Why MSM can't win

Posted at 8:03 AM on June 15, 2006 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)

Michael Barone, goes off on MSM, for an article in the Washington Post over the weekend called "How the Democrats Can Win."

The Washington Post Outlook section last Sunday had a feature on "How the Democrats Can Win." It included recommendations from various Democratic strategists and thinkers, and from some Republicans and others as well. Nothing wrong with it at all. But here's my question: Do you remember whether the Post or another MainStreamMedia organ has ever run a piece on "How the Republicans Can Win"? I certainly don't remember any from the 1994 cycle, when such an article would have turned out to be particularly apt. I have vague recollections of sets of articles—How Democrats Can Win; How Republicans Can Win. But does anyone remember a piece focusing on Republicans alone, as the Post here focused on Democrats alone?

It goes where so many have gone before. MSM wants Democrats to win so that's why it prints columns favorable to Democrats. Maybe. Maybe not. But, just for the record, Michael Barone is a member of MSM. I kind of want to hear the story about the column he wrote for U.S. News and World Report or the Economist called "How the Republicans Can Win" that they refused to print.

(Updated for needed clarification) Republicans -- or at least conservatives -- have access to the newspapers. They're just choosing to write about other things. Presumably, there is absolutely nothing to stop Kathryn Kersten, for example, from writing an article about what the Republicans have to do to win. Similarly, the same is true for Michael Barone. These folks HAVE the pulpit; they just have a different sermon prepared. (End update)

But his complaint here isn't that MSM hasn't run articles that looked at how Republicans can win ; he admits above that, indeed, it has. His complaint here is that this particular article only looked at the Democrats. And then uses innuendo here to challenge readers to find out when's the last time MSM did a story on Republicans alone, while not providing any data (which may or may not exist) that suggests that MSM (apparently other than the Post) regularly looks at Democratic prospects alone.

Does he not have Google? (Or any other search engine?) Fact is: he asked the question to make a point so he wouldn't have to do the research to ruin a good rant.

And I'm starting to get confused when bloggers use terms like MSM. Does it now just mean the Washington Post and New York Times and the biggest newspaper in the blogger's hometown? Or does it just mean places where facts still matter?

Listening to some Republicans talk about MSM is like listening to some Democrats talk about Republicans. I usually just grab some Kleenex and get back to work.

Comments (2)

When conservatives talk about liberal bias in the media, I think we generally mean a tendency, a skew, a leaning in that direction. Not necessarily outright aiding and abetting, but a world view that naturally starts by assuming the Lefty positions are correct, and Righty positions are suspect.

Obviously a big topic, but example are routinely characterizing people as "conservative" columnists, politicians, etc... but far less often characterizing leftys as "liberal. Playing up things that make conservatives look bad, but not things that make liberals make bad. Such as bad news in Iraq, but not the successes.

And by playing up I don't mean mentioning once, I mean a focus over time. For instance, is the media flogging William Jefferson as an example of Democratic corruption? Hardly.

And on and on.

So, "MSM" becomes shorthand not for the entire media and every last person in it, but for what I've described above. It's easier to just refer to the MSM, rather than write the above paragraphs each time, and it's understood as such.

You mention Barone and Kersten. Barone's entry was on his blog, and Kersten writes an opinion column. Surely you know the difference between opinion writing and hard news. Accusations of bias appear when the news side of the MSM outlets start sounding like the editorial page.

Posted by Jeff | June 15, 2006 2:15 PM

I would feel more comfortable with Barone's conclusion, if he would tell a story of his efforts at US News and the roadblock he ran into getting his story, "What Republicans Need to do Win" (by his, I mean his idea for a story) past the editors.

I understand your point about bias in the media and it's well taken, but I also believe as a rule, those who have an opinion filter the data that doesn't support their view, in favor of that that does.

Re: Jefferson. I think you've used a rhetorical flourish make an unassailable point. "holding him up as an example of Democratic corruption?" What does that mean?" Not covering the story. Well, they obviously did.

I think the proper comparison is with the early coverage of Duke Cunningham's escapades.

And the story wouldn't be that someone is an EXAMPLE of a party's corruption, the story would be that someone fits a PATTERN of corruption by a party. I think the first step in that would be some indictments. But I'm kinda picky that way. (g)

But I think the media does itself no favor by denying the existence of bias one way or the other. The entire editorial process is based on filters. Let's take MPR for example. I live in the suburbs. Do you ever hear any stories about the suburbs on MPR? Nope. Why? Because none of the assigning editors lives in the suburbs and their job is to gauge the relatability and noteworthiness of the story. How can you do that if you don't live there. So I think bias takes many forms....racial, economic, and, yes, political and to deny bias exists is stupid. It also prevents a discussion on WHY bias exists and leads to -- if you look at the other thread currently going -- accusations of bias where none actually exists...sort of "the we know it's there...we just KNOW it...."

Interestingly, there's a newspaper in Spokane right now that is now webcasting its editorial meetings LIVE. I haven't watched them yet but I plan to do so and I plan to recommend everyone do so. They're at 10:00 and 4:30 (PT) each day at: http://www.spokesmanreview.com/webcast/.

I think that sort of transparency is a start.

Posted by Bob Collins | June 15, 2006 3:05 PM

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories