1. Stop talking about “bias.” Inaccurate, distorted and misleading news reports that further a conservative agenda or undermine progressive ideas dominate our newspapers and airwaves. But this isn’t necessarily because reporters or media outlets are biased towards conservatives. For every Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, there are dozens of reporters who don’t have an ideological axe to grind, but whose work… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (26)Page 1 of 1 pagesThe success of the right-wing media is that it claims to stand for the average man, as opposed to the liberal and thus elitist media. What makes someone average by the conservative definition is of course his behavior and tastes, not his economic class. Thus a factory worker who is a member of the Socialist Workers Party (I know a couple) is elitist, whereas a bible-carrying millionaire who owns a ranch in Crawford, Texas is an average guy.
Thus the natural class animus of many working class whites is directed at elitists (liberals) regardless of economic status, rather than at the rich. This is the genius of the conservatism of today, as opposed to the old, pre-1968 conservatism that indeed was rhetorically elitist.
However, the success of this media has deeper roots. It mirrors the rise to power of a particular criminal section of the ruling class. The Enron bourgeois or lumpenbourgeois as I like to call them, personified by the neo-cons in office. They have simply changed the rhetoric, and debased the public discourse, using the worst kind of mendacity that one would expect from gangsters. Parallel to the rise of the Enron millionaire is the rise of an equally criminal element: the rich evangelic preachers. These folks make a lot of money by staging phony healing sessions and by asking people to give up a lot of their money in exchange for God’s blessing. These two groups have allied themselves and have created a movement which screws the average guy over and over again, while denouncing the uppity, elitist, America-hating liberals.
To fight this, in my view, would require a fight for true working-class politics. There are no short cuts.
Posted by Maximillian Al Dakari on Apr 12, 2005 at 9:23 PM Abraham Lincoln was precognizantly correct when he smashed the current spirit of Republican politics, the political/religious hubris/ arrogance of the “moral majority”. He said that out task should not be to invoke religion and the name of God by claiming God’s blessings and endorsement for all our national policies and practices, tantamount to saying “God is on our side”. (Hitler said that, too. Gott mit uns.)
Rather, Lincoln said, we should pray and WORRY EARNESTLY whether we are on God’s side.Unfortunately for Jesus and his painful sacrafice, the phoney preachers robbing the faithful are now our government.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 12, 2005 at 11:10 PM Thank you for a most enjoyable article. I am with you 100% on this solution to continual Bush speak by media that I used to support as a liberal. I have NPR, Newsweek, WP, NYT, etc.
I will use the suggestions you offer and will share your article with others.
Good work! We need more like you!
Posted by Karen Kohr-Blinn on Apr 13, 2005 at 1:55 AM For a very interesting account of how right-wingers attract and subvert the media, please read this cold, calculating media strategy.
Do not hesitate to send to your friends in the media. Some of them may not be conscious how they are “played”, or perhaps more to the point, “preyed” upon!
Posted by Freedom on Apr 13, 2005 at 2:54 AM Points to remember when writing aletter to the editor:
One: SHORT SELLS. 250 - 300 word letters to the editor have a better chance of getting published than a thousand word essay (send those to the op-ed page).
Two: CONFRONTATION SELLS. If you catch a local Bush Loyalist in a lie—call them lier. Don’t even think about being polite.
Three: DOCUMENTATION SELLS. When you send a letter to the editor, be sure to include your sources.
Four (and most important): INTEGRITY SELLS. Include your name, address and contact information. If you don’t, your letter will not be published. No-one respects anonymous messengers.
Posted by Walter F. Wouk on Apr 13, 2005 at 11:41 AM You just don’t get it, the Civil War was the death of democracy and the triumph of corporations (the dead) over the living. PUblicans are just the only corporate approved speech allowed and funded. You work for corporations. Your taxes serve them. Get used to it. It is getting worse. You think corporations are going to be kindly when oil prices triple? They have been to china and liked what they saw. Billions cowed by a corporate fascism with no silly bill of rights. Its over, turn out the lights.
Posted by Cube Serf on Apr 13, 2005 at 1:03 PM Heartily agree w/ diagnosis of media - that the issue is one of conservative information and framing making it into print, onto the airwaves, and into our homes via TV - simply because that conservative (and especially the fringe) perspective is so constantly out there. And they are so consistently ‘on message’ and ‘on script’ that it overwhelms media outlets. Calling lies when we see them, holding public media sources accountable for the truth when required, and constantly reframing the progressive viewpoints on the fanatical rightwing talking points: that’s where we can have an effect. I belong to Democracy for America in Southern Indiana, and also to the Progressive Book Club, am a regular editorial and letter-to-editor writer to a whole host of newspapers, and yet we needed to go the extra mile just to make the case that our local (conservative) newspaper had a responsibility to print the alternative (progressive) viewpoints that are out there, even here in ‘redstateland’. It worked, they are, and we’re making our presence felt.
Posted by Tim Slack on Apr 13, 2005 at 1:09 PM This seems naive to me. The corporate media isn’t being played, confused, or tricked. They know exactly what they are doing. They are furthering their own interests. I think people would be better off realizing who our news personalities are. They are corporate spokespeople. Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Howard Kurtz, Wolfe Blitzer, Judy Woodruff and their colleagues don’t work for you and me. They don’t have any stake in bringing us the news. Their job is to keep their job. To do that they shill for the people who pay them. When they do they make millions. When they don’t their careers are over. Our celebrity driven news is presented by people who gave up being journalists and instead became careerists.
Posted by John Moody on Apr 13, 2005 at 1:20 PM Mr.Wouk hit the nail on the head,albeit in a limited way.Confront the right directly when they lie.This strategy,however,need not only be applied by the citizenry.It needs to be applied by those who actually have access to those who operate the rant-fests that purport to be political debate shows.I regularly watch Fox News(Foul and biased;We purport,you abide)and rarely does anyone have the nerve to confront the far-right when it lies.When this does happen,the far-right reverts to name calling and other juvenile tactics rather than support their arguments,thus showing the inherent weaknesses of their arguments.Unfortunately,most people on TV wish to return,and,hence,adopt an attitude of non-confrontation.Lack of confrontation always benefits the bully,never the victim.In this case the victim,although masochistically willing,is the public.Nevertheless,when right-wing pundits are called,and proven,liars,they back down.
If nothing else,the result of this course of action would be a suppression of left-wing dissent by our"liberal"media.I would love to see the far-right try to claim media bias to the left when there is no left-wing voice.This strategy need not be applied merely to Fox,it needs to be applied across the board.
Furthermore,let’s write our networks and tell them to lengthen the time of some these debate shows.Crossfire was a good show when it ran for an hour and dealt with only one or two issues and didn’t have all of the superfluous, time-consuming crap it now has.Political Alert,indeed.By the way,who decided to shorten the show and reduce the debate to sound bites?Conservative network executive who were tired of seeing their conservative politicians portrayed,although quite convincingly,as foolish liars.Newt Gingrich can only go for twenty minutes in debate,then he starts to lose it.Ann Coulter can’t even debate her position.She instinctly reverts to name-calling and obfuscation like cat hissing in fear.
Does anyone remember when Chris Matthews called Michelle Malkin on a comment she made about John Kerry’s war wounds being self-inflicted?A nice little cheapshot by Malkin slid in which could hopefully go undetected and become a conservative talking point,which could then be used as an obstacle to avoid discussion of real issues.When called,Michelle evaded until she finally had to admit it wasn’t true and,by default,that she was a making up lies.despite Zell Miller’s lunatic challenge,has anyone noticed how the far-right doesn’t use her anymore?Public exposure of right-wing lies will eventually leave them with no one to spread their propaganda.
As well,those who refuse on the right to publicly debate their positions in open discussion,because they are cowards,need to be exposed.Cowards have no credence when they are exposed as such.Their propaganda soon falls apart when challenged.Rush Limbaugh made a few appearances on TV in the beginning of his career.Much to his dismay,each time he appeared he was made to look like an ignorant,obnoxious,fool.Imagine that.Subsequently,he no longer appears where he can be challenged.Even Sean Hannity is taking less and less callers who disagree with him.
Finally,boycott the companies who support this deceitful drivel.If an outraged housewife can tell a network to alter its content,what about a million outraged voters?
