating procedure.
…the media play an independent role by regularly treating far-right views as mainstream positions and by largely ignoring critiques of Obama that come from elected officials on the left.
This is Dionne's strongest point. It's not some outside forces who are responsible for the predominance of "far-right views" in the daily corporate media….it's the corporate media, itself, that is playing an "independent role", specifically choosing fringe-right viewpoints to focus upon as mainstream, while neglecting truly progressive policy discussions.
The obvious question is why….
But why are their (liberals) voices muffled when they raise legitimate concerns, while Limbaugh's rants get amplified? Isn't Afghanistan a more important issue to debate than a single comment by Judge Sonia Sotomayor about the relative wisdom of Latinas?
I would like conservatives to answer that question. Why are genuinely liberal criticisms of the president rarely, if ever, heard? Why does it appear that corporate media is playing one big game of triviality-gotcha' with the president….and the daily gotcha' memes always emanate out of the mouths of the most rabid and discredited far-right mouthpieces?
For all the talk of a media love affair with Obama, there is a deep and largely unconscious conservative bias in the media's discussion of policy. The range of acceptable opinion runs from the moderate left to the far right and cuts off more vigorous progressive perspectives.
"deep..conservative bias." I must say….E.J. Dionne, (not my favorite) really nails the truth on this topic. While unhinged faith-basers raise hell every minute about the media being in the tank for Obama…..the reality is that truly progressive policies are like Halley's Comet…rarely seen.
Progressive bloggers have been pointing out this very obvious dynamic for years. Corporate media's spectrum of acceptable policy coverage starts at the Limbaugh, Hannity, Palin far-right extreme…..includes the centrist Colin Powell, David Broder, Evan Byah element…..encompasses the Village Elders like James Carville (and wife), the Politico and Drudge, and Lanny Davis…..BUT RARELY IF EVER…..includes authentic spokepeople for authentic liberal policies.
If liberal policies fall in the woods and no one hears them…..were there really any liberal polices?
Media Matters' Eric Boehlert adds additional insights.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Reverand,
I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with you that the Main Stream Media has largely ignored the criticism directed at Obama from the Far Left. It does not follow, however, and I disagree with Dionne (and you, to the extent you agree with Dionne on this point), that there is a conservative bias in the MSM. On the contrary, that the MSM largely ignores Obama's leftist critics is, ironically, evidence of the liberal bias of the media.
Although, the media may not fit your rather idiosyncratic definition of "liberal", there is overwhelming evidence that the media is overwhelmingly far to the left of the American people. Numerous surveys and studies have been conducted to establish this point, and there should be no need for further discussion.
Why, then, doesn't the MSM give greater voice to Obama's leftist critics? Let me offer some suggestions.
First, the Media recognizes in Obama a kindred soul. Consider, for example, the issue of same sex marriage. Obama's announced position is indishtinguishable from that of Miss California. Many in the Media attacked her but gave him a pass. The most charitable interpretation of this disparate treatment is that the Media recognized that she uttered deeply held beliefs, while for Obama, opposition to same sex marriage was superficial. More likely, the Media recognized that Obama simply did not mean what he said.
Second, the Media wants to protect Obama. Sure, Cheney and Newt get lots of coverage, but it is provided with the goal of ridicule. Their criticism of Obama is itself the subject of derision and criticism. Everyone expects "mean Republicans", to criticize Obama. That is not news. Were the MSM to provide a larger platform for Obama's leftist critics, it would undermine Obama's image as The Great Unifier. It might also cause people, both on the Left and the Right, to examine more critically Obama's policies.
Ironically, as both you and Dionne point out, and contrary to the political position of the vast majority of the MSM, the liberal media's reluctance to publicize Obama's liberal critics does have the effect of shifting the debate more to the right.
Well thought out comment, Quid.
Setting aside Obama's position on same sex marriage for a second…..
Dionne is suggesting that there is a conservative bias on what policies are most often discussed in media. You agree.
Your "kindred soul" suggestion presumes that Fox, CNN, ABC, etc…..all corporate entities….don't want to bruise Obama's stature, and that is why they bias their coverage to minimize liberal policy discussions.
Wouldn't it be more likely that corporate entities limit liberal policy discussions because liberal policies, in most situations, do not benefit corporate entities?
Your second reason for corporate media limitations on liberal policy discussions is that media doesn't want to tarnish Obama's unifier image, a variation on the "kindred soul" theme. In this way of thinking, corporate media doesn't want Americans to "examine more critically Obama's policies."
Thus, avoiding liberal policy discussions in their news programs will protect Obama's true agenda from being exposed.
This reason assumes quite a bit, I think. What benefit would it be to for-profit corporate media entities to stealthfully seek the advancement of liberal policies? To what end? Obama would end tax giveaways to the rich and powerful, many of whom own and lead corporate media.
