There is no Liberal conspiracy within the media.
Over the past years, it has become the rite of passage for any good conservative to proclaim that there is some kind of liberal conspiracy within the media. During President Bush’s time in office, episodes with companies like CBS have further heightened this sense within the Right. The idea of conspiracy though implies a premeditated sense of action. This, I believe, is not provable and actually gets the country nowhere in our historical journey. In fact, if you peruse some of the more left-wing groups or mindsets, you’ll see them actually accusing the media of being in league with conservative groups in general and the current Administration in particular. The poor media simply can’t seem to win this one.
What is true, however, is that the media reflects a strong liberal bias and as such, is the basis for how they view the world. This fact is part of why it appears that most in the media have a political belief opposite of the conservative Right. Even more so, this bias is what serves as the foundation of the very apparent “hatred” for President Bush, even now after he has left office. When pressed, of course, most journalists will proclaim that they had no hatred at all, but that they simply detest his policies. Yet, as an example, Evan Thomas of Newsweek Magazine said on CNN in 2004 that the “most reporters want John Kerry to win.” When pressed, he admitted that they were “subconsciously tilting their coverage.” On the TV program Inside Washington, Thomas claimed that the media’s support of the left was worth up to 15 points for Kerry. To CNN, he retracted that, dropping the support gain down to 5 points, but added “I do think that the mainstream press. . .favors Kerry” To put that into perspective, 5-15 percentage points would be equivalent to 5 to 20 million votes. We all remember how very close the 2000 election was, so to consider that perhaps at least 5 million voters were erroneously swayed by what should be an unbiased media, well it simply puts that election into a clear light. The 2004 election was equally as close.
This feeling of strong dislike has, in my opinion, little to do with President Bush and much more with the journey of our country over the past 50 years. Let’s review: Back in the early decades of the 1900s, the people of our country were in a state of flux as to what they believed about the role of the government. During those decades, the ideas of the old Populist party platform of the late 1890s had disseminated through the citizens of the US and was being seen within the Progressive Movement. When the late 1920s had rolled around, the idea of a more active central government was considered best, particularly in the realm of protecting the average citizen from big business.
The Great Depression brought all these changes to light. During the 4 years of Hoover’s administration, he increasingly did more and more for the people, far outstripping what was considered “normal” for the times. Yet, it wasn’t enough and he was replaced by Roosevelt who promised to do even more. And he did! From that moment in time, the nature of what we expected from our government drastically changed.
The Democrats as a party were infused with more and more politicians who thought the overarching ideas of FDR to be correct for the country. Though there remained a very conservative wing of the party in the South, in general the Democrats continued to move further to the left. The Supreme Court which initially had opposed most of FDR’s plans were first threatened by FDR to pack the court and then, as the older justices gave up the fight, were simply replaced by those who thought like FDR.
From the mid 1930s till the mid 1980s (with the exception of once in the 40s, once in the 50s), the Democrats were completely in control of the Congress. As such, even Republican presidents like Eisenhower and Nixon were unable to turn the tide against this more “active government” concept. This notion took on a new form or flavor as the US hit the 1960s where this more liberal mindset became the de facto form of thought among the young. With the more “progressive” agenda of helping the poor, more social security, more government regulations, and more government involvement in every day life came social issues like easier divorce, legal abortion and a further, deeper separation of the Christian God from normal life. Add to that the anti-war swirl that proclaimed that all war was bad and if the rich or powerful weren’t pushing the issue, the world would just simply “get along.” Though a laudable sentiment, 6000+ years of world history compels us to admit that this idea is really just another version of “peace at all costs” which plays into the hands of violent people in the world.
This period of the late 1960s, early 1970s was obviously explosive in many spheres of American life. Yet, in general, the ideas of the “liberal agenda” were accepted widely as the “right” or “proper” way to think and they were clearly taught at all levels in schools. Certainly there was a growing minority of voices who disagreed, particularly on the more “moral” issues, but in general, the milieu of the country was clear. What had been a bit radical in the late 1920s was now consider good, fair, decent, right.
However, in the Reagan 80s, the Right began an effective campaign to control Congress fully. Though their majority has been slim and there have been some terms in which they have not controlled one house or the other, the Republicans re-emerged as a legitimate force in government.
At the heart of that control has been moral issues, issues against expanding government power (a la, New Deal stuff), and a more aggressive foreign policy. Now, for journalists who have grown up seeing things like Affirmative Action or pro-abortion as a morally correct issue, any party/person who opposes those old New Deal initiatives is not just politically conservative, but morally bankrupt. Of course that criticism cuts both ways, but previously when Republicans/Conservatives would claim a moral high ground on something like welfare or God, their minority voices would be ignored or drowned out as being “old school values.” In essence, a voice that should be silenced.