Posted by wwoods on Apr 13, 2005 at 1:24 PM you know… we can always stop complaining about the media and BECOME the media, too. Indymedia has been around for over 5 years now, and it needs some help.
Posted by IMC on Apr 13, 2005 at 2:47 PM Let’s be honest here people, there is a bias, we know that, but it’s not a conservative bias, it’s not a liberal bias. It’s a corporate bias and they don’t care whether you are liberal or conservative. This is the great myth about media.
They succeed in dividing us all, while the theives get away, and opinions/voices critical of the United States System are shutout…
Corporate Bias is real, everything else is a myth. CNN, FOX, etc…it’s all the same my friends…
Posted by MakeANoise on Apr 13, 2005 at 3:52 PM Yes, I have to agree with everyone above, sadly enough, but wwoods here has hit it on the head. Blogging about it won’t change a thing. Right now we have one broadcasting corporation on our side, and they’re taking heat right now for it, while we sit around and say, “Well, gee…” I say stop it! As low tech as it is, write a letter to CBS and tell them of your support. If they keep getting pounded in the rest of the media, and have nothing to show for it, why should they continue with their expose of the truth. I caution you however, to mention that the left cannot afford any more debacles that could have easily been prevented by fact checking. An honest mistake is one thing, but laziness, or plain incompetence is something else. However, the one thing that would make life easier for us is a fiasco on the republicans side. How many scandals have we heard of in the last five years? Lots. How many have been blamed on the democrats? Almost all of them. In fact, the only one that I can think of that was a republican one, that got even the slightest bit of media attention was the WMDs thing, and we let up on that far too easily. Keep pounding! Barbara Boxer got shut down, not on the validity of her point, but on her agressiveness. That’s good! It shows we got them on the ropes! I’m like the coach who sends in a player telling him, I don’t care if you get a foul or two, just show them we mean business.
Again, I must reiterate, this is not to encourage manufactured papers…or anything else along those lines. We know that we are right, we have to believe that we are right, so Q.E.D. they have to be wrong. There are more things in this world that we can call the republicans to fault for, so lets do it. Attack, full throttle, don’t give up, and in the words of our illustrious Vice President Cheney, “Fuck you” Republicans, and especially give a big FU to the person who lied his way into office twice, GW. Eliminate WMDs, Dubya Making Decisions.Keep up the good fight…
Basil
Posted by Basil Bowman on Apr 13, 2005 at 9:20 PM The writer of this piece is an excellent example of why liberals are getting their butts handed to them on plates and will continue to be served this same fare for years to come. He’s a wimp.
He uses the word “progressives” out of fear of that nasty word “liberal.” He uses the term “misinformation” instead of the more apt word “lies.”
Finally, Mr Foser naively assumes that journalists control media. They don’t. The owners of the conglomerates that run almost all media in this country are right-wingers. NBC is owned by GE, who makes billions in weaponry. This is the problem. It has been the problem for some time.
Yes, write letters. Make phone calls. But don’t expect this to melt Rupert Murdoch’s heart.
Posted by opeluboy on Apr 13, 2005 at 10:17 PM I was the star columnist of the Las Vegas CityLife (Sin City’s Village Voice) for over three years, won a couple of awards, and got more hate mail from libertarians and white supremacists than you can shake a stick at! Well, I was told on St. Patrick’s Day of all days that the biggest paper in town, the Review-Journal, bought out the CityLife. Liberal media, my black ass! Essentially, Lex Luthor bought the Daily Planet and fired Lois and Clark ...
Now I’m without a home and without hope. I challenge any motherfucker out there to claim that I went through less than Ayn Rand or some spoiled-ass exile from Florida. Reagan equals Stalin equals Reagan equals Stalin. Grasp that and you’ll grasp everything. Be like Amsterdam: free speech AND free health care, motherfucker!!
saablofton.com
Posted by Saab Lofton on Apr 13, 2005 at 10:53 PM Mr. Foser’s commentary was useful, as far as it went, but the readers who pointed out that it’s the owners of the corporate media who determine what’s “news,” and decide what information we get, are the ones who truly grasp the situation. These giants won’t change their behavior until it is in their best interests to do so, and it was another reader who sums up the best course of action in one magic word: “boycott.” This comment mentioned an “outraged housewife” (Terry Rakolta; remember her?) who was able to bring an entire network to their knees more or less single-handedly.