Why would for-profit media corporations cover, kind of conspiratorially, for a president bent on hurting corporate interests?
Today's media news coverage focuses itself almost exclusively on the controversies. Like one big, never-ending Jerry Springer show. The controversy is the point. The game. When two opponents can fight it out, regardless of the substance, the fight, itself, draws an audience.
Because few Republicans have much to offer nowadays….an ongoing controversy with the majority Democrats must be found elsewhere…..and that's where Rush, Cheney, Gingrich et al…come in.
Thanks Quid, for taking the time to construct a very well thought out comment. While we may not agree entirely…..the discussion is always made healthier with thoughtful contributions.
Rev, this is one of your biggest delusions.
What do you mean there are no liberal policy discussions ??? That's just false.
The biggest issues before us today are: universal health care, cap and trade, global warming, green energy, Obama's expansion of the federal government, nationalization and bailout of industries, the largest stimulus package in history, the banning of enhanced interrogation techniques, the closing of Gitmo, gay marriage, etc, etc. All liberal policy prescriptions.
Almost every political discussion taking place today is BECAUSE of policy changes in a liberal direction. What the Rev really objects to is that the opposition is heard at all (even when it's the former VP responding to attacks on his administration. Like he's supposed to just shut up and take it). There's never been a President given as much positive press as Obama. There's never been a President given so much daily television airtime like Obama either.
And Quidpro nailed the Limbaugh thing. The media puts every controversial Limbaugh utterance up front and center these days so they can SHOOT HIM DOWN and act like he represents the entire Republican party. It's an effort to marginalize Obama's opposition. Limbaugh's been on air for over 20 years, and he has never received this much mainstream media coverage before. It's a conscious distraction, started by Obama and continued by media Obama mouthpieces like Chris Matthews, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and the like. Fox News is obviously a different case.
But hopefully the Rev sees that Dionne is a liberal now. Last week, you were arguing against that. The media is still 80% Democrat-leaning. The country is not.
And my scorecard of Akron Beacon Journal editorials in the last week has it at – 18 liberal commentaries, 4 conservative commentaries (and I missed a day or two). That's evidence of conservative bias, according to the Rev.
Wasn't it Alice who said that we can call things whatever we want to call them?
Quid constructed a well thought out comment dealing with the realities I pointed out …..and he agreed with Dionne's larger point, while suggesting an alternative.
King simply dismisses Dionne's perspective out of hand.
Also of note is King's rush to defend Richard Cheney's ongoing Lie-apalooza Tour.
I actually didn't defend Cheney at all in my post, but it's not like the facts matter here. Sorry you feel Cheney doesn't have the right to confront his accusers. Good luck with your anti-free speech position.
And I didn't dismiss anything "out of hand." I provided numerous examples.
This…
"Almost every political discussion taking place today is BECAUSE of policy changes in a liberal direction."
…is a dismissal of Dionne's only point. That point being that liberal policies are not being considered by corporate media.
I don't care what discussions are taking place BECAUSE of…..whatever.
Liberal policies are not being discussed in corporate media.
I wasn't arguing whether media was liberal or conservative, not this time anyway…..I was agreeing with Dionne's take that liberal POLICIES are rarely discussed. Do you agree, like Quid does? Or not?
Cheney can defend himself in front of a judge and jury. Corporate media continues to welcome the unindicted felon, and his daughter….and at the same time…..stifles discussions of liberal policies.
I thought I already made this clear.
Again, on what planet are liberal policies not being discussed ? Not this one. Liberal policies are MOSTLY what are being discussed (universal health care, cap and trade, massive government spending increases, etc). I think you're just ticked that there is any opposition to them, and that the media reports it (sometimes).
Cheney has free speech rights, just like the rest of us. Your comments about Cheney belong in China, not here.
Let me clarify my position, Reveand. I agreed with Dionne that the MSM have largely ignored Obama's Leftist critics. It does not follow, and I do not agree, that the MSM have ignored any discussion of liberal policies.
Quid…Huh? So media largely ignores true liberal critics of Obama but the policies those critics advocate for have not been ignored?
King…"(universal health care, cap and trade, massive government spending increases, etc)."
Those are not liberal policies…..those are centrist policies that the majority of voters want.
Liberal policies….gay rights and gay marriage, corporate reform, union rights, the violation of the state establishing religion, torture is wrong and illegal…..those policies aren't discussed. At least not in corporate media.
Reverand,
Please reread my initial response. My point was that the MSM ignores Obama's Leftist critics precisely because it wants to promote him and his liberal policies. Just because the Media ignores the specific policy proposals of these leftist critics, does not mean that the Media ignores Obama's liberal policies.