Views » June 23, 2004

All Hail the Liberal Media

By Ana Marie Cox

Howard Kurtz in the June 9 Washington Post analyzed a new survey by the Pew Center for the People and the Press: “Only about half as many Republicans as Democrats find the usual media suspects credible, says the Pew Research Center.”

Well, of course. I wouldn’t trust those usual media suspects either—just look at the blatant liberal bias on display just the day before. CNN (found credible by only 26 percent of Republicans surveyed) put former Reagan Chief of Staff Ken Duberstein, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist (also director of the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project) on “Inside Politics.” The raucous “Crossfire” set up an undoubtedly left-leaning debate among former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, former Reagan adviser Ken Adelman and Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.). MSNBC (found credible by only 22 percent of Republicans surveyed) featured former Reagan advisers Richard Allen and Martin Anderson, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), former Nancy Reagan spokeswoman Sheila Tate and former Reagan adviser Ed Rollins. As for Fox, found credible by 29 percent: The fair and balanced network had to make do with another former Reagan chief of staff, Michael Deaver.

What with Reagan having just died, this is exactly the kind of behavior you’d expect from those contemptuous media elites. Couldn’t even wait until he was in the ground before they started savaging his legacy.

Television news during that week bore a strange resemblance to VH1’s seemingly endless “I Love the ’80s” series, in which comedians and B-list celebs indulge in ironic appreciation of such vintage cheesy trends as legwarmers and Cabbage Patch Kids. The show’s underlying joke is hyperbolic nostalgia over things that were clearly lame to begin with. And coverage of Reagan’s funeral fit right in, except the news networks’ version was mind-numbingly earnest.

Any flaw of Reagan or his presidency was, in this universe, transformed into either a harmless anecdote or a personality quirk. On CNN, morals czar Bill Bennett made even inattention to detail a virtue. Bennett admitted that Reagan did “occasionally” sleep during cabinet meetings. “But,” he continued, “always with good reason. Always when it was so boring and so tedious and so off-point. You know, there was an awful lot of charts and graphs and data.” And it wasn’t like he dozed through the whole thing! He would wake up when “the person would begin to tell a real-life story about a human being who was suffering because of a health problem, or a kid who wasn’t able to learn something or someone trying to start a business.”

That the president of the United States would fall asleep during only the part of the meeting that contained, you know, information does not seem particularly comforting. But it does explain a lot.

When speakers weren’t busy glossing over his faults they were just misinterpreting history. Take Arnold Schwarzenegger’s panegyric on “Hannity and Colmes” (imagine it said in the Gropinator’s theatrically Teutonic accent):

[Reagan] made everyone in—proud again to be an American, and not only as American but also overseas what he has done was just extraordinary. …

As a matter of fact, I remember when I was away in Spain doing Conan the Barbarian. This was in early ’81, and even during that short period of time, I mean, people’s opinions about America changed right there. I saw it in front of my very eyes.

Of course, Bennett and Schwarzenegger eulogized as commentators, not as members of the liberal media elite. Surely anchors and reporters could be counted on to shine the harsh light of truth on Reagan’s divisive and disastrous presidency. You can practically hear CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Judy Woodruff channeling Noam Chomsky in this exchange:

COOPER “There was a quote that [Reagan] wrote in his high school yearbook … his high school motto, it said, ‘Life is just one sweet song, so let the music begin.’ And I think he had that spirit, that sense really throughout his days.”

WOODRUFF “And Americans want that. … Americans want a president who can give them a reason to look up, no matter how tough times are. And Ronald Reagan gave them that.”

For those of us who do remember the ’80s, these fawning tributes to Reagan’s ability to “make Americans feel good about themselves,” seem improbable at best. At worst, their jingoistic feel (Is it really the job of any elected official to make us feel good about ourselves?) reminds us that however much Reagan symbolized American democracy, he didn’t really do much for it.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Ms. Cox, your shallow analysis on the press and it’s bias ignores the eight years of hateful venom directed at Reagan during his presidency and focuses on his funeral, when a little respect and deference is entirely appropriate.  Also the late realization that Reagan was genuinely loved by a majority of their audience would tend to dampen the liberal press’s desire to express their true contempt.

  He didn’t do much for democracy?  American democracy was just fine.  Reagan did more than any one man to help bring it to other parts of the world.  What I can’t understand is why people like you on the left are generally so opposed to that.

  Posted by Natalie on Jul 4, 2004 at 8:35 PM

  Oh my, Natalie…. were you alive and well during the Reagan years?  I won’t even go there right now…but I strongly suggest that a good American history book with words such as ‘invasions,’ ‘air traffic controllers,’ ‘Iran- Contra.’ ‘death squads,’ and “reaganomics,’ should do for starters.  Read and learn.

  As to the liberal media (hysterical laughter interrupts) - here’s a good analysis of the media
  coverage of the Edwards for Veep revelation:

  WHAT IF KERRY HAD CHOSEN JESUS?

  An Election Observation by TvNewsLIES.org

  It took exactly one day for the media to focus more negative attention on John Edwards than they had
  focused on Dick Cheney in 4 years.

            *  *  *  *  *

  After an entire day of relentless attacks on John Kerry’s choice for vice president, I tried to think of a single human being whom our biased media would not slam. Try as I might, I could not imagine a single soul who would have been acceptable to the media, and once again was hit with clear evidence that the media do not want John Kerry win the election. War and terror bring ratings. Bush and Cheney bring war and terror. Do the math.

  Imagine for a moment that Jesus Christ actually had been on John Kerry’s short list of potential veeps. Imagine as well that He had been chosen for the job and had accepted the offer to be Kerry’s running mate. How much time would the media need to target Jesus with their venom? Think about what they might say…..

  
  http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/what_if_kerry_chose_jesus_.html

  Posted by skipper7 on Jul 7, 2004 at 11:49 PM

  My history books apparently have references different from yours.  Mine talk about how standing up to an illegal strike sent a powerful message to enemies abroad that this wasn’t a president to be messed with.

  Mine talk about deregulation and tax cuts that removed a choke hold on the American economy.  Mine talk about inflation being reduced from 14% to 4%, about interest rates being reduced from 19% to 8%.  Strangely, my books describe Reaganomics not as a bad thing for the poor and minorities, but a good thing.  You might recognize yourself in this article:

  http://michaelnovak.net/Module/Article/ArticleView.aspx?id=91

  My books talk about communist expansionism being turned back around the world with the help of Margaret Thatcher, the Pope, and many brave souls in Europe.  It talks about two, actually three landslide elections that made it clear that the majority of Americans understand and reject the idiocy of modern liberalism as embodied by McGovern, Carter, and Mondale.

  Of course you always have your scandals, the arms to free fellow Americans, to finance the fight for democracy in Nicaragua, astrology by the first lady.  But in another administration there was missile technology to China for campaign contributions, obsessions with pussy in the Whitehouse, travel-gate, file-gate, whitewater-gate, so it all kinda evens out.

  It always amuses me how liberals try to deny that the press is in their corner.  Of course I’m not talking about the opinion pages or the RNC, but the mainstream broadcast networks, the New York Times and all the other newspapers and news magazines that follow their lead.

  In spite of the nation being in an economic disaster and our ability as a nation to prevail over communism in question, the New York Times thought it wise to endorse Jimmy Carter for reelection.  What else needs be said? 

  Well, you could say that some 80 percent of journalists are democrats and vote for democrats.  You could say that only 7 percent of journalists describe themselves as conservative, while anywhere from 30-60 percent of the population describe themselves as such.

  You could cite how liberal think tanks and organizations are sought out for “mainstream opinions” on the topic of the day with no ideological designations deemed necesary, while occasionally a conservative source is quoted but always with the conservative label attached. 

  Your ridiculous notion that John Edwards was maligned by a “conservative” media is laughable.  The TVnewslies article makes sweeping claims about Edwards getting savaged and Cheney getting a free pass.  That may have been the case on talk radio or the RNC website, but the article never mentions any specifics, just leads us to believe that Dan Rather lead his newscast with:  “John Edwards:  Ambulance chaser or political lightweight with nice hair?  You decide.”

  Let’s be clear here.  When we on the right complain about media bias, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT OPINION MEDIA.  We’re talking about the “news”, the programs that don’t identify their agenda, the ones we assume are fair in their coverage.

  These supposedly neutral parties have given Edwards red carpet treatment.  Even conservative Joe Scarborough on MSNBC was praising Edwards for his positive message and scolded conservatives for trying to say he wasn’t experienced enough to be president, given the relative inexperience of then Governor Bush.

  Don’t expect the “unbiased” media to do cover stories on the billions that are wasted settling with bloodsucking trial attorneys who turn around and give it to Democrats, raising the cost of everything we buy and do.  But false allegations about Cheney’s supposed unethical connection with Haliburton, who’s expertise and efficiency work to LOWER the cost of producing energy and thereby driving DOWN the cost and raising the standard of living will be common fare.

  Don’t expect conservative authors of books to be given full hours on 60 min.  Unless of course, they are bashing Bush.

  This being said, there has been some progress.  The media has been exposed.  More and more people are becoming aware of the unfair treatment given to fully half the nation, and there has been some effort at correction.  More is needed.

  Posted by Natalie on Jul 10, 2004 at 9:26 PM

  There are none so blind as those who will not see.  Imagine, history books that don’t mention financing death squads in Nicaragua, or the killing of thousands in Panama and Granada.  Imagine not a word about Iran Contra and illegal constitutinal breaches.  And, puleez, don’t tell me about ending Communism, which was in a free fall all its own.  Reagan, may he rest in peace, did almost as little work as Bush, Jr.  His vacation stretches rival Dubya’s and his conservative views were so hypocritica (though politicallly clever) coming from a labor leader who was a Democrat in his more lucid years.

  Posted by Reg on Jul 10, 2004 at 9:35 PM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also featured Framing Michael Moore
A Court of Cronies
Left Turn

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Ana Marie Cox

• Race to the Bottom
  Some real-time reaction from the debates, swiped from my full-time gig as Wonkette.… morePosted on October 15, 2004
• The Worst Show on Earth
  The Republican National Convention, to paraphrase Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show,” put… morePosted on September 16, 2004
• Pimping the Vote
  Of all the T-shirts to spark controversy in the off-the-rack irony department of… morePosted on May 13, 2004
• Death of the Cool
  It’s a slow news season. The election is seven months away, summer has… morePosted on April 9, 2004
• The Sludge Report
  The rumor cropped up February 12 on Matt Drudge’s Web site, and he… morePosted on February 27, 2004