Now, however, with the shoe on the proverbial other foot, it is the journalists themselves who are in the minority. And they don’t like it. As conservatives have scored one victory after another in the 90s and 00s, journalists and others of the left have continued to exhibit some degree of elitism that implies only ignorant or morally bankrupt people would support the Right. This is connected clearly to an anti-Christian bias that also emerged in the mid-1960s.
So how does this all relate to Bush? Well, after the Clinton years, there was some degree of hope among the Left that perhaps “the people would wake up” and agree that typical conservatism was not just another political choice, but clearly morally wrong. Yet, to their dismay, Bush won a tight election. The fact that he won about 85% of the country from a geographic point of view only highlighted the fact that the Democrats and liberal thinking was in a huge minority over the vast expanse of the country. Or, to put it another way, the Democrats or the liberal thought process is mostly popular in the large cities and urban areas, places where ideas like abortion or welfare are more likely to be prominent.
Thus, the liberal perspective found itself growing weaker rather than stronger. As the entire perspective is a moral issue for them, then growing weaker is not acceptable. And, with the tightness of the race and how it ended up in the courts due to Vice-President Gore’s decision to challenge the Florida results, there was a lingering sense of having the election stolen from them. Certainly Gore won the popular vote, but he lost the elector college vote (4th time in US history, 3 other times the popular vote was a virtual tie). Yet with our misguided knowledge of history in 2000 loudly proclaiming that the US is a democracy (it is not; never has been), many people agreed with the message from the press that the election was stolen from them.
Then came 9/11. Obviously this event changed everything for most of us. Bush’s aggressive “take the war to them” attitude fit in perfectly with a historic Republican view point. And with the Left’s historic position of “war as bad”, this began to play poorly in the press even in the face of successful ventures. With Bush’s move to invade Iraq, rather than getting honest unbiased reporting, showing both the good and the bad in the event prior to, during and now after the war, the press continues to show its frustration with Bush and desire to have him defeated in the coming election. Instead of rejoicing that millions of people, many women, got to vote in free elections in Afghanistan is ignored since to trumpet the victory would be to vindicate the position that an aggressive effort AGAINST the tyrannical previous government was good.
In one sense, as they have said, its not personal towards Bush. Instead, they are attacking the entire history of the last 20 years. They, the journalists, see the world from a perspective of Bush representing all the “bad” of the “immoral” choices of the Right—choices that would put education ahead of simple welfare, put the baby’s rights ahead of the mother, put national defense ahead of peace at all costs, put God back into the conversation and others. To support Bush would simply be wrong. It did not help when, over these 3 years, Bush successfully accomplished some issues of the left, albeit with a slightly different flavor than they wished. In fact, if any group of people were really to be angry with Bush, it would be more traditional Republicans who long for “small government.” Bush successfully expanded spending for education, Medicare, aid to minority business owners and more aid for minority’s higher education among other things. Obviously, the left could not rejoice in these victories because they were accompanied by the other distasteful aspects of the Right—moral issues like less affirmative action (more money for education) or pro-life.
There is no liberal conspiracy, but there is a clear sense of what they think is right. The reporter from Newsweek merely stated what anyone watching CBS or reading the New York Times could tell—the subconscious attitude of the press is liberal and left and thus, going to work against Bush. It is their sense of right and wrong that forces them to report the way they do—downplaying any good from the Administration. To their minds, the work of the past 60 years is at stake, 60 years removing the US from its historic position on government and God and pushing us towards a socialistic government. To the press, this is life or death.
Perhaps as critical thinking Americans, we should agree with them on that one point—this issue is life and death. The very future of the Republic may be at stake. In their quest to “preserve” what they consider morally good, they have lied to us (see the Rather/CBS episode or the recent NY Times lie about weapons in Iraq) and have refused to report on the successes of the government (growing economy, early success in Afghanistan, minority home ownership, increased money for schools and so forth).
No, there is no liberal press conspiracy, but their actions should warn each of us the dangers for a Republic that loses the free, independent and neutral voice of the press. We’ve seen what happens in other countries, even in the past century. We should agree to stand firm against that, even if it means holding the press itself to task, demanding truth rather than rhetoric, neutrality rather than bias and critical thinking rather than reactionary statements.
Perhaps the very future of our country is at stake.