Commentary: Plus, the coverage of Russert's death By Jon Friedman, MarketWatch
Last update: 12:01 a.m. EDT June 23, 2008
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The notion of a liberal media is a myth. For decades, people (read: disgruntled and opportunistic conservatives) have charged that the media are biased to the left. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.
Consider these recent examples:
-- Former George W. Bush spokesman Scott McClellan might have been surprised by the hostility from liberals who resented his kiss-and-tell book about Bush's missteps and arrogance. I don't have any particular affinity for Bush's policies, but I can recognize a weasel in McClellan.
-- When the New York Times published a questionable story about Sen. John McCain, liberals were among the paper's most vocal critics.
The Times story hinted that McCain might have had an inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist, a charge that has so far proved baseless and was unsubstantiated in the piece. My Feb. 22 column said: "The New York Times reads like a gossip sheet."
-- Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, got no love from the (liberal) media when his advisor James Johnson, who had the task of helping Obama pick a running mate, was forced to resign. Questions had surfaced about his ethics. Some supposedly loyal Obama journalists let him have it for a big misstep.
And Bill Clinton, the darling of the left, accused the media of favoring Obama over his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton. Did Obama out-liberal the Clintons?
Prominent role
Naturally, the media will figure prominently in the upcoming battle for the White House.
People will accuse us of being too tough on McCain, too easy on Obama or vice versa. They'll say our liberal bias is showing through -- and that conservative publishers are seizing control of the news pages as a way to further their own economic interests. (Granted, Eric Alterman covered this turf in his book: "What liberal media? The Truth about Bias and the News." Visit the Web site.)
Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher, noted in an email: "The problem, right off the bat, is still: What does one mean by 'liberal' and what is covered by 'media'? With the explosion of the Web and popularity of blogs, it's hard to talk about 'media' in the same way."
Mitchell is also the author of "So Wrong for So Long," which discusses how the media mishandled coverage of the Iraq invasion. He pointed out: "Related to that is the ever-growing and troubling partisan split, with fewer and fewer people seeking out relatively objective outlets and instead looking more for opinion, left or right, they agree with and can swallow without thinking."
I asked Salon Editor Joan Walsh whether the media would favor Obama over McCain.
Walsh replied, "Reporters love John McCain, so their hearts will be torn. And second, I think Obama is no longer the fresh, new face in politics, and you're already seeing more negative stories than you saw during the primary.
"I think already you're seeing more critical coverage in the left-wing media," she continued. "A lot of people sold him as the progressive in the race, largely because of his opposition to the Iraq war back in 2002. But since he moved into general election mode, he's tacked to the center, and I've seen left-wing writers like Naomi Klein and some HuffPo bloggers complaining about his economic advisors, his shifting his stance to be more pro-NAFTA and his overall general tone."
Liberals complaining about Obama?
That can't possibly happen in America in 2008. Don't the media have a liberal bias?
MEDIA WEB QUESTION OF THE DAY: Do you think the media have a liberal bias?
MONDAY REPORT CARD: Tim Russert's death got so much press coverage largely because the Washington media took the story and played it to the hilt. Russert was Their Guy, and the whole world was going to experience the Beltway's grief.
I just wonder though:
a.) Is there any journalist currently working in New York (or anywhere else outside Washington) whose death might command such over-the-top coverage?
b.) How will the media react when the biggest TV news star of them all -- Walter Cronkite -- eventually passes?
READERS RESPOND to my columns about who might succeed Russert on" Meet the Press":
"David Gregory has been my surmise as the best host, though having Brian Williams, whom I never considered because of his weekly job, is even better, if he has time for the show. Gregory has all the skills except Russert's maturity and compelling personality, though Gregory is capable of becoming personable enough to make 'Meet the Press' a welcome Sunday news interview show. I keep thinking there should be someone who will come out of nowhere, perhaps another network, who will seem ideal. Matthews would be terrible. He's a partisan who doesn't do enough homework. he talks to his guests as if they're having a private, off-the-record conversation in which fairness and even respectability are foregone." -- Dr. Donna Padgett
Media Web appears on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Feel free to send email to jfriedman at marketwatch.com -- or join the online community of Media Web readers by posting comments directly to the MarketWatch.com site. End of Story
Jon Friedman is a senior columnist for MarketWatch in New York.