Global Policy Forum

By Eric Alterman

Two views dominate the debate over media bias in the United States. The right argues that the media favours the left, even though multinationals such as Disney, which owns ABC, General Electric (NBC) and America Online (CNN), control the main news outlets. David Broder, dean of the Washington press corps, rebuts this and says that "There just isn't enough ideology in the average reporter to fill a thimble". But any belief that the media are more sympathetic to conservative causes, whether because of ownership, economics, class or external forces, including pressure from advertisers, is seen as ludicrous.

People who call US media "liberal" perpetuate a myth. While some rightwingers believe the media are against them, smart conservatives do not, since they know that presenting themselves as victims means that they will get heard, and thus prevent the left itself from getting a fair hearing. Some on the right even acknowledge this. Republican National Committee chairman Richard Bond complained during the 1992 election campaign: "I think we know who the media want to win this election, and I don't think it's George Bush Senior". But he also noted: "There is some strategy to [bashing the liberal media]. If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is work the refs. Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one".

One of the most influential neo-conservative analysts, William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, a magazine in the Rupert Murdoch empire, told a reporter: "I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." But in a pitch to boost subscriptions to the magazine, Kristol complained in 2001: "The trouble with politics and political coverage today is that there's too much liberal bias. Too much apology for liberal policy failures. Too much pandering to liberal candidates and causes." There is nothing mys terious about Murdoch's political leanings.

In 1999 four researchers examined 12 years of polling data to investigate the media bias argument. They found a fourfold increase in the number of Americans claiming that their news had a liberal slant. But the evidence does not support this: these consumers were really responding to "increasing news coverage of liberal-bias media claims, which have been emanating from Republican party candidates and officials".

The right's strategy of working the refs is succeeding. Many now find the media "too liberal"; this widespread belief stems from ignorance of the conservative media's reach and influence. Add up the Fox News channel, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, the National Review, the American Spectator and Human Events. To that add the punditocracy, including Rush Limbaugh and other talk radio hosts. It soon becomes clear that conservatives occupy much of the print and airwaves. These biased and often untrustworthy sources also shape the broader media, with their power and influence outstripping their substantial market share.

Conservatives were jubilant when the Fox News channel was launched in 1996 with Roger Ailes in command (Ailes advised President George Bush Senior in his nasty 1988 election campaign). The rightwing Heritage Foundation warned its staffers to stop watching Fox News at work lest the traffic crashed the computers. George Bush Junior, then Texas governor and soon-to-be presidential candidate, lauded Bush Senior-aide-turned-Fox-anchor Tony Snow for his "impressive transition to journalism". The Fox bias has proved invaluable to the right: not only does it mobilise conservatives but it also influences other media. In November 2000 Fox had a pivotal role when its elections expert, John Ellis (first cousin to Bush Junior), helped create the impression that the election had already been called for Bush in Florida. Fox's hiring of Ellis was not an isolated incident. Just before election day it emerged that Bush Junior had covered up a conviction for drunk driving, which is a serious issue for most journalists. Fox promptly spun the story like a press agent for Bush. Morton Kondracke, a neo-conservative Democrat, deemed it a footnote. John Fund of the Wall Street Journal called it a blip. National Public Radio reporter Mara Liasson declared: "I agree with that. I think it's a blip."

They then turned to Republican charges that the Al Gore team had engineered the leak about the charge. Tony Snow gave credence to rumours that the Clinton administration was involved and even predicted a groundswell of sympathy for Bush. Although the Republicans were quick to invoke Clinton's name in this, the Fox analysis failed to mention the public exasperation with the efforts of Clinton-haters in the US Congress. One-sided broadcasting is now the norm: Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, serves as a foreign policy commentator for Fox. A panel discussion on Ronald Reagan featured six of Reagan's friends and political aides. Fox coverage of the conflict in Afghanistan was slanted: gun-toting show presenter Geraldo Rivera, proclaiming his desire to shoot Osama bin Laden, reported on-air that he was at a battle site: he was 300 km away. Ailes sent messages to Bush on waging war in Afghanistan: "The American public would be patient, but only as long as they were convinced Bush was using the harshest measures possible."

Most US journalists display a patriotic bias. They are sympathetic to the military and feel hostility or fear for an enemy that has targeted journalists. Many of these reporters are sensitive to Vietnam-era charges that the media are anti- American. Fox and CNN have warned their reporters against seeming unpatriotic. A comparison of US, British and European coverage indicates that anti-American charges are unfounded. On 30 December 2001 US bombers struck the village of Niazi Kala (Qalaye Niaze) in eastern Afghanistan, killing dozens of civilians. The attack was major news in UK papers, which ran straightforward headlines. "US accused of killing over 100 villagers in airstrike" (the Guardian, 1 January 2002); "100 villagers killed in US airstrike" (the Times, 1 January 2002). The New York Times went with "Afghan leader warily backs US bombing" (2 January 2002). The New York Times is a primary target for conservatives accusing the press of anti-Americanism.

Even considering the extreme pro-American sentiment characteristic of the post-September 11 media climate, Fox News stands out. Its anchors and reporters compete in vividly insulting Bin Laden and his henchmen. But it has scant interest in covering civilian casualties of US bombs. Fox host Brit Hume said: "We're at war. The fact that some people are dying, is that really news?" With slightly more than a million viewers, Fox has been outpacing CNN in the ratings.

The press shows a similar lack of critical interest in Iraq. When Hans Blix presented his first report to the United Nations Security Council, a Washington Post editorial parroted the White House line: "Mr Blix went on to present . . . a devastating catalogue of lies, omissions and obfuscations by Iraq . . . since the council passed resolution 1441, meant to give Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to give up weapons of mass destruction. Rather than yield to the inspectors and offer Iraq yet another last chance, the council would do better to simply obey the resolution it approved unanimously". That most observers outside the administration interpreted Blix's findings differently was treated as irrelevant.

Just before announcing that he would not run for president in 2004, Al Gore noted in an interview with the New York Observer: "There are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican party - Fox News Network, the Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh." Gore added that many were financed by "ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media".

Unremarkable as they were, Gore's comments caused a storm of indignation. Howard Kurtz, media reporter for the Washington Post and host of Reliable Sources, CNN's programme devoted to the media, called Gore paranoid: "Doesn't complaining about it just sound like whining? Or is he playing to his base, the way conservatives have done all these years, by moaning about the liberal media? Maybe he's just frustrated that his book isn't selling better." The media alone cannot make the US ungovernable by liberal Democrats (in the unlikely event the left ever finds itself back in power). But the media can certainly legitimise anti-democratic activities with similar aims. We have already witnessed Clinton's impeachment trial and the recounts after the 2000 presidential election. The coming war is unlikely to help.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.