Whenever I find reporting to be dishonest, incomplete and/or displaying an ideological slant, I contact the broadcasters or publishers as well as the companies who buy their ad space to let them know that I will not purchase their products or services, and I tell them why. I’ve done this for some time, and suggested to everyone I know that they do the same.
When he starts feeling it in his pocketbook, even Rupert Murdoch will do what’s necessary to hold on to both viewers and sponsors. Boycott, botcott, boycott (and tell them why) until the print and broadcast media provide honest and complete reporting.
Posted by Steven A. Wells on Apr 14, 2005 at 4:55 AM The only reason we have freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights is to inform the people of what the government is doing. So therefore, journalists have absolutely no excuse for laying down on the job. We depend on them, and without them we have no democracy. I believe in notifying the journalists who have the courage to report what’s really going on, and showing your respect and acknowledging their integrity. And also, notifying the worthless parrots to let them know what a disgrace they are to their profession. And how they are letting down america and sabotaging democracy. They have a very important job, and they should be ashamed of themselves when they don’t do it.
Posted by DeeAnn Stowers on Apr 15, 2005 at 5:31 AM “Stop talking about bias”? Are you high?
The REASON we now have a right-wing echo chamber continually erroding the truth, is because the right-wingers relied on the stratagy of simply repeating a lie, often enough for it to eventually have an effect.
There ABSOLUTELY IS a right-wing bias in American news now, and your advice to stop talking about it, is about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. It’s the kind of advice I’d expect from a plant to be honest.
There is now the beginnings of a great backlash against the right wing, and it would NEVER have happened without the message that the media is no longer to be trusted. The term “Corporate media” is now a part of the common lexicon thanks to a concerted effort to point out it’s bias to the right. And now you come along and say “stop talking about it”?
I think you’re full of crap. With all due respect.
Posted by Jay_Esbe on Apr 16, 2005 at 3:41 PM I hate to have to tell you this ‘MakeANoise’ but the corporations in this country are basically right-wing entities. The Republican Party is now the political branch of corporate America, their values and goals being interchangeable.
The joke that most Americans do not get, unless they have lived in other industrialized nations for any length of time, is that all the mainstream media in America is right of center. What we have been taught, over the last few decades, is to consider left wing what most other developed countries actually think of as being centrist. We live in an ultra right-wing society.
No other developed nation has the death penalty and no other country on the planet claims the right to pre-emptively bomb and invade other sovereign nations. No other developed nation has as poor a record on providing health care for its citizens, and no other developed nation spends such an inflated sum on its military. 70% of every tax dollar goes to the military, only 4% gets spent on social security. No, ‘left-wing’ and ‘America’ are not words that can realistically be used in the same sentence.
The corporations, which are basically rich people organized into legal entities so they cannot be held accountable for their actions, are in complete control.
Six corporations control the mainstream media. These corporations allow certain token newspapers and magazines to reflect left sounding views so as to make it all look vaguely balanced, but the truth is that the television networks have all the influence. Mild or fanatical, they all represent a conservative status quo in the end.
To put it simply what we have here is a good-cop/bad-cop situation, where one sector of the media spouts views so extremely right wing that the remainder looks quite reasonable. They all of course represent a right-wing worldview at the end of the day. How else could a moron like George W Bush have ever become president? We’ve all asked ourselves that question. Could it be that the heads of the six big media corporations are actually conservatives? Hmmm, let me think.
Take Michael Moore for instance, he says the war on Iraq was unjustified, there should be greater controls on the proliferation of firearms, and health care should be made easily available to ordinary Americans. These are not left wing views; Moore is considered a centrist in every other industrialized democracy. Only in America is he considered a radical left-winger. What does that say about the values of the people who control the media here? What does that say about the level of brain washing we have all undergone?
The republicans now resemble a mafia crime family more than a political party. What does that say about our democracy, our freedom and our future?
Posted by Matilda Gatsby on Apr 19, 2005 at 8:17 AM The right wing has mastered the art of telling half truths and the big lie. Since our main stream media outlets are unwilling and/or unable to provide a forum where progressives can effectively challenge the right, I suggest we work to build a credibility rating system as a way to help the public keep track of who is trustworthy.
The credibility rating system would perform the following functions:
a) Monitor public statements made by politicians, news anchors/reporters/analysts, think tank fellows, opinion engineers, etc…
b) Fact check statements. Predictions could be checked for accuracy as events unfold.
c) Calculate credibility rating based on accuracy of public statements/record.
d) Publish credit rating research, credit rating methodology and credibility ratings of individuals via web.
e) Offer ticker tape like feed to networks for real time credibility ratings for hosts and guests on news/analysis shows.
Of course the system must be seen as unbiased and accurate to have any credibility itself.
Robert A. Ferruolo
Posted by Robert A. Ferruolo on Apr 19, 2005 at 9:41 PM You know what we don’t need, Foser trying to speak for all of us.
I’m embarrased that In These Times ran this junk.
Foser can live his life however he wants but he has no right to tell “everyone” what five things we need to do. What is this, The Five F**king People You’ll Meet In Hell?
As an African-American, excuse me for not wanting some white guy I didn’t vote to speak for me to come along and start telling me how it’s going to be.
Stick to Media Matters Foser and don’t try to lead a march.
In These Times, you’d do a hell out of a lot better to give space to Saab Lofton. (The Common Ills used to highlight Saab on Thursdays in an indy roundup, that’s how I know Saab’s writing.)
Instead, you go with some white man who wants to tell me how it’s going to be.
I didn’t vote for Foser, he’s not my leader.
Posted by Marthat on Apr 26, 2005 at 2:50 PM You have to fight fire with fire. Is there not one articulate, thoughtful, fair, communicative, honest, respected, progressive-leaning person in the entire nation who is able to maintain a talk show and build a national audience that could successfully oppose the lies and hypocrisy perpetrated on the American public day in and day out by Limbaugh and Hannity? I just can’t believe this country can’t support ONE liberal-thinking talk show host who could, by revealing facts and truthful data and conveying the lessons of history, crack open the conservative bullshit that is taking over America.
Posted by Ellen Fix on Apr 26, 2005 at 5:16 PM I agree with Martha, this article is offensive.
It doesn’t belong in In These Times which stresses multiple voices and mulitple ways of speaking.
I’m really offended they published it.
It’s bad writing and it takes up a full page in the print copy. I couldn’t believe a whole page of a magazine I paid for was wasted with this dumb ass gatekeeper coming and telling me what I had to do.
A dumb ass that I don’t remember pushing In These Times at his own site. They can’t talk about In These Times, they give NPR a pass . . . Hey, Martha, what use is Media Matters anyway?
Seriously, FAIR (and it’s magazine Extra!) are the people dealing with bias. Media Matters does their tiny little paragraphs over and over each day. FAIR does studies. So Jeff Foser and Mini-Matters can kiss my ass.
We didn’t elect you, Foser, go away.
And shame on In These Times for running this crap.
If I mail my copy of the issue in, can I get a credit for this issue?
Posted by Jimmy on Apr 26, 2005 at 6:06 PM In These Times reader since 2001 and I’ve never been more disappointed with an article. The whole thing is like a speech on the birds & the bees to a teenager . . . who’s already started having sex.
Maybe in the middle of the road crowd there’s something groundbreaking to these dashed off jottings but he’s not saying anything In These Times readers haven’t heard before and he really comes off like he’s talking down to us.
Why is he even in the magazine to begin with?
Posted by Elaine Williams on May 1, 2005 at 9:51 PM Without a doubt, this scattered billboard passing for an article is beneath In These Times.
The author’s attitude is off putting and the idea that we’re pre-K needing advise from MM is just too much for this reader.
Nominate this as the worst article In These Times has run this year. Thankfully, there have yet to be any other worthy of nominations. May that still be case when December rolls around.
Posted by Eddie on May 4, 2005 at 6:14 PM Am I the only woman who wonders why a man I never heard of has been given a form by In These Times to tell me how I “should” conduct myself?
No thank you, Jamie Foser.
Any other response wouldn’t be as polite and might suggest that before you assume leadership, you do something to earn it.
Posted by Dona on May 5, 2005 at 5:50 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Jamison Foser
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
