Exploding the "liberal media" myth
Scott McClellan, whose scatching indictment of the failed Bush presidency is already the top bestselling book on Amazon, has also performed a valuable public service by exploding the right-wing myth about the
Exploding the "liberal media" myth
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Scott McClellan, whose searing indictment of the failed Bush presidency is already the top bestselling book on Amazon, has also performed a valuable public service by exploding the right-wing myth about the "liberal media."
I am referring, of course, to the longstanding canard about how journalists, especially those in Washington, are by nature determined to destroy conservative presidents, supposedly because these members of the media hate the military and American values in general. This myth has been thoroughly refuted by a number of commentators - including Mark Hertsgaard (who documented the press' subservience to Ronald Reagan several decades ago in his book On Bended Knee), Eric Alterman (whose book What Liberal Media? appeared four years ago), and Eric Boehlert (whose book Lapdogs was published two years ago) - but the myth perpetuators have ignored these well-documented works, largely by dismissing the authors as liberals...who are determined to destroy conservative presidents and hate American values in general. And thus the loop closes.
Yet now we have McClellan - the erstwhile Bush loyalist who spent years seeking to advance the Bush agenda, spinning the media for the boss, his flag pin always right where it oughta be - and even he thinks the canard is a crock. Consider these key passages from his book, What Happened:
"If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise...In this case, the 'liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served...
"Through it all (referring to the prewar period), the media would serve as complicit enablers. Their primary focus would be on covering the campaign to sell the war, rather than aggressively questioning the rationale for war or pursuing the truth behind it...The public should have been made much more aware, before the fact, of the uncertainties, doubts, and caveats that underlay the intelligence about the regime of Saddam Hussein. The administration did little to convey those nuances to the people, the press should have picked up the slack but largely failed to do so, because their focus was elsewhere - on covering the march to war, instead of the necessity of war."
Granted, if the press had been more aggressive at the time, in the manner that McClellan now suggests would have been advisable, he would have merely repeated the same administration talking points that he already had committed to memory (McClellan, July 17, 2003: the war was launched "based on solid and compelling evidence"). Nevertheless, this ex-Bushie is correct in his overall assessment of media behavior.
With very few notable exceptions - the now-defunct Knight Ridder Washington bureau was consistently skeptical of the Bush team's prewar claims - most of us journalists acted like credulous stenographers most of the time. For instance, The Washington Post consistently buried its skeptical stories (written by national security veteran Walter Pincus) deep in the A-section, while the cheerleading stories ran on page one. Thomas Ricks, the Post's Pentagon correspondent (who is now taking a buyout) lamented four years ago that "there was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all the contrary stuff?" And, as a Post editor also confessed in 2004, "We are inevitably the mouthpiece of whatever administration is in power," a fundamental truth about the Washington media's establishmentarian instincts that hardly squares with the right-wing myth about patriotism-challenged journalists running wild.
And it's already well-documented that The New York Times was repeatedly snowed by its flawed Iraqi sources, who ginned up yarns about Hussein's supposed WMDs, many of which wound up on page one and drove the national news. But many examples are far less known. MSNBC fired Phil Donahue, one of its talk show hosts, because the network didn't like the fact that he was refusing to toe the Bush prewar line; as one leaked memo pointed out, Donahue was "a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war...He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." Donahue later told Bill Moyers, during a 2007 PBS documentary, that he had been routinely instructed by networks execs to book two conservatives for every liberal.
McClellan's book has also triggered fresh confessionals. The other night, CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin reminisced about her own experiences at MSNBC, during the prewar phase: "The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings...(Executives) would turn down (my) stories that were more criticial, and try to put in pieces that were more positive." Katie Couric said much the same thing during a guest chat on NBC the other morning, about how pressure from higher-ups "affected the level of aggressiveness." And this newly published book, by Greg Mitchell, is probably the best compendium of press derelictions.
(Full disclosure: My own track record was mixed. I did suggest, five months before war was launched, that Bush might have other motives for invading Iraq aside from destroying WMDs, notably the chance to secure oil. And I did warn, a month before the war, that America could be "stuck next winter with a costly, bloody occupation." And I did note, three days before the war began, that Bush had already "abandoned all his previous claims of a direct link between Hussein and the Sept. 11 terrorists," that he was refusing to provide "an occupation price tag," and that he was violating his campaign promise not to engage in "nation-building." And I did write, two days before the war began, about the forged documents that Bush had used to falsely claim that Hussein had sought weapons uranium in Africa. But my first full examination of four Bush lies did not appear until June 22, 2003, two months after the invasion was launched.)
Part of the problem - which the conservative perpetuators of myth always ignore - is that most journalists are bound by the traditional rules of "objectivity." Most are trained to seek the views of others, rather than think and communicate for themselves. Most are discouraged from initiating debates on their own about government policy. And, by nature, most journalists are not comfortable as commentators, either because they are averse to speaking or writing on their own authority, or because they sincerely believe (and this is certainly true, much of the time) that governmental authority figures know a lot more than they do about the nuances of foreign policy and national security.
Indeed these are the nuances about the so-called "liberal media" that are far more persuasive than the conservative myths, and McClellan - as an alumnus of a conservative administration - has done us all a favor by freshening the discussion.
The book appears to simply use the language of the Daily Kos and the more liberal blogs to make its points. As Ron Nessen noted, there are serious questions as to whether Scott McClellan wrote this book. People who know him say that this does not sound like McClellan, not simply because of philosophy but also phraseology. If, indeed, this book is not a representation of McClellan's ideas but rather a manifesto against the administration to sell books as per the desires of the publishing house, it isn't anything more than a straight-to-the-bargain-basement bin tome. On the other hand, nothing that's said in the book, according to those who've read it, hasn't been said by other disgruntled veterans of the administration in the past. So either way, it's hardly a blockbuster or a shocker. Or, as you indicate Mr. Polman, an indictment of the press.— Christine- It looks more like a get rich quick scheme.— vc bear
- As anyone can see by today's comments so far, the "liberal media" myth is still alive and well and continues to be spread by the "true believers".— AHiredGun
- I don't think that anyone is implying that Scott McClellan has introduced previously unsaid. This article states that others have discussed the failing of the media during this administration before. However, repetition is often the only way the general public gets the message. Namely that this administration has been playing fast and loose for too long, and some reform will be necessary to keep us on the right track.— t_dmanns
- Wow, Christine, way to read the book and form your own ideas. Of course, I see that you've already taken the Rove line that McClellan sounds like a "left-wing blogger." As always, leave it to conservatives to be incredibly uninformed robots who do whatever and believe whatever their leaders tell them. You read like the poor fool who Chris Matthews got to admit didn't know why he screamed "appeasement!" when discussing Neville Chamberlain. You are correct in noting that this book is not a shocker, however. As wave upon wave of administration cronies wipe the blood of dead Americans and Iraqis off their hands, they all finally own up to what "left-wing bloggers" have been saying since the beginning: the war was criminal and sold to the American public under false pretenses. This is a sad, sad time in our nation's history, and I can only hope that we recover from it in my lifetime.— tightlines
- Complete lack of skepticism in regard to related 'facts' originating in administration talking points has rendered the press impotent. After relaying the talking points provided by the administrations, lets look at this from not only a national/international standpoint but a state government view as well, the press does NOTHING with the 'facts' provided. If so, the aluminum tubes photos and claims to the UN relayed by Powell would've been more thoroughly questioned. The idea that this guy decides, after the fact, that he doesn't want to be a standard bearer makes him irrelevant. I'll even grab Ari's viewpoint here, if he objected so strenuously why did he not say anything while it was happening. From the lack of coverage of the last 8 months of Bush's military service to the failure to completely investigate Slick's denials of sexual relations, the press is no longer independent and therefore irrelevant. Until the investigative side of REAL issues returns, paid readership and quality reporting will continue to suffer. After all, with a corporate dominated media deciding what's worth reporting, if they can't make a dime spinning it their way, the info is worthless— 77volks
- If we relied on the Washington press corps to conduct hard hitting journalism, Richard Nixon would have served out his second term. Big, brave Katie Couric ----they're all piling on now that it's popular. But she and Donahue point out what we all know to be true: Allowing giant media companies to own and operate our TV, Radio, and Print journalism has damaged the Fourth Estate.— JeffA
Comment removed.- Interesting. Time to do a Lexus-Nexus search on all your favorite political analysts. Many of the formerly pro-war analysts have predictably adopted a "right war, wrong tactics" position as a way of deflecting criticism. I'd be interested to read one of Polman's columns published during the buildup to the Iraq invasion. Polman likes to present himself as a political moderate, which can be a dangerous mindset when times call for unequivocal opposition to the harebrained schemes like the Iraq invasion. Christine - You may want to read Polman's column about the "willfully ignorant" from several days ago.— p-diddy
- "The book appears to simply use the language of the Daily Kos and the more liberal blogs to make its points." "Appears to"? To whom? And what is "the language of the Daily Kos and the more liberal blogs," exactly? "As Ron Nessen noted, there are serious questions as to whether Scott McClellan wrote this book." Got a source for that? I've found Ron Nessen going on at length about how he and Mr. McClellan may have approached the job of press secretary differently, but that's it. And "there are serious questions" -- there's that passive voice again. Who has the "serious questions," according to Mr. Nessen, and upon what putative difficulties in the McClellan book are these "serious questions" based? "People who know him say that this does not sound like McClellan..." "People who know him"? Who, his mother? His wife? Any observers with a claim to objectivity or expertise? "If, indeed, this book is not a representation of McClellan's ideas but rather a manifesto against the administration to sell books as per the desires of the publishing house" Ah, because the publishing houses *only* bash Bush! So *that's* why Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly haven't been able to sell any books! "On the other hand, nothing that's said in the book...hasn't been said by other disgruntled" (Hey, that's Dana Perino's word! She wants it back!) "veterans of the administration in the past." So: Mr. McClellan's book is wrong because it says wrong things, which Christine hasn't proven are wrong, but also because it echoes what others have said, which Christine hasn't proven are wrong. Ah. Christine's missive comes straight from the right-wing playbook: if you can't attack points, attack the person. She doesn't present *any* evidence that Mr. Bush presented the case for war honestly, or that the press asked the hard questions on Iraq or wasn't "deferential" to Mr. Bush; instead, she casts aspersions at Mr. McClellan.
Look, I'm a consumer of news from many sources and it could not be more obvious that a vast majority of major news outlets tilt left. I posted over in Will Bunch's blog that I can also see Fox tilts right. It is what it is. Just because these news outlets supposedly didn't challenge the administration on Iraq doesn't prove the absence of a leftist slant. It just means they weren't doing their jobs. Poor job performance doesn't make you objective, a track record of objectivity does. Unfortuneately these news outlets don't have that track record.— jmc- I don't know if we've destroyed the myth. It's a bit of a political excuse for reporters who just didn't do their job. This is playing out like you would expect. The spin doctors have to trash McClellan but the most damning info always comes from within the loop. David Stockman and Don Regan both wrote books that didn't paint their boss, Ronald Reagan, in the best light. It's the chance to turn the buck, and that's what Washington is about.— JimR
- I think JMC has a point. I certainly don't think mainstream media is Conservative, but I do think it is conservative. We're not just talking about lazy reporting, but an aversion to risk by playing to the prejudices of various market demographics. Let's not let the congressional Democrats off the hook either. If the Democratic party took a real stand against the war from the start, the anti-war position would have been politically legitimized, which would have made it okay for media to be more questioning.— p-diddy
- As a person who was skeptical about the need for this war from the beginning, none of this surprises me. I'm glad the truth is coming out not that it helps the 4000 dead soldiers along with countless thousands of injured GIs and dead and injured Iraqis. One thing that really irks me is if Obama is elected, the same neocon idiots that helped enable this failed war policy will be the first ones to want to put under the microscope anything he proposes especially anything to do with foreign policy. What a bunch of hypocrites! I want all policies to be examined. I want this done for ALL presidents and other politicians, not just democratic ones. It's time for a change in any case. This country cannot afford the same lies and failed policies we are now experiencing. Vote Obama or it's more of the same!— James TL
- It is pretty clear to me that Scott McClellan did not write that book, or at least not before an alien – a left-leaning alien – from outer space took over his earthly body. But, seriously folks, the accuracy of what he wrote can be judged by the Attack Index: the more attacks on the author, not what he wrote, and the more personal they are, the closer he has hit home. And did he hit home! As to the conservative posters – the Christines, the VC Bears, the 77volks, the JMCs – who continue to buy the Bushie/Cheney/Rovian line, after their administration and all it stands for have been a disaster on issue after issue, and caused this country serious harm, they are a pretty pathetic lot. People too dim to put facts above partisanship must bear some responsibility for making the world of W possible.— Djoko Pritza
